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

Toxic comments are associated with reduced volunteer activity on Wikipedia

academic.oup.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 363 posts

Re: Toxic comments are associated with reduced volunteer activity on Wikipedia

#341

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

zerkten wrote: post #337
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, it's still fairly prominent, in searches, but I'm finding the answers to be less and less useful. It's become pretty much worthless, to ask questions, anymore. I end up answering my own questions. Sometimes, if I'm lucky, someone will throw in an insult. If I'm not lucky; without actually helping. I got used to the insults, as they usually came with useful answers, but that hasn't been the case, in quite a while.…

Do you still tend to answer questions? It feels like there is a drop in quality contributors too because they got invested, but have peers engaging in the behavior you describe as a questioner. They want to take kinder approaches, but that's never going to win over that power user segment. I have a high reputation that unlocks privileges, but I rarely go back these days to answer questions. If I can snipe someone tha…

I've asked about 2X questions to answers. I have contributed some fairly good answers, but I have mainly gone to get questions answered.

Early on, I probably asked them badly, but I learned to ask them better, and the answers came much less frequently. So ask a question badly, and get an insult, but also a useful answer. Ask a question well, and ... crickets. Lately, I usually end up answering my own question, just so there might be something for someone else to find.

I'm usually quite capable of finding the answers; just not quickly. It used to be, I would get good answers, within seconds of asking the question. Nowadays, I usually end up answering it myself, hours or days later.

I used to like getting answers that were "done right." Many of the folks there, have a lot of structural and cultural knowledge, and the answers were often quite valuable; giving me advice on why we should do it this way. I may well find out how to do it wrong, left to my own devices. I didn't mind being told I was doing it wrong. We become right, by being wrong.

Most folks with very high karma, have very few (usually single-digit) question counts (the digit is often "0"). I am not one to ascribe motives, but there must be a reason that invested folks don't want to ask questions on that forum.

Re: Toxic comments are associated with reduced volunteer activity on Wikipedia

#342

Post by dragonwriter »

throwitaway222 wrote: post #284
0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I just think it will die because everything else that was wonderful from 2009 or before already has Assuming this is true, what are the leading hypotheses? Regression to the mean? Eternal September? I know everyone likes to talk about "enshittification", but what is the actual mechanism? Since this is HN, someone's going to say "capitalism", but "capitalism" doesn't explain why Google search results get worse or Fac…

> capitalism not dismissing other points your making or questions you're asking, but what happens with search results is a phenomenon that's more or less related to monopoly power - so as they (Google) control more, the classical theories behind capitalism no longer hold. For example, they provide worse search, but there is no close second. Even if there is a close second, that "other guy" is unable to afford the 60+…

What you think of as “the classical theories about capitalism” are after-the-fact rationalizations which reflect neither the motivation for the development of capitalism (class struggle between the mercantile class and the feudal aristocracy) nor its actual operation in the real world, and which were developed defensively in response to the original (and critical) theory about capitalism-as-an-existing-system, which absolutely does not cease to hold in the presence of monopoly, or view the emergence and maintenance of such a condition as aberrant.

Re: Toxic comments are associated with reduced volunteer activity on Wikipedia

#343

Post by at_a_remove »

rewmie wrote: post #322
at_a_remove wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, that's true, but in a not-especially-deep way that doesn't really help or address the issue at hand. Why do we have this thing where different people can edit it? Oh, well, we're trying to build some inter-related foundation of knowledge via categories and references, text and images. So, while yes, anyone can edit, some of that gets in the way of the actual purpose, in that "five whys" sense. It's a bit like…

> I mean, that's true, but in a not-especially-deep way that doesn't really help or address the issue at hand. I'm not sure you go the point. If someone's complain is that others can also edit wikipedia articles, they are complaining about the fundamental nature and purpose of a wiki. Don't you understand how fundamentally flawed is the concept of conplaining that others just like you can also edit wikipedia? Those d…

I'm not so sure you get the point. The point of a wiki is not that anyone can edit it. That's merely a property, a method to accomplish something.

The wiki is for something. That something is to build an interrelated foundation of references and facts. That anyone can edit is merely a means to get there. The misuse of editing at least-worst, impedes creating that hyperlinked mass of information.

And no, you have the spammer thing backward, entirely. That anyone can send something to someone else is a merely a property of email. The point of email is communication that people want. And so the misuse of "sending a message to anybody" is that it can get in the way of communication people do want.

Nobody said any of it should be "set in stone," good grief. We're a month past November 5th, let's put the strawman away. Engage with some of the examples provided by people of bad actors for some good faith discussion.

Re: Toxic comments are associated with reduced volunteer activity on Wikipedia

#344

Post by stjohnswarts »

Gare wrote: post #220
natpalmer1776 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To some degree you see this pattern repeated over and over anytime you have an organization gain any sort of longevity. A culture develops to create a power structure that favors those who have devoted a large portion of their personal identity to the success of the organization. This culture serves as a moat against anyone who would integrate themselves within the organization and attempt drastic changes that would…

I agree. Is there any way to "inoculate" organisation to prevent this failure mode?

one way might be to demarcate civility as important as technical knowledge and allow people to get pitched by mod vote if they become snarky. Just a guess. I wish that was a rule on reddit for sure. Essentially disallowing fiefdoms

Re: Toxic comments are associated with reduced volunteer activity on Wikipedia

#345

Post by whatshisface »

moate wrote: post #296
whatshisface wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why you don't interpret it, just list it: encyclopedically.

That’s literally impossible. You’re consciousness trapped in meat, everything you experience is an interpretation of your environment and entirely subject to that meat. “The Republican Party exists” is an interpretation of each word, and is controversial on some axis. “2” is a concept, it literally does not exist outside of the mind. This is to say: your desire for objectivity has failed, the best we can ever get are…

An objective, encyclopediac approach to philosophy would be listing the views on whether or not the word exists applied to a political party.

Re: Toxic comments are associated with reduced volunteer activity on Wikipedia

#346

Post by whatshisface »

t0bia_s wrote: post #314
whatshisface wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why you don't interpret it, just list it: encyclopedically.

History is written by winners. If you agree, then there is a lot of unlisted informations. If you don't agree, then you are on the winners side.

I don't see why it's so philosophically difficult to say the information that makes the winners look bad belongs in the encyclopedia.

Re: Toxic comments are associated with reduced volunteer activity on Wikipedia

#347

Post by t0bia_s »

whatshisface wrote: post #346
t0bia_s wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

History is written by winners. If you agree, then there is a lot of unlisted informations. If you don't agree, then you are on the winners side.

I don't see why it's so philosophically difficult to say the information that makes the winners look bad belongs in the encyclopedia.

Because for some, it's called hypothesis, hoax, disinformation, toxic... and needs to be "corrected".

Re: Toxic comments are associated with reduced volunteer activity on Wikipedia

#348

Post by t0bia_s »

whatshisface wrote: post #345
moate wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s literally impossible. You’re consciousness trapped in meat, everything you experience is an interpretation of your environment and entirely subject to that meat. “The Republican Party exists” is an interpretation of each word, and is controversial on some axis. “2” is a concept, it literally does not exist outside of the mind. This is to say: your desire for objectivity has failed, the best we can ever get are…

An objective, encyclopediac approach to philosophy would be listing the views on whether or not the word exists applied to a political party.

Until someone called it toxic, disinformation, hoax, etc.

Re: Toxic comments are associated with reduced volunteer activity on Wikipedia

#349

Post by esbranson »

Indeed.

I have made numerous toxic comments (described by others as vitriolic at times) over my two decades of editing, almost entirely towards the admin corps and the other imps who are disruptive. I do appreciate their work as a whole. I am a top-5000 editor of all time on the English WP. Mostly politics but some tech. My toxic comments are few and far, but can be intense. And not to mistake them with passively-hostile, terse disagreement.

I have never seen the 0.99 level comments on WP. The 0.83 and below is common, not just on Wikipedia but walking around large cities. 0.99 is part of the wonderful experience in SF and DC. But all the reports of decline are overstated, these places aren't going to decline much more, it's steady state at this point.

Re: Toxic comments are associated with reduced volunteer activity on Wikipedia

#350

Post by falserum »

zlg_codes wrote: post #247
falserum wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All contributions in the world follow some kind of process, even if informal. (E.g. you politely wait in line to drop off your generous donation)

And you think that validates it? Not all processes are created equally, and if the process is too much trouble, you won't get contributions. If Goodwill didn't have a dock where I could drop things off and an employee to put it where it needs to be, I wouldn't donate. You incentivize contribution by lowering the barriers to it.

You are correct, I agree. Lowering barrier affects contribution positively.

But I would argue, that it affects quantity and quality in significantly different ways. Meaning that quantity is increased vastly more of the two. Average quality most probably decreases. I.e. given high barrier only the most dedicated are donating, which affects quality positively.

Wikipedia wants to strike some balance between quality and quantity. (At this moment probably push towards quality)

Edit: Where wikipedia clearly fails, is effectively communicating which contributions are desired, ahead of time.

People spending time with good intentions only to finally get rejected, is definitely suboptimal outcome for both sides. (Negative emotions, wasted time, decreased chance of further contributions, bad publicity)

Post reply on HN