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

Cambridge gallery lends art to students 'with none damaged' in 60 years

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 57 posts

Re: Cambridge gallery lends art to students 'with none damaged' in 60 years

#31

Post by MaxBarraclough »

SkyBelow wrote: post #13
daenz wrote: post #5

Trust with accountability and respect seems to go a long way some times but not others. Anyone have a theory why this system worked so effectively but other systems involving trust don't?

I think it has to do with reputation and the cost of entry. I use to play on a minecraft server that had a griefer trap right at spawn. The server automatically monitored any attempts to grief and auto banned griefers while sending a server wide announcement. When the server was wide open and anyone could join, the ban notice would spill out so fast we had to get an admin to silence it. When we swapped to a whitelist…

> griefer trap

Seems like a compelling idea.

Related: Microsoft are looking at using AI to detect abusive in-game chat. [0]

> When personal reputation was on the line, no one violated trust.

This approach hasn't worked for Facebook, for whatever reason. Perhaps Facebook triggers the 'road rage' mentality more than gaming does.

[0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-50054725

Re: Cambridge gallery lends art to students 'with none damaged' in 60 years

#32

Post by dwyerm »

SkyBelow wrote: post #13
daenz wrote: post #5

Trust with accountability and respect seems to go a long way some times but not others. Anyone have a theory why this system worked so effectively but other systems involving trust don't?

I think it has to do with reputation and the cost of entry. I use to play on a minecraft server that had a griefer trap right at spawn. The server automatically monitored any attempts to grief and auto banned griefers while sending a server wide announcement. When the server was wide open and anyone could join, the ban notice would spill out so fast we had to get an admin to silence it. When we swapped to a whitelist…

I've been pondering the same economics on car-, bike- and scooter- shares. I'd love to know if Car2Go's ridiculous little SMART cars were treated better or worse than their Benz replacements. I wonder if Lime's electric bikes get shoved off the pier less than Ofo's cheapest ones.

Re: Cambridge gallery lends art to students 'with none damaged' in 60 years

#33

Post by Jach »

rectangletangle wrote: post #24
datapunk wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Say I printed this comment. Put it in a frame and auctioned it as art. Would you be the artist for creating the comment? Or would I be the artist for using the comment and framing it in a creative way?

Both?

"Derivative work" is the phrase to resolve any conundrums here.

Re: Cambridge gallery lends art to students 'with none damaged' in 60 years

#34

Post by alliao »

MaxBarraclough wrote: post #31
SkyBelow wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it has to do with reputation and the cost of entry. I use to play on a minecraft server that had a griefer trap right at spawn. The server automatically monitored any attempts to grief and auto banned griefers while sending a server wide announcement. When the server was wide open and anyone could join, the ban notice would spill out so fast we had to get an admin to silence it. When we swapped to a whitelist…

> griefer trap Seems like a compelling idea. Related: Microsoft are looking at using AI to detect abusive in-game chat. [0] > When personal reputation was on the line, no one violated trust. This approach hasn't worked for Facebook, for whatever reason. Perhaps Facebook triggers the 'road rage' mentality more than gaming does. [0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-50054725

It wouldn't work for facebook because the goals are not aligned, whereas the goal of minecraft is simple; play the damn thing!

Re: Cambridge gallery lends art to students 'with none damaged' in 60 years

#35

Post by kazinator »

grepthisab wrote: post #28
kazinator wrote: post #21

If you have to register with I.D., it's not purely based on trust.

Sure it is, it just moves the trust to trusting the verified person and away from simply trusting the system.

But that's not what a phrase like "purely based on trust" means; that means "purely based on trust in the person" (rather than trust in various "social collateral" that creates obligations in the person).

Re: Cambridge gallery lends art to students 'with none damaged' in 60 years

#37

Post by davinic »

When it comes to long-term storage of art, damage can be calculated in more ways than whether a piece of art is noticeably defaced.

The biggest threat to these pieces lies in being stored outside of a climate, light, and humidity-controlled environment. When the lifespan of a thing is hundreds or thousands of years, this matters just as much.

However, if the museum doesn't normally keep its stored pieces in a controlled environment, then this should be no different.

But kudos to these organizations for trusting the students enough to do this.

Re: Cambridge gallery lends art to students 'with none damaged' in 60 years

#38

Post by jandrese »

davinic wrote: post #37

When it comes to long-term storage of art, damage can be calculated in more ways than whether a piece of art is noticeably defaced. The biggest threat to these pieces lies in being stored outside of a climate, light, and humidity-controlled environment. When the lifespan of a thing is hundreds or thousands of years, this matters just as much. However, if the museum doesn't normally keep its stored pieces in a control…

Presumably the kids get an education on where to place the works. Not next to a window where it's going to eat full sun in the afternoon for example. I also assume that it's the kind of thing that is mostly only known to the kind of kids that are going to take good care of the works.

Re: Cambridge gallery lends art to students 'with none damaged' in 60 years

#40

Post by r00fus »

MaxBarraclough wrote: post #31
SkyBelow wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it has to do with reputation and the cost of entry. I use to play on a minecraft server that had a griefer trap right at spawn. The server automatically monitored any attempts to grief and auto banned griefers while sending a server wide announcement. When the server was wide open and anyone could join, the ban notice would spill out so fast we had to get an admin to silence it. When we swapped to a whitelist…

> griefer trap Seems like a compelling idea. Related: Microsoft are looking at using AI to detect abusive in-game chat. [0] > When personal reputation was on the line, no one violated trust. This approach hasn't worked for Facebook, for whatever reason. Perhaps Facebook triggers the 'road rage' mentality more than gaming does. [0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-50054725

Facebook's bottom line depends on stats like MAU where it's in their interest to accept fake users as real ones.

Plus, they were never invite-only (or at least have not had that model for a long time).

Post reply on HN