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

121–130 of 332 posts

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

#121

Post by Dowwie »

sokoloff wrote: post #109
Dowwie wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree about HN being among the best for managing judgment. Down-voting requires X amount of karma but up-voting doesn't.

I think that’s a key element to the success. It introduces an obvious upward bias in karma, but I don’t see that as a problem. For one, it prevents creating new accounts to downvote someone that pisses you off. For me personally, it means I downvote only for “adds absolutely nothing and is somehow harmful to HN community”. I probably upvote : downvote at 20:1 or greater. When deciding if a comment voting system is go…

Fine. HN is the best among the contenders, but that's not something that one ought to hang one's hat on. Posts don't rise on their own merits here. If that is a goal, there is much room for improvement. There are a number of situational factors that influence whether any post will receive attention. These include, but are not limited to timing, competition, the new post reader archetype and his/her motivations to participate, etc.

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

#122

Post by Pimpus »

chrisco255 wrote: post #6
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…

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.

Bit of a different perspective : I mostly read HN on my phone, and I find it hard and time consuming to write non-trivial, thoughtful comments on a phone. It takes several times longer than it would with a proper keyboard. So I don't bother posting and mostly just lurk.

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

#123

Post by commoner »

pjc50 wrote: post #114
commoner wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My comment was unclear. Yes, people who are solely interested in writing about one topic are prevented from participating if that topic doesn't meet the notability criteria.

When I said that it "doesn't prevent anyone from participating", I was only considering the editors who are interested in writing about a wider variety of topics.

For better or worse, Wikipedia frowns on editors who are only interested in editing articles on one topic. There's a page for that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Single-purpose_accou...

This is because these editors usually have a conflict of interest, and must make an extra effort to keep their writing free of bias.

Policies aimed at improving the quality of articles also tend to reduce participation. It's a trade-off, and I don't know that the optimal balance would be.

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

#124

Post by sokoloff »

Dowwie wrote: post #121
sokoloff wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that’s a key element to the success. It introduces an obvious upward bias in karma, but I don’t see that as a problem. For one, it prevents creating new accounts to downvote someone that pisses you off. For me personally, it means I downvote only for “adds absolutely nothing and is somehow harmful to HN community”. I probably upvote : downvote at 20:1 or greater. When deciding if a comment voting system is go…

Fine. HN is the best among the contenders, but that's not something that one ought to hang one's hat on. Posts don't rise on their own merits here. If that is a goal, there is much room for improvement. There are a number of situational factors that influence whether any post will receive attention. These include, but are not limited to timing, competition, the new post reader archetype and his/her motivations to par…

I don't think that limiting downvotes to accounts with X karma is a significant contributor to the problem of getting attention to a new high-quality post on a fairly high-volume site.

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

#125

Post by Dowwie »

sokoloff wrote: post #124
Dowwie wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fine. HN is the best among the contenders, but that's not something that one ought to hang one's hat on. Posts don't rise on their own merits here. If that is a goal, there is much room for improvement. There are a number of situational factors that influence whether any post will receive attention. These include, but are not limited to timing, competition, the new post reader archetype and his/her motivations to par…

I don't think that limiting downvotes to accounts with X karma is a significant contributor to the problem of getting attention to a new high-quality post on a fairly high-volume site.

I'm not suggesting changing the rules on downvoting as a solution. I've considered far more drastic measures!

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

#126

Post by naveen99 »

renholder wrote: post #120
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, th…

You could just make separate accounts for separate sub-reddits. A single first post can be influential, see mimblewimble, bitcoin, linux, special theory of relativity...

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

#127

Post by bonoboTP »

ndnxhs wrote: post #74
rerx wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I attemped to create a page about a slightly obscure file format with all the information I had found while developing with it. One of the core principles of Wikipedia is "No original research". Your proposed article sounds like it was just that. The Wikipedia editors would rather have you share that research in a blog post or similar.

Well all the info I have about it comes from a single source published by the developers of the format but apparently just one reference isn't good enough.

That source (published by the developers) is a primary source. Encyclopedias, including Wikipedia, are tetriary sources that are based on secondary sources and not directly on primary sources.

In other words, unless there are reliable secondary sources to base the article on, it is considered original research and is not a good fit for Wikipedia.

I guess part of the reason that new contributors feel bad is confusion about the goals and nature of Wikipedia itself.

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

#128

Post by naveen99 »

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…

Just post on your own repository on github instead. It’s the new wikipedia minus worrying about deletionists and notability. Just a matter of time until non-developers become comfortable with it.

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

#129

Post by krostel »

Kaveren wrote: post #20
sigttou wrote: post #10

Am here for over 2 years now, rarely upvote something, haven't submitted anything and this is just my 2nd comment... Pretty sure this rule holds for close to all kind of forums.

I don't know if you're willing to make a 3rd comment, but I'm trying to understand the lurker mindset from the perspective of someone who posts quite actively. Is is just that you don't care enough to reply, feel like your opinions are unpopular, don't feel like you have anything to say, or something else?

First comment here, been reading HN for a few years now (proper actively - I spend way too much of my day here). I also tend to mostly read comments without even opening the article they're commenting on first. I don't need to comment on anything on the web simply because I already know my own thoughts and if I want to discuss something that badly I can always do so IRL. There's also always someone with a similar opinion posting so I could follow that conversation if I wish. I fully understand that if everyone was like me it wouldn't work but the thing is they're not. There's enough people in the comments here and on the web as a whole commenting - and it's enough for me to read those and then discuss IRL if I have the need. I like reading what other people say so much that if I start participating I'll waste even more time on here.

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

#130

Post by ghaff »

commoner wrote: post #118
ndnxhs wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 indep…

IMO this discussion about notability is making the original point upthread about hostility to newcomers.

I also find it ironic that Wikipedia notability is so tied to traditional publishing sources.

ADDED: I admit to falling pretty heavily on the inclusionist side; I'm pretty skeptical about notability at times.

Post reply on HN