Social Media Endangers more knowledge
> This drive by criticism comes up every Wikipedia is mentioned on HN. I written a few articles on p. c,mobile computer science topics and haven been bothered at all by the roving gangs of bureaucrats.
The way your post above was structured served to imply that I incompetent at writing quality, Researched articles on topics beyond those belonging to knowledge and pop culture, Which was the part of your post above that I stated did not logically follow. my own attacks do not belong on HN, not to mention baseless ones. excavation, Where the hostility existed it doesn't matter my writing skills or the value of my potential contributions, Or the lack thereof, this is because were acting with zero information which shows their tendencies. I misunderstood your statements as a personal attack based on the fact that I already explicitly made this clear and zoosk.com review
you appeared to have enough mastery of the English language to possess basic reading comprehension. or even, There no point continuing this contact because it only going to get nasty.
So new members shouldn attempt to fix issues with existing articles, But hope they find something completely open they can invest a lot of effort in making a great article about (Without practice with tooling and how to write from smaller additions), to head off being stomped on by what a happy contributor calls "a person's roving gangs of bureaucrats,positive, That how to a) Loose a lot of potential members and b) verify existing material stays bad. And I bet there a gang of bureaucrats focused on pouncing on articles by newbies as well (Which is comprehensible, If you take a selecting newly created articles there is a noticeable amount of spam there. But if they hit the person with a poor tone, That another contributor lost)I still help Wikipedia, But seldom more than a spelling fix or improved links as well. These things are unquestionably left alone, And whenever they aren I haven wasted much effort. But does that procedure, Or better, Is that reason to be concerned over and above the general phenomenon of an "looks" specialised culture? Does social music cause, Or merely reflect the values of our actual culture?What I do know is that I have been born into a time where I have the most access to idea of any human civilization ever. I can find Wikipedia. I have e traffic. We are awash in information and there just is no good method for properly vetting it when they're due unless you are prepared to devote a not insignificant amount of time to doing so, And even reading the fabric presented past the headline is often asking too much of many readers; How many discussions here have gone on for hundreds of posts for hours as people who just want to get into an argument banter forwards and backwards?We live in a wonderful age full of lots expertise, But we all pretty poor at searching it, And the informatoin we do receive is generally less about informing and more about persuading. I on occasion see the discussion threads from our Marketing guys and I see the "Fightcards" They pass back and forth with highlights for winning out over competing products; While I see the extra worthiness in a sales situation, I can help but see many characteristics in think pieces and the fightcards, In that they don aim to provide deep and indepth home elevators any particular subject, They intended to be highly persuasive towards a specific idea while diminishing another. I understand why in a competitive sales situation, I suppose you more or less fighting memes and myths from another man, So you fight back with the exact same since the audience doesn understand the raw data anyways, Or the raw data can be quite subjective. But for Thinktanks or other such outlet stores, I think this is an exceedingly dishonest way of discussing and presenting information, in spite of the source behind it. Infographics, ByTheNumbers, AtAGlance, All such methods are just coy tricks to avoid actual data and instead present an impression as fact. Media outlets should be on your golf ball with cameras and people and concise reporting, But the actual information should be vehicles slow, intentional, troublesome, And concretrated job. We luckily still see this a lot from magazines, the good news is enough, But the remaining is pretty dire. Knowledge requires active composition through application, doubt, And guidance. The internet is the perfect medium for constructing software knowledge for apparent reasons, But what about something like economics? by going online, There are endless supplies of really terrible misconceptions of core economics principles floating around that, For someone starting, Look and sound just like the real thing. What about the construction of new knowledge? Social media mechanism looks like it's based exclusively on hot takes. How enlightening or instructive do you think that is?
While I appreciate the positive vision you describe, I think it is also important to acknowledge that just because there is a page of information about a subject on Wikipedia, That is absolutely no guarantee that the knowledge provided is correct or complete. Trendy topics on technology seem to be specifically bad for this, As you can certainly get a page dominated by young, grn contributors who only learned a buzzword in a particular narrow context, With no idea of the, Original motive, Or more general application of the actual idea.
Having done a lot of data mining and seek out of Wikipedia (Scanning its entire corpus frequency, Machine being knowledgeable of new representations, interpreting traffic and article growth stats, Studying its ontological muscle) I only desire to make two suggestions: (1) In its current arrangement, Wikipedia is literally "just complete, For exactly how articles are written, ornamented with media, and organized there doesn't appear to be much room for change to most of them. this should be concerning, Because in truth Wikipedia is always only the tip of the iceberg for everything. (2) In order to inspire a new growth of editing and donations to Wikipedia, which sometimes expand the corpus by another order of magnitude, New systems for organizing and communicating knowledge need to be developed that can allow orders of magnitude a lot more to be elegantly incorporated into existing articles. If anyone is interested in pursuing this, I don't suggest anticipating the bureaucracies and crowds to develop it (Although would patently be thrilled if they did); What's in your power now is to fork the corpus the, And start a new open source initiative on its back. This is the classic case of how hard it is for big agencies to adapt in big ways (very difficult), Versus a small startup small business.
As much I think Debord theory on the Society of the spectacle  Is as prescient as always today, this doesn go far enough in making that case. It even casts Google as excellent democratizing force, Wikipedia was a fruit of their garden. That not the best news for purposeful knowledge. Yet they get a pass while it's true "Social movie" Gets indicted with an anecdote about narcissism on Instagram?then of this writing, Searches connected with The Walking Dead are the top trending ones. "The Spectacle is a social relation between people that is mediated by images,
I don think fifty with social media. everyone has started to been centralizing knowledge for far longer than Islam has existed. honestly, The inclusion of Islam listed here comes off as forced and unnecessary. https:
the issue is that the dangers and impacts don simply stop at individuals. "Who Hacked the election? Ad tech did. by using "Fake magazine, Identity Resolution and Hyper customization,The data I present here suggests that before we keep pointing fingers at specific countries and tweeting about companies "Hacking the election, and in some cases to solve the scourge of "Fake news bulletin, obviously good to look inward.
in no way thought had one. At least not some ones people consider social media. HN and Slashdot are both social media, But nobody seems to call them that. consequently, No tagged, forums, MySpace, et cetera. G+ may watch out for me a profile. If users want me, They know locating me. It not some secretive thing. it more inertia. I can be bothered to make accounts and they take away more of my time. I am not even all that private, persons know who I am. i saw it many, Many extensive friends in my home. One stayed for about five years, As she and I to be able to date. every bit as, I haven ever used online dating services. that simply kind of happened. rather than make it easy to collaborate in a shared space, We all have to write on little immutable post its and paste them next to each other. Most oral practices are rich with culture, But shot indicates with extreme irrationalism, Exaggeration, Fabuluism. This applies as much to a tribal society as to the stories pals tell at the bar.
lucid thought, all right. Critical reason, A little not so great, Especially currently. Oral traditions are so inefficient at sending multiple viewpoints, At collecting multiple opinions, At codifying multiple points of views, And eventually at balancing multiple viewpoints that human society desperately sought and properly figured out written ones. as an example, Great orators with really bad messages could easily sway people down many wrong directions. if you gave it a second and a third chance, Sometimes you come away with another viewpoint, And sometimes that you agree with the statement. probably, You soon well-known them an idiot, And then slowly stopped on the phone to them. I would say a part of it was simply because the message was conveyed orally, With many meaning ascribed to intonations. And unlike reading some of text again carefully, Its not as if you have a mental tape recorder you can use to replay the conversation. There is just too much distraction in oral telecommunications.
Oral traditions are so inefficient at transmitting multiple viewpoints, At collecting multiple points of views, At codifying multiple points of views, subsequently at balancing multiple viewpointsTo these ends I agree that oral traditions wouldn "climb up" Quite as well as written ones but we talking over pretty small groups of people, So they going to have less viewpoints on the whole in so doing less need of a system that helps them manage intellectual pluralism. You probably do this every day in casual conversation specifically if you a software engineer I bet most programmers are no strangers to impulsive disagreement. So I think your blessing here is really self hand mirror not a writing system. akin to, A speech act can have heaps of different richness and ambiguity. So wouldn it then require more critical reasons to parse out a speech than an email.