Jonti
what the dormouse said
When it comes to scientific, technical and geek matters Wikipedia is excellent as the survey by Nature confirmed.
But for religious or political matters, wikipedia has been comprehensively borked by cultists.
Web creator wants changes to steer people clear of conspiraloon nutjobs
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
But for religious or political matters, wikipedia has been comprehensively borked by cultists.
untethered
For industry & decency
Any other examples than the few like Prem Rawat that are well known? Given that WP has over 2.5 million articles I think it's overstating the matter to suggest that it's broken.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
This strikes me as being very similar to a recent gorski excursion about Habermas, complaining about web content and how it was creating noise so that the really important people and ideas (i.e. philosophers), were being drowned in an ocean of porn, YouTube and badly written myspace pages.
FFS everyone, the web's not even 20 yet! The whole planet has a tool of imeasurable facility for storing and transmitting ideas and keeping people in touch with each other...of course 99% of it's going to be shite. 99% of the cultural output of mankind historically is shite.
Altho I can see what he means about the LHC stuff from a personal perspective. I think CERN have been very naive in the way they've communicated the message of the experiments (for example, the real Big Bang day is in October, around the 10th when the first particle collisions take place), and TBLs comments about rumours etc apply to science reporting generally in mainstream media (give or take a couple of exceptions like Ben Goldacre).
Snap, for me it's up to people to filter stuff for themselves, not rely on some external body to do it. Of course, if you want to set up a search engine that specifically excludes from it's results all 9/11 conspiracy stuff (for example) fine - just so long as it's clear that's what you're getting.
FFS everyone, the web's not even 20 yet! The whole planet has a tool of imeasurable facility for storing and transmitting ideas and keeping people in touch with each other...of course 99% of it's going to be shite. 99% of the cultural output of mankind historically is shite.
Altho I can see what he means about the LHC stuff from a personal perspective. I think CERN have been very naive in the way they've communicated the message of the experiments (for example, the real Big Bang day is in October, around the 10th when the first particle collisions take place), and TBLs comments about rumours etc apply to science reporting generally in mainstream media (give or take a couple of exceptions like Ben Goldacre).
Snap, for me it's up to people to filter stuff for themselves, not rely on some external body to do it. Of course, if you want to set up a search engine that specifically excludes from it's results all 9/11 conspiracy stuff (for example) fine - just so long as it's clear that's what you're getting.
Jonti
what the dormouse said
Think of it as an existence proof.
If you are interested, the Register article goes into some detail on how Wikipedia rules have been amended to stifle information that shows cults and their leaders in a bad light.
editor
hiraethified
But that neutrality has in some ways already long gone with big companies having the budget and the means to guarantee that they appear in search engine rankings higher than others - and with most users rarely progress past the first page of results, high rankings can be influential.
Similarly, dedicated conspiraloons can - and have - skewed search engine rankings on specific health/scientific subjects to guarantee that their inaccurate shite appears way higher than the sane sites.
With the vast majority of people arriving directly at websites via search engines (it was around 85% last time I looked, iirc) the idea of letting people somehow know the provenance of scientific articles an interesting one, although it may well be unworkable.
I've absolutely no idea how it might work or how it could not be open to abuse, but I think it's worth discussing.
I'm not saying I'm for any kind of censorship here by the way, but from my experience of dealing with loons here, I can see how some sort of 'credibility' rating for sites could come in useful when dealing with some of the wild claims we've seen here - it might have at least saved the time of many urbanites trawling through bonkers loon sites to inevitably find some dodgy charlatan at its source.
untethered
For industry & decency
All of what you say is true but none of it is what I'm really getting at.
Theoretically, anyone can build a search engine or just create a page of links. What TBL seems to be suggesting is something that's built in to the base infrastructure of the web itself, not just another site or service that people run on top of the existing structure.
We already have various ways of determining provenance, including certificates.
We have various ways of ranking and rating sites on every conceivable criterion. Look at filtering for adult and phishing sites, for example.
People just need to be smarter in how they assess sources and deal with information. It's an education problem, not an infrastructure one. The fact that stupid people read untrue things online and believe them is a problem with stupid people, not the web. They do the same thing everywhere else, too.
A metaphor I read recently is apt here: It's better to buy a pair of shoes than to pave the world in soft leather.
xes
F.O.A.D
cardinal sin #1,not reading post. Come sit in the corner with the rest of us.
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
that's free speech isn't it what he's now proposing is net censorship...
having free speech means allowing ijets and nutjobs to say stoopid things...
xes
F.O.A.D
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
The thing is, nothing that's happening on the web today is actually new, it's just happening a lot quicker, over wider audiences, than when if you were prone to leaning toward *ahem* 'alternative' viewpoints you had to wait for someone to write a book about it, and then correspond with other similar nutters via snail mail, not even reaching 10% of your potential audience.
The web means that you can come up with something like this and have a global audience for it in days, if not hours.
The web means that you can come up with something like this and have a global audience for it in days, if not hours.
editor
hiraethified
Could you find me a single reference where Berners Lee has advocated 'censoring' articles or stopping free speech please?
I can see why Berners Lee is concerned, although I don't necessarily agree with his solution - but I'm not sure if your 'make people smarter' idea is going to work either.
Looking at the first pages of results for 9/11, 7/7, Moon landings etc etc is a pretty depressing experience and there's 'nuff people out there who swallow all that guff 'because they read it on the internet.'
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
It might be depressing, but that's the world innit? You think this is depressing, now you know something of the frustration that all the lefties here feel every single day, knowing that they know The Truth and that it's buried in an avalanche of bread and circuses.
only if you are daft enough to believe the TV doesn't lie to you
editor
hiraethified
Sorry, is there a relevant point here? Who thinks that the TV never lies?
xes
F.O.A.D
I know more people who think that there's "something" iffy with 9/11 than those who believe the official story. That,by your standards means that they're all stark raving mad. What the media put out is mainly guff,but idiots still buy it,hook line and sinker.
It's all got to do with what you as an individual are willing to believe. Some people have the bullshit filter set a little too high,some turned it off. Somewhere in the middle lies the truth. (or twoof)
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
The BBC article has a bit more detail on what this Foundation is for - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7613201.stm
I think he may regret ever mentioning the site rating thing, which seems a relatively minor part. Journalists will pounce on it and then lots of twats will half-read the headline and scream "OMG he wants to CENSOR the INTERNET".
I think he may regret ever mentioning the site rating thing, which seems a relatively minor part. Journalists will pounce on it and then lots of twats will half-read the headline and scream "OMG he wants to CENSOR the INTERNET".
xes
F.O.A.D
those who watch the bbc news/sky news/CNN and just lap it up,cos that bloke on the telly told them that's what's happening.
xes
F.O.A.D
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
So in fact, his comments about the problem of misreporting, rumour and poor evidence filtering will be mireported and subject to rumour?
Oh, the irony!!
untethered
For industry & decency
I don't have a "make people smarter" idea. Things are just working on the web the way they always did, but faster as Kyser says.
I don't see this as a problem that is amenable to meaningful solution or even needing a solution in the domain which TBL operates.
Stupid people read rubbish and believe it. Tell me another.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
BTW, when I say faster, I mean faster...IYSWIM 
lobster
Well-Known Member
Interesting discussion ... What could be applied to search engines are recommendations beside search engine results.
The recommendations could require full details of the person/group that recommended the link.
Wikipedia was something that got many skeptics provoked and a citizendium grew up from that where you must submit full name and details...
Of course this would need web engines to be open , with many or most of them , money is the major objective over content, this could be very hard in reality to implement.
This is not censorship at all, its just someone or groups recommendation of a site. All non-recomended sites will still be available. Site that's are recommended do not get any higher up on the search results. If a non-recommend site gets at the top, then so be it.
The recommendations could require full details of the person/group that recommended the link.
Wikipedia was something that got many skeptics provoked and a citizendium grew up from that where you must submit full name and details...
Of course this would need web engines to be open , with many or most of them , money is the major objective over content, this could be very hard in reality to implement.
This is not censorship at all, its just someone or groups recommendation of a site. All non-recomended sites will still be available. Site that's are recommended do not get any higher up on the search results. If a non-recommend site gets at the top, then so be it.
My point was that news at 10 talks just as much bollocks as some loner in alaska who thinks the planes were made by holograms
The idea that the 911 bombings were set up by an insane billionaire who lives in a cave in Afghanistan cos he thinks America is godless is just as ludicrous
Dillinger4
Es gibt Zeit
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
can you find on instance where i have suggested he has adovacated anything please?
in reality what i have this is proposed censoreship which, it is.
if you change the infrastructure to promote approved sites with approve informaiton and sublimate sites which do not contain approved informaiton you are enacting a form of censorship.
his solution isn't one which is workable in the current infrastructure and would create a class system of internet access and informaiton anyways which wouldn't work if a new infrastructure were to be imposed.
making people smart won't work.
no one has adopted firefox then?
or moved to vista?
or moved of windows 3.1 ever right...
people will by an large move with the significant developements as passive consumers ergo they will accept any change in the way their informaiton is presented to them if this is then presented as their only choice of the path of least resistance. because that's what they already do daily...
people get smarter almost through osmosis on the web....
other wise spam and phisihing would be as successfull as they ever were, which they aren't...
only as many stupid people as argue that they've read it in the paper or seen it on tv... it's the same informaiton medium in a new format.
people will build up their cyncaism much quciker in around 5 years time when the net is pretty much the defacto system for communciation for all levels or ages of western society....
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
Here's an example of a non-collaborative (well, not very) privately-owned non-transparent unelected content-rating system that has been around for a very long time now - Snopes. It's just a website that rates content for accuracy, a lot of it being on the web or repeated on the web. It has a very high trust rating due to its level of fact-checking, straightforward writing and clear argument for its position.
I suppose, really, people should be ranting about how it's an unaccountable bunch of censors and propagandists but actually you sound a bit silly if you say that. On the other hand, while it has been around for years, people still don't bother checking it before sending an email to the entire company about how their friend's mum met this Muslim in the shopping centre who said....
I suppose, really, people should be ranting about how it's an unaccountable bunch of censors and propagandists but actually you sound a bit silly if you say that. On the other hand, while it has been around for years, people still don't bother checking it before sending an email to the entire company about how their friend's mum met this Muslim in the shopping centre who said....
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Someone needs to write a Chomsky filter for every webpage in existance...
Similar threads
