|
in reply to Re: Can I please have multiple downvotes per (certain monk's) posts.
in thread Can I please have multiple downvotes per (certain monk's) posts.
The voting system has been designed to avoid voting against monks (as opposed to voting against a post).
As it should be, but I would be voting against the contents. Of course, with that particular monk, its probably hard to tell the difference.
But I never really anticipated anyone actually taking my post seriously. More a vent of frustration than a real request; but with a serious point underlying it.
What PerlMonks does lack though is a clear feedback on negative reputation. There are posts out there that not only are technical nonsense, but may be really misleading to people reading it. It might be a good idea to hide those posts by default with a message like "This post has a very low reputation, it may be technically incorrect, or irrelevant".
And that's the serious point.
He knows just enough to make his posts read as plausible if you are new to programming; which makes them not just technical nonsense and annoying, but have the potential to really waste the time of unwary newbies and drive-by viewers.
I agree that hiding them is a good idea; and I've tried using the consideration process to that end, but there seem to be enough people fooled by his garbage, that the considerations get overridden.
Which of itself suggests a new mechanism, or a twist on an existing one, is in order.
With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
|
Re^3: Can I please have multiple downvotes per (certain monk's) posts.
by morgon (Priest) on May 30, 2015 at 23:17 UTC
|
There are posts out there that not only are technical nonsense, but may be really misleading to people reading it.
This is probably true but I think it is not a problem as long as the nonsense is confronted.
It is the knowledgeable people's (and BrowserUk is one of them) burden to make the world a better place by pointing out where less knowledgeable spread nonsense - again and again and again.
I can understand that BrowserUk is getting tired of it but everything else would amount to censorship....
| [reply] |
|
|
This is probably true but I think it is not a problem as long as the nonsense is confronted.
It is the knowledgeable people's (and BrowserUk is one of them) burden to make the world a better place by pointing out where less knowledgeable spread nonsense - again and again and again.
This is exactly what the trolls build on: To waste other people's time. Your argument appears to support the trolls in this effort. You said below "I don't vote at all when at least I should have downvoted some postings", and your posting history shows that you've replied to the monk who we are talking about only three times so far. My suggestion to you is that you try the policing and technical refuting that you are advertising, and maybe then you will get an idea of why several monks are supporting a more efficient way to go about it.
I can understand that BrowserUk is getting tired of it but everything else would amount to censorship....
Sorry, but that's complete nonsense, as it usually is when the word "censorship" is uttered on the internet (except in China). You said below you live in a country where holocaust denial is illegal. No matter whether it's morally supportable, that's censorship. The current suggestion above is not censorship, and here's why: First, the current suggestion is to simply hide or label such posts - everyone is still free to read them. Second, the individuals are still perfectly free to post their opinion in other places where everyone can read them.
| [reply] |
|
|
You said below you live in a country where holocaust denial is illegal. No matter whether it's morally supportable, that's censorship.
P.S. Before anyone misunderstands this statement: Being a supporter of free speech does not mean that you support any of the truly idiotic and wrong opinions that it allows people to express. The point was more generally that whenever a government says "it is illegal to express opinion X", that's censorship (unfortunately no matter how upsetting you may find X).
On the internet, except in a few places, everyone is free to start their own website and post whatever opinion they want, so the "censorship" argument is almost always complete junk. It's the equivalent of someone whining they didn't get let into some club by the bouncer - they're free to make that decision not to let you in, and you're still free to go party somewhere else.
| [reply] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|
I can understand that BrowserUk is getting tired of it but everything else would amount to censorship....
If he came on here spouting misogyny, holocaust denial, eugenics, or sexual preference intolerance; (almost) no one would blink an eye at his being censored or censured.
Is his brand of widely recognised, deliberate, willful, disinformation any less harmful because the grouping he targets crosses the boundaries of recognised groups?
I recognise, and would defend, his right to free speech, when posted on his own web site. But here, he taints us all with his uttering, and by any legal convention, we have the right to defend our -- and this sites -- reputations, from association with him, and his incompetence and remorseless lack of attempt to either correct his mistakes; nor learn from them.
Two of my greatest hates are: nannying states; and the imposition of one man's opinions upon another; but both censuring and censorship have their place in a tolerant, but strong, knowing and defended community.
With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
| [reply] |
|
|
Yes, there is already "censorship" every time a post is reaped. The only question is whether another particular kind of posting should be censored as well. And not even censored in an absolute sense, if possible, but somehow discouraged more strongly than the current system allows, since that isn't working.
Another thing to consider: maybe as long as only one member is doing it, BrowserUK and other experts can keep up with replies to all his harmful posts, pointing out to newbies what's wrong with them (though I don't know why they should be obligated to do so). But what if there were a dozen members doing it, or he retired from his day job and could post 12 times as often? Would they still be able to alleviate all the damage with replies? Should they have to?
PerlMonks is the most open forum I've ever participated in, other than unmoderated Usenet groups. That's a good thing in a lot of ways. It makes the site very welcoming for newcomers; even those who post without reading the most basic instructions are treated respectfully and generously helped. But that openness and desire for loose enforcement of standards does have a downside, in that it can be taken advantage of by those who shamelessly flout the voluntary standards of the community.
Aaron B.
Available for small or large Perl jobs and *nix system administration; see my home node.
| [reply] |
|
|
|
|
he taints us all with his uttering
Why?
I don't think in the least that you (or this forum or whatever) is tainted in any way by allowing nonsensensical posts that then get refuted by people that know better.
As I said I can understand your frustration but nevertheless allowing nonsense to be uttered while unambiguously calling nonsense nonsense is the way to do it.
And just because you mentioned it: I live in a country where holocaust denial is not only censored - it is actually considered a crime.
However that does not bother the so inclined...
But I must admit that I don't vote at all when at least I should have downvoted some postings...
| [reply] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
