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

131–140 of 332 posts

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

#131

Post by XCabbage »

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…

Given your point about the donald, you'll despair at https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/117289/86725. Check out the history and the comments-moved-to-chat. Answerer suggests creating lots of social media accounts as a way to drive bad search results about you off the first page of Google, and lists a bunch of possible sites to sign up to, including Gab. The mention of Gab gets censored by a moderator, but not before various Academia Stack Exchange members have chimed in to opine that:

1. Mentioning Gab as a possible site to sign up for is "pretty blatantly out of line" and a violation of the Stack Exchange Code of Conduct, and

2. If they discovered that a job candidate had a Gab account, they would throw out the application based upon that fact alone.

So it's not just internet communities; we've got academics openly bragging that even engaging with a community they politically disapprove of, regardless of your individual views, will lead to them barring you from employment in academia.

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

#132

Post by Retric »

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…

Repeating messages to an audience that agrees with them are practically non actions. Influence occurs when the difference between saying something and not results in different actions. As such most social media content is effectively meaningless.

New ideas in this context are not limited to what disagrees with the overall consensus. Simiple refinements make real changes over time.

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

#133

Post by chongli »

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…

So does this mean I could write a Wikipedia article about my grandmother if I can dig up articles on her from two different newspapers?

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

#134

Post by laken »

chongli wrote: post #133
commoner wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

So does this mean I could write a Wikipedia article about my grandmother if I can dig up articles on her from two different newspapers?

Provided those two different newspapers wrote on her life in detail, not just a mention, yes. See the following section of the notability guidelines:

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

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

#135

Post by commoner »

chongli wrote: post #133
commoner wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

So does this mean I could write a Wikipedia article about my grandmother if I can dig up articles on her from two different newspapers?

Yes.

Since she is your family member, you're asked to disclose that you have a conflict of interest:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest

But the answer is yes.

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

#136

Post by commoner »

ghaff wrote: post #130
commoner wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's true that the rules of Wikipedia can be intimidating to new editors.

There are two places where editors can ask for help: the Teahouse (for new editors) and the Help Desk (for anyone).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk

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

#138

Post by renholder »

naveen99 wrote: post #126
renholder wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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...

> A single first post can be influential, see mimblewimble, bitcoin, linux, special theory of relativity...

Again, I'm not trying to be contrarian because you bring up valid points - save for Theories of Relativity because they were review before being published by someone.

A good example, which was quashed from its inception, was the Copernican Theory of Heliocentrism: Though, very much valid, it was oppressively pushed from gaining ground by "muh religious viewpoint[s]". Even when substantiated by Galileo, this wasn't influential enough to change the status quo - with Galileo living the remainder of his in house arrest.

To lazily quote Nietzsche, in this regard: "All things are subject to interpretation, whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth."

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

#139

Post by IggleSniggle »

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…

Same experience here. Grammar corrections should only be back out if they create true problems with regards to intent. And if that’s the reason, it ought to be made clear, through discussion, what the problem is.

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

#140

Post by IggleSniggle »

teddyh wrote: post #116
NeedMoreTea wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I have a story like this, but I did the work (that was backed out) over a decade ago. The domain was not especially political (something related to history of music notation). It sticks with you because when you are already an expert in an area, and spend days contributing high quality content with good references only to have it vaporized without comment/reason, it is deeply demoralizing and creates long standing resentment. I vaguely remember the subject matter, yet remember distinctly the feeling of having all that work purged. I’m sure Wikipedia politics have changed since then, but my desire to contribute has been pretty well quashed.
Post reply on HN