Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Most of What We Read on the Internet is Written by Insane People

reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 332 posts

Re: Most of What We Read on the Internet is Written by Insane People

#111

Post by ndnxhs »

Sean1708 wrote: post #93
ndnxhs wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with a blog post is others can't improve it to add more info or fix mistakes. The wiki format is perfect for this.

What about a Github Gist (or similar) or an actual code repo somewhere (wouldn't necessarily have to have actual code, could just be a readme)? Also out of interest, what is the file format?

File format is .fit its used in a lot of GPS devices specifically for cycling. Its not super hard to find info on but the info is scattered over random sources

Re: Most of What We Read on the Internet is Written by Insane People

#112

Post by ndnxhs »

commoner wrote: post #85
ndnxhs wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a very notable file format used by many devices and lots of software can read it. The only reason its hard to reference is because the company that develops it basically just publishes a C file with how to use it and everyone uses that to write their own implementations.

Whether something is notable or not is subjective. Since many editors collaborate on Wikipedia, there's a common standard that editors use to judge whether a topic is notable. The test is called the "general notability guideline". In short, any topic needs to have at least 2 citations to different sources that meet all of the following requirements: 1. The source provides significant coverage (at least 1-2 sizable pa…

So if the official documentation isn't enough and info on random websites isn't enough than what possible source can be used? Do we have to find a group of academics to look at the file and write a PDF saying "yep the official docs are indeed correct"?

Re: Most of What We Read on the Internet is Written by Insane People

#113

Post by dade_ »

I think this behaviour is caused by the wrath of the hivemind. I imagine that it is common in reddit users to have a separate account for posting as an insurance against hivemind rage which can be invoked easily for unexpected reasons. And for others, it is easier to not get involved, get the value from the answers and comments you find. Avoid the abuse and emotional mud slinging. Life is too short. Same for Twitter.

Re: Most of What We Read on the Internet is Written by Insane People

#114

Post by pjc50 »

commoner wrote: post #61
pjc50 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Deletionism is the thing that will kill Wikipedia, by deleting itself and gradually narrowing the circle of permitted contributors. There are some situations where the non-English Wikipedias have far more information than the English ones though, because of how "notability" works.

The number of Wikipedia articles is steadily increasing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Size_of_Wikipedia Deleting articles doesn't prevent anyone from participating, since anyone can write/edit articles on any notable subject. The deletion process protects Wikipedia from search engine marketers who try to promote their clients with biased low-quality content. They can go to Quora for that. https://en.wikipe…

There are a number of people in this thread explaining how the policy prevented them from participating, and usually caused them to quit participating entirely.

Re: Most of What We Read on the Internet is Written by Insane People

#115

Post by xfitm3 »

austincheney wrote: post #67

Reddit is an echo chamber. Almost nobody contributes to the conversation, but they sure are quick to exercise insecurity for very minor things. I deleted my account there last year and life has improved as a result.

I agree. It's my opinion its become toxic over the past few years. Generally speaking I prefer unmoderated discussion forums. I rather choose what to read instead of being "protected".

Re: Most of What We Read on the Internet is Written by Insane People

#116

Post by teddyh »

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #69
flexie wrote: post #11

People come to Wikipedia to get an answer. Many users of Wikipedia are kids, or non-native English speakers for whom contributing is a challenge. Or laymen that don't know about the subject and naturally don't feel like they could contribute anything. Or people who simply don't know how to contribute. Or people visiting via mobiles where it's really difficult to research and contribute. If you adjust for all those us…

I went through an almost identical process with English Wikipedia many years ago. Added to a sorely incomplete entry with carefully written and sourced info, to find it gone a few days later. Tried a few tiny updates in case new users were restricted somehow (this was never made obvious), so simply corrected some obvious grammar and spelling mistakes. Nearly all of those were backed out too. At which point there's on…

Nobody with stories such as yours seem to actually give a link to the article in question.

Re: Most of What We Read on the Internet is Written by Insane People

#117

Post by nathan_long »

jccalhoun wrote: post #104

Outliers write most of what we read, period. Our whole existence is outliers. Most people don't live in our town, don't do our job, don't live in our country, don't speak our language. The problem is we think our life is normal and everyone is like us when that isn't true.

It's true that most people aren't like me in many ways. But that's not what's meant by "outliers". To have an outlier, you have to have some way in which most people are alike.

Eg, most people don't have $1 million in the bank. If all the financial advice you can read on the internet were written by millionaires, it might (eg) encourage risk-taking that isn't wise for average people. But you could get the impression that such behavior is normal and expected, since "everybody" says they do that.

Re: Most of What We Read on the Internet is Written by Insane People

#118

Post by commoner »

ndnxhs wrote: post #112
commoner wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether something is notable or not is subjective. Since many editors collaborate on Wikipedia, there's a common standard that editors use to judge whether a topic is notable. The test is called the "general notability guideline". In short, any topic needs to have at least 2 citations to different sources that meet all of the following requirements: 1. The source provides significant coverage (at least 1-2 sizable pa…

So if the official documentation isn't enough and info on random websites isn't enough than what possible source can be used? Do we have to find a group of academics to look at the file and write a PDF saying "yep the official docs are indeed correct"?

You can absolutely cite the official documentation, and it's considered a reliable source for your article.

However, it isn't considered an independent source, since it was written by a company with a vested interest in the topic.

To prove that the file type is notable, you'll need at least different 2 sources that meet all 3 requirements: they must provide significant coverage of the topic, be reliable, and be independent of the topic.

You don't have to use these sources to write all of the content in your article, but they do have to be cited as references to pass the notability test.

The three most common kinds of reliable sources are:

- Articles or web pages from a reputable news organization, magazine, or web publisher (with an editorial team)

- Books from a reputable publishing company

- Publications from a peer-reviewed academic journal

Offline and non-English sources are accepted.

If you can't find at least 2 sources that meet these requirements, then the topic doesn't pass the notability test and isn't suitable for Wikipedia. In this case, you're probably better off sharing your article somewhere else, such as Wikibooks, Wikiversity, or your personal blog.

https://en.wikibooks.org

https://en.wikiversity.org

Re: Most of What We Read on the Internet is Written by Insane People

#119

Post by arandr0x »

bopbop wrote: post #42
chrisco255 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still think it's surprising that there are so many lurkers who literally never engage in the discussion, considering the barriers to do so are so low.

I think it's mostly a psychological barrier in most respects. There's also no necessity to comment - lurking, despite the quite awful name we've given the behaviour, is a perfectly normal thing to do. Plenty of people read books who don't write them, etc. I'd also presume (and it is a presumption!) that people who are commenting on one platform will likely also to be commenting on another. As in, I would presume they…

That's not true -- I comment on HN but lurk everywhere else. The reason for this is, first, time commitment (I can really only be part of one online community at a time, although I do read other forums on occasion), and, second, I find discussions here more civil, comments more relevant, and emotions less charged than on other platforms.

In truth the polarizing of the Internet is causing a lot of us to be lurkers who may have things to say but do not want to engage in emotional content with strangers, because everything is interpreted so emotionally these days.

Re: Most of What We Read on the Internet is Written by Insane People

#120

Post by renholder »

keithwhor wrote: post #4

Yes. Most of the content you watch on TV was written and acted by outliers. The products you use and consume were crafted, marketed and even distributed by outliers. First, when zoomed out, outliers in all possible tasks become more common — internet commenting is just a subset for silly folks like me. Secondly, the emergent human social fabric is built to recognize and amplify outspoken and / or talented outliers, v…

>The cost function to repeat a message drops precipitously every time it’s repeated (influences status quo).

I'm not trying to be a contrarian on this point but some social forums (e.g.: reddit, where this was linked from) end-up being sgemented into their own forms of echo-chambers, where any dissenting outliers - however valid - are voted into oblivion, simply because it doesn't agree with "muh viewpoint".

IMHO, that reinforces status quo, rather than influences it. I realise that this mightn't be the case with all or even the majority of social forums but it's the loudest that gets the most attention and since we're discussing something directly linked from redditstan, I figured it worth mentioning (since the aspect of influencing the status quo angle crumbles in this specific regard).

To give an example: Create an account on reddit and comment a valid point in the donald, even if it's down-voted into oblivion, go and then comment on something in politics or worldpolitics or the like. Wait for someone to go look at your post history and see that you commented in the donald and watch the tide turn against you, simply because of your participation - even if that comment is directly contradictory the original post in the donald. Just by association, that influence of the status quo is immediately eroded way because it's deemed "invalid" because, again, "muh viewpoint".

Any possibility of influence is lost, at that point. Repeat it day and night, it won't eventually influence the status quo until enough people repeat it and I think that's, probably, more along the lines of what you meant: It's not the number of times it's repeated, it's the volume of that repition's saturation into the larger group that's intrinsically more important. A single person repeating a message over 30 years has far less weight than people (en masse) repeating the same message. Granted, it - sometimes -takes a single person to incite the spread of that message, simply repeating it ad infinum won't reach the end-goal of influencing the status quo.

/endRantThatWasntParticularlyAimedAtYou

Post reply on HN