Social Media Endangers Knowledge(wired.com)
wired.com
Social Media Endangers Knowledge
https://www.wired.com/story/wikipedias-fate-shows-how-the-web-endangers-knowledge/
76 comments
Agree very strongly.
I have been attacked multiple times on wikipedia trying to add useful information. Even when I cite all the rules and how I am following them, my edits get reversed "because".
I run a separate wiki, and many, many people are hesitant to contribute because they think wikis suck because of bad experiences with the politics of wikipedia.
I have been attacked multiple times on wikipedia trying to add useful information. Even when I cite all the rules and how I am following them, my edits get reversed "because".
I run a separate wiki, and many, many people are hesitant to contribute because they think wikis suck because of bad experiences with the politics of wikipedia.
Imagine a Wikiepdia that had a similar upvote, flag, and moderator (admin) system as HN and where edits had to have positive number of votes (majority vote) in order to be visible.
I wonder if such experience of editing would be better or worse. My guess is that you can't avoid the political nature of collaborative website where users can impact other users contributions.
I wonder if such experience of editing would be better or worse. My guess is that you can't avoid the political nature of collaborative website where users can impact other users contributions.
Stackoverflow works a bit like this.
Stack Overflow seems to suffer from a similar problem where an "in crowd" have started enforcing rather draconian technicalities on contributions and thus deterring potential new contributors.
On the main site (Stack Overflow) I managed to avoid any problems with my contributions.
On at least one of the "niche sites" (Role playing games) I had a much less pleasant experience. The moderators are IMHO way too draconian in making everyone stick to the letter of the rules, which is a bit silly considering that while Stack Overflow is intended to be a _professional_ resource, I doubt that anyone career is at a stake if they use advice from a fellow gamer in their next game.
The problem is that whether a contribution is accepted sometimes seems to be more about luck than merit. I have lost count of how many times I have searched for an answer to a technical question on a specialised subject, found a question on SO that was very close to mine, optimistically opened the page, and then found it was closed on some entirely incorrect basis by multiple users, who apparently didn't even understand the question, before any answers could be offered.
I agree with this very strongly. I stopped donating to and recommending donations to Wikipedia when my edits were continuously reverted by an alt-right admin. I think we need to start coming up with alternatives, especially considering Wikimedia can't come up with a business model that supports their unnecessarily massive bureaucracy.
Could you be more specific?
This drive-by criticism comes up every time Wikipedia is mentioned on HN. I've written a few articles on computer science topics and haven't been bothered at all by the roving gangs of bureaucrats. It's always a lovely experience.
If you write quality, researched articles on topics beyond those belonging to common knowledge and pop culture, your Wikipedia experience will be very pleasant. Since the HN readership is skews educated and technical, they are very well-equipped to write such articles.
If you write quality, researched articles on topics beyond those belonging to common knowledge and pop culture, your Wikipedia experience will be very pleasant. Since the HN readership is skews educated and technical, they are very well-equipped to write such articles.
You shouldn't generalise from your experience. Im sure you had a good time. I tried improving some highly technical articles, which were significantly wrong, got into an edit war with someone who felt they "owned" the page, and got rules lawyered until I left.
> This drive-by criticism comes up every time Wikipedia is mentioned on HN. I've written a few articles on computer science topics and haven't been bothered at all by the roving gangs of bureaucrats. It's always a lovely experience.
That's all fine and well, but I literally only created an account and got attacked. I wasn't even given the opportunity to contribute yet.
Unless your intent was to imply that I'm unwilling or incapable of writing quality, researched articles on topics beyond those belonging to knowledge and pop culture, your comment does not logically follow from the stated problem.
That's all fine and well, but I literally only created an account and got attacked. I wasn't even given the opportunity to contribute yet.
Unless your intent was to imply that I'm unwilling or incapable of writing quality, researched articles on topics beyond those belonging to knowledge and pop culture, your comment does not logically follow from the stated problem.
Your stated problem is that caustic behaviour toward new editors drives away potential long-term editors. To support this assertion, you used your own experience. As a counterpoint, I related my own experience, which was different. I'm not sure where it fails to "logically follow" as though this were some mathematical chain of reasoning rather than an informal conversation.
The way your post above was structured served to imply that I'm incapable of writing quality, researched articles on topics beyond those belonging to knowledge and pop culture, which was the component of your post above that I stated did not logically follow. My description of "illogical" was toward your back-handed remark.
I'll note that you did not attempt to deny, retract, amend, or correct this interpretation after being presented with it, which leaves me to believe that was your intent all along.
In which case: No, that's not acceptable. Personal attacks do not belong on HN, let alone baseless ones.
I'll note that you did not attempt to deny, retract, amend, or correct this interpretation after being presented with it, which leaves me to believe that was your intent all along.
In which case: No, that's not acceptable. Personal attacks do not belong on HN, let alone baseless ones.
You seem really fixated on the logic here, and I'm feeling bored and unbelievably petty, so let's break it all down.
Logical structure of your original post, in your voice:
A.P0: If existing editors behave poorly toward new editors, it will drive new editors away.
A.P1: Existing editors are behaving poorly toward new editors, based on my anecdotal supporting evidence.
A.C: Existing editors are driving away new editors with their poor behaviour.
Logical structure of my reply, in my voice:
B.P0: Existing editors behave poorly toward newcomers in certain domains such as common knowledge and pop culture.
B.P1: Existing editors don't behave poorly toward newcomers in domains such as creation of new technical articles, based on my anecdotal supporting evidence.
B.P2: Many HN readers have the capability to write new technical articles.
B.C: HN readers will not experience poor behaviour from existing editors if they use their knowledge to write new technical articles.
Logical structure of first reply, in your voice:
C.P0: It is possible you are implying I am unwilling/incapable of writing quality researched Wikipedia articles.
C.P1: If you were not implying C.P0, then your reply does not logically follow (ed. note: probably meant "address" rather than "logically follow") from conclusion A.C.
Logical structure of my reply, in my voice:
(clarifying restatement of previous)
Logical structure of your second reply, in your voice:
E.P0: Since you did not explicitly assuage my concerns in C.P0, my concerns are valid.
E.P1: If my C.P0 concerns were valid, that constitutes a personal attack.
E.P2: Personal attacks are unacceptable on HN.
E.C: Your reply to me was unacceptable.
Now that we have a nice pseudo-logical representation of our conversation, I hope all ambiguity is cleared up. Anyway, your propositions C.P1 and E.P0 are both incorrect.
Logical structure of your original post, in your voice:
A.P0: If existing editors behave poorly toward new editors, it will drive new editors away.
A.P1: Existing editors are behaving poorly toward new editors, based on my anecdotal supporting evidence.
A.C: Existing editors are driving away new editors with their poor behaviour.
Logical structure of my reply, in my voice:
B.P0: Existing editors behave poorly toward newcomers in certain domains such as common knowledge and pop culture.
B.P1: Existing editors don't behave poorly toward newcomers in domains such as creation of new technical articles, based on my anecdotal supporting evidence.
B.P2: Many HN readers have the capability to write new technical articles.
B.C: HN readers will not experience poor behaviour from existing editors if they use their knowledge to write new technical articles.
Logical structure of first reply, in your voice:
C.P0: It is possible you are implying I am unwilling/incapable of writing quality researched Wikipedia articles.
C.P1: If you were not implying C.P0, then your reply does not logically follow (ed. note: probably meant "address" rather than "logically follow") from conclusion A.C.
Logical structure of my reply, in my voice:
(clarifying restatement of previous)
Logical structure of your second reply, in your voice:
E.P0: Since you did not explicitly assuage my concerns in C.P0, my concerns are valid.
E.P1: If my C.P0 concerns were valid, that constitutes a personal attack.
E.P2: Personal attacks are unacceptable on HN.
E.C: Your reply to me was unacceptable.
Now that we have a nice pseudo-logical representation of our conversation, I hope all ambiguity is cleared up. Anyway, your propositions C.P1 and E.P0 are both incorrect.
You're forgetting something: They were hostile to me before I had a chance to contribute.
Here's where your logic falls apart: B.P1 is demonstrably false, in at least one occurrence. (i.e. Mine, where the hostility existed irrespective of my writing skills or the value of my potential contributions, or the lack thereof, because they were acting with zero information which shows their tendencies. If you've already established social capital, you're part of their in-group and therefore will not be attacked.)
But from the overall tone of the other comments here, and the sheer upvote/downvote ratio of my top-level comment, it's probably not a rare event.
I didn't think you overlooked this detail. I misinterpreted your statements as a personal attack based on the fact that I already explicitly made this clear and you appeared to have enough mastery of the English language to possess basic reading comprehension. But clearly I was wrong somewhere.
I apologize for giving you too much credit.
Hopefully spelling it out here, again, makes it clearer. If not, there's no point continuing this conversation because it's only going to get nasty.
Here's where your logic falls apart: B.P1 is demonstrably false, in at least one occurrence. (i.e. Mine, where the hostility existed irrespective of my writing skills or the value of my potential contributions, or the lack thereof, because they were acting with zero information which shows their tendencies. If you've already established social capital, you're part of their in-group and therefore will not be attacked.)
But from the overall tone of the other comments here, and the sheer upvote/downvote ratio of my top-level comment, it's probably not a rare event.
I didn't think you overlooked this detail. I misinterpreted your statements as a personal attack based on the fact that I already explicitly made this clear and you appeared to have enough mastery of the English language to possess basic reading comprehension. But clearly I was wrong somewhere.
I apologize for giving you too much credit.
Hopefully spelling it out here, again, makes it clearer. If not, there's no point continuing this conversation because it's only going to get nasty.
So new contributors shouldn't attempt to fix issues with existing articles, but hope they find something completely uncovered they can invest a lot of effort in making a great article about (without practice with tooling and how to write from smaller contributions), to avoid being stomped on by what a happy contributor calls "the roving gangs of bureaucrats"?
Yes, that's how you a) loose a lot of potential contributors and b) make sure existing material stays bad. And I bet there's a gang of bureaucrats specialized on pouncing on articles by newbies as well (which is understandable, if you take a look through newly created articles there is a noticeable amount of spam there. But if they hit the wrong person with the wrong tone, that's another contributor lost)
I still contribute to Wikipedia, but seldom more than a spelling/grammar fix or improved links or something like that. These things tend to be left alone, and if they aren't I haven't wasted much effort.
Yes, that's how you a) loose a lot of potential contributors and b) make sure existing material stays bad. And I bet there's a gang of bureaucrats specialized on pouncing on articles by newbies as well (which is understandable, if you take a look through newly created articles there is a noticeable amount of spam there. But if they hit the wrong person with the wrong tone, that's another contributor lost)
I still contribute to Wikipedia, but seldom more than a spelling/grammar fix or improved links or something like that. These things tend to be left alone, and if they aren't I haven't wasted much effort.
>If you write quality, researched articles on topics beyond those belonging to common knowledge and pop culture, your Wikipedia experience will be very pleasant
this is clearly untrue, and we know it because of all the people who tell us they have a fucking awful experience as soon as they try to edit anything.
this is clearly untrue, and we know it because of all the people who tell us they have a fucking awful experience as soon as they try to edit anything.
Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone* can edit.
*People who are not experts in a technical field writing entirely new pages on technical subjects are nobodies, and so do not count as "anyone."
*People who are not experts in a technical field writing entirely new pages on technical subjects are nobodies, and so do not count as "anyone."
Any topic of any political import at all tends to get mired in huge back-and-forths, you get editors who insist on editing Japanese translations when they themselves don't speak Japanese, and there are other similar infelicities.
Instead of putting link to your Twitter you could HV typed which articles you plan to edit. Editors need to be strict otherwise it is a slippery slope and will be ruined with pure junk. Do not take it personally, chill and contribute later.
Instead of attacking a new user, wait for a couple of weeks to see if they're adding content before deciding to remove their user page.
This is crazy.
"You're wasting literally tens of kilobytes on that narcissistic two line bio of yours young man. Moderator! Moderator! Please delete this."
"You're wasting literally tens of kilobytes on that narcissistic two line bio of yours young man. Moderator! Moderator! Please delete this."
Fundamentally though, the article fails to engage with whether these phenomenon are really a problem.
As the number of contributors grow, and as Wikipedia progressively moves from a no information recorded, to a most information recorded state, we would actually expect contributor growth to fall.
Additionally, with the increase of the "great unwashed" online for lack of a better term, yes, the density of intellectual and worthwhile thought online goes down. But does that matter, or more accurately, is that cause for concern over and above the general phenomenon of an "appearance" focused culture? Does social media cause, or merely reflect the values of our underlying culture?
What I do know is that I have been born into a time where I have the most access to knowledge of any human civilization ever. I can download Wikipedia. I have e readers. I don't even need to pay the university any more because I have so much access to libraries, knowledge and communication and computation.
While I am of course concerned about our societies values and their consequences, it is hard for me to take seriously the concern on the face of it that social media is destroying knowledge, when it is available in amount, redundancy and accessibility in greater amounts than it ever has been before. Period.
Perhaps there is also some anxiety on the separation of knowledge from the "appearance of knowledge" industry as well :p
As the number of contributors grow, and as Wikipedia progressively moves from a no information recorded, to a most information recorded state, we would actually expect contributor growth to fall.
Additionally, with the increase of the "great unwashed" online for lack of a better term, yes, the density of intellectual and worthwhile thought online goes down. But does that matter, or more accurately, is that cause for concern over and above the general phenomenon of an "appearance" focused culture? Does social media cause, or merely reflect the values of our underlying culture?
What I do know is that I have been born into a time where I have the most access to knowledge of any human civilization ever. I can download Wikipedia. I have e readers. I don't even need to pay the university any more because I have so much access to libraries, knowledge and communication and computation.
While I am of course concerned about our societies values and their consequences, it is hard for me to take seriously the concern on the face of it that social media is destroying knowledge, when it is available in amount, redundancy and accessibility in greater amounts than it ever has been before. Period.
Perhaps there is also some anxiety on the separation of knowledge from the "appearance of knowledge" industry as well :p
> As the number of contributors grow, and as Wikipedia progressively moves from a no information recorded, to a most information recorded state, we would actually expect contributor growth to fall.
True, but it's an absurdly strong statement to say that WP has anywhere near "most information" recorded. I find at least 2 or 3 times a week a need to find out more about some topic where WP has no entry on it.
True, but it's an absurdly strong statement to say that WP has anywhere near "most information" recorded. I find at least 2 or 3 times a week a need to find out more about some topic where WP has no entry on it.
What social media is destroying is the curation of accessed knowledge.
I agree that that's not an assault on knowledge itself.
I agree that that's not an assault on knowledge itself.
In practice it could be the same. I believe that, at some point, more common knowledge about knowledge will reach the masses, making them less like "masses".
>As the number of contributors grow, and as Wikipedia progressively moves from a no information recorded, to a most information recorded state, we would actually expect contributor growth to fall.
This is true, but I also believe Wikipedia is beset by the Iron Law of Bureaucracy. Over time, the meaning of "an encyclopedia anyone can edit" has shifted from "you can just go and contribute what you know!" to "write what you want, but it'll just get removed unless you spend lots of time learning our rules."
This is true, but I also believe Wikipedia is beset by the Iron Law of Bureaucracy. Over time, the meaning of "an encyclopedia anyone can edit" has shifted from "you can just go and contribute what you know!" to "write what you want, but it'll just get removed unless you spend lots of time learning our rules."
>What I do know is that I have been born into a time where I have the most access to knowledge of any human civilization ever.
You have more access to text, not necessarily knowledge. Knowledge requires active construction through application, debate, and participation. The internet is the perfect medium for constructing software knowledge for obvious reasons, but what about something like economics? On the internet, there are endless supplies of really terrible misunderstandings of core economics principles floating around that, for someone starting out, look and sound no different than the real thing. What about the construction of new knowledge? Social media's mechanism seems to be based exclusively on hot takes. How enlightening or instructive do you think that is?
You have more access to text, not necessarily knowledge. Knowledge requires active construction through application, debate, and participation. The internet is the perfect medium for constructing software knowledge for obvious reasons, but what about something like economics? On the internet, there are endless supplies of really terrible misunderstandings of core economics principles floating around that, for someone starting out, look and sound no different than the real thing. What about the construction of new knowledge? Social media's mechanism seems to be based exclusively on hot takes. How enlightening or instructive do you think that is?
I’ll disagree with your statement because there’s a hidden variable/assumption that has now changed.
There is a great amount of information available today compared to before - all else held constant.
All else is not constant. Assumptions on signal vs noise have been upended and getting to good information to an average person is now perhaps more of a task than before.
Given an average joe, none of them will be on the level of informational awareness as a member of HN.
They will not know or try to check the links on a Wikipedia page, be aware of various turf wars, or the credibility of a page.
This is if they approach a page directly, as opposed to being diverted or distracted from information.
In short- by measures both malicious, intentional and accidental, signal is now swamped with more noise than ever before.
So I disagree with that statement as it is true only in a general, unspecific and intractable sense.
(The rule of thumb is that all noise is signal to someone, and a lot of this is signal for our hindbrains which are better customers than our rational, non-impulsive minds.)
There is a great amount of information available today compared to before - all else held constant.
All else is not constant. Assumptions on signal vs noise have been upended and getting to good information to an average person is now perhaps more of a task than before.
Given an average joe, none of them will be on the level of informational awareness as a member of HN.
They will not know or try to check the links on a Wikipedia page, be aware of various turf wars, or the credibility of a page.
This is if they approach a page directly, as opposed to being diverted or distracted from information.
In short- by measures both malicious, intentional and accidental, signal is now swamped with more noise than ever before.
So I disagree with that statement as it is true only in a general, unspecific and intractable sense.
(The rule of thumb is that all noise is signal to someone, and a lot of this is signal for our hindbrains which are better customers than our rational, non-impulsive minds.)
Quite frankly, I think you give even the average HN user too much credit. We are awash in information and there just is no good method for properly vetting it in a timely manner unless you are prepared to devote a not-insignificant amount of time to doing so, and even reading the material 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 back and forth?
We live in a wonderful age full of lots of information, but we're all pretty poor at sorting it, and the informatoin we do receive tends to be less about informing and more about persuading. I occasionally see the discussion threads from our Marketing/Sales guys and I see the "fightcards" they pass back and forth with highlights for winning out over competing products; while I see the value in a sales situation, I can't help but see many similarities in think pieces and the fightcards, in that they don't aim to provide deep and indepth information on any particular subject, they're meant to be highly persuasive towards a specific idea while diminishing another. I understand this in a competitive sales situation, I suppose - you're more or less fighting memes and myths from someone else, so you fight back with the same since the audience doesn't understand the raw data anyways, or the raw data is incredibly subjective. But for Thinktanks or other such outlets, I think this is an incredibly dishonest way of discussing and presenting information, regardless of the source behind it. Infographics, ByTheNumbers, AtAGlance, all such methods are just coy tricks to avoid actual data and instead present an opinion as fact. We see it with various news media too where the authors conflate the number of references with validity, and you end up with news blogs where every other word is referenced or a link to a reference, and the references often contain so much information there's no reasonable way you could validate even one of them in time before the article has taken off as viral.
We are drowning in information and poor information sharing in general - even when you have the cognizance to know to check things like the history behind how a piece of information was assembled, there often is just too much data for any one person to sort effectively, and tracing such data to a reliable source is darn near impossible.
Our major media outlets failed us the moment they decided to try competing with clickbait headlines and rapid, poorly researched stories, and we failed them when we started falling for it hook, line, and sinker. Media outlets should be on the ball with cameras and people and concise reporting, but the actual information should be the result of slow, intentional, cumbersome, and concretrated effort. We luckily still see this a lot from magazines, luckily enough, but the rest is pretty dire.
We live in a wonderful age full of lots of information, but we're all pretty poor at sorting it, and the informatoin we do receive tends to be less about informing and more about persuading. I occasionally see the discussion threads from our Marketing/Sales guys and I see the "fightcards" they pass back and forth with highlights for winning out over competing products; while I see the value in a sales situation, I can't help but see many similarities in think pieces and the fightcards, in that they don't aim to provide deep and indepth information on any particular subject, they're meant to be highly persuasive towards a specific idea while diminishing another. I understand this in a competitive sales situation, I suppose - you're more or less fighting memes and myths from someone else, so you fight back with the same since the audience doesn't understand the raw data anyways, or the raw data is incredibly subjective. But for Thinktanks or other such outlets, I think this is an incredibly dishonest way of discussing and presenting information, regardless of the source behind it. Infographics, ByTheNumbers, AtAGlance, all such methods are just coy tricks to avoid actual data and instead present an opinion as fact. We see it with various news media too where the authors conflate the number of references with validity, and you end up with news blogs where every other word is referenced or a link to a reference, and the references often contain so much information there's no reasonable way you could validate even one of them in time before the article has taken off as viral.
We are drowning in information and poor information sharing in general - even when you have the cognizance to know to check things like the history behind how a piece of information was assembled, there often is just too much data for any one person to sort effectively, and tracing such data to a reliable source is darn near impossible.
Our major media outlets failed us the moment they decided to try competing with clickbait headlines and rapid, poorly researched stories, and we failed them when we started falling for it hook, line, and sinker. Media outlets should be on the ball with cameras and people and concise reporting, but the actual information should be the result of slow, intentional, cumbersome, and concretrated effort. We luckily still see this a lot from magazines, luckily enough, but the rest is pretty dire.
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 information provided is correct or complete. Wikipedia content is not necessarily reviewed by experts, and even when it is, there is no guarantee that a real-life expert will be given credit as such by the Wikipedia community.
For example, there are technical subjects where a very long page has been maintained and evolved for years despite presenting a fundamental misunderstanding of the subject and despite various comments in the corresponding talk page by people who apparently did understand the problem. Trendy topics on technology seem to be particularly bad for this, as you can easily get a page dominated by young, inexperienced contributors who only learned a buzzword in a particular narrow context, with no idea of the history, original motivation, or more general application of the underlying idea.
For example, there are technical subjects where a very long page has been maintained and evolved for years despite presenting a fundamental misunderstanding of the subject and despite various comments in the corresponding talk page by people who apparently did understand the problem. Trendy topics on technology seem to be particularly bad for this, as you can easily get a page dominated by young, inexperienced contributors who only learned a buzzword in a particular narrow context, with no idea of the history, original motivation, or more general application of the underlying idea.
Having done a lot of data mining and analysis of Wikipedia (scanning its entire corpus several times, machine learning new representations, studying traffic and article growth stats, studying its ontological structure) I would like to make two suggestions: (1) In its current structure, Wikipedia is “almost complete”. For the way that articles are written, embellished with media, and organized there doesn’t appear to be much room for change to most of them. This should be concerning, because in reality Wikipedia is always only the tip of the iceberg for everything. (2) In order to inspire a new growth of editing and contributions to Wikipedia, which can 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 more information to be elegantly incorporated into existing articles. If anyone is interested in pursuing this, I don’t suggest waiting for the bureaucracies and crowds to develop it (although would obviously be thrilled if they did); what’s in your power now is to fork the corpus yourself, and start a new open source initiative on its back. This is the classic case of how hard it is for big organizations to adapt in big ways (almost impossible), versus a small startup enterprise.
Do you have links to your analytical work?
Bonus for links to your thoughts on how to fork and expand another order of magnitude. This is something I'd love to work on at some point.
Bonus for links to your thoughts on how to fork and expand another order of magnitude. This is something I'd love to work on at some point.
As much I think Debord's theory on the Society of the Spectacle [1] is as prescient as ever today, this article doesn't go far enough in making that case. It even casts Google as some great democratizing force:
> Wikipedia was a fruit of this garden. So was Google search and its text-based advertising model....They effectively democratized the ability to contribute to the global corpus of knowledge.
Google completely changed how people access information, true, but they also did way more to centralize the web than almost any other company, ever. That's not the best news for objective knowledge. Yet they get a pass while "social media" gets indicted with an anecdote about narcissism on Instagram?
At the time of this writing, searches related to The Walking Dead are the top trending ones. You need to present some much more compelling evidence that social media is behind this shift away from "knowledge," and that Google is somehow not, for me to believe they're not just as much part of the Spectacle.
All that is to say that this article takes too narrow a focus, and misses the larger point because of it. The web isn't the solution or the response to the Spectacle: it's a natural extension of it.
[1] The Spectacle is the idea that in popular culture people relate to each other not directly but indirectly, through the "images" presented by culture itself, i.e. "the Spectacle is a social relation between people that is mediated by images."
> Wikipedia was a fruit of this garden. So was Google search and its text-based advertising model....They effectively democratized the ability to contribute to the global corpus of knowledge.
Google completely changed how people access information, true, but they also did way more to centralize the web than almost any other company, ever. That's not the best news for objective knowledge. Yet they get a pass while "social media" gets indicted with an anecdote about narcissism on Instagram?
At the time of this writing, searches related to The Walking Dead are the top trending ones. You need to present some much more compelling evidence that social media is behind this shift away from "knowledge," and that Google is somehow not, for me to believe they're not just as much part of the Spectacle.
All that is to say that this article takes too narrow a focus, and misses the larger point because of it. The web isn't the solution or the response to the Spectacle: it's a natural extension of it.
[1] The Spectacle is the idea that in popular culture people relate to each other not directly but indirectly, through the "images" presented by culture itself, i.e. "the Spectacle is a social relation between people that is mediated by images."
I don't think the problem is with social media. I think the problem is the competence of the average person.
How many communities start out full of reasonable, productive discourse, like HN, and then go downhill once they become popular? How many endless summers has the internet suffered?
Mediocrity is the enemy of progress.
Edit: I also take strong offense to the nonsense that the desire to aggregate knowledge began with the Islamic Golden Age. People have been centralizing knowledge for far longer than Islam has existed[1]. Frankly, the inclusion of Islam in this article comes off as forced and unnecessary. It doesn't surprise me that the author is from Iran, although his wikipedia page doesn't list any information regarding religion...
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_libraries_in_the_ancie...
How many communities start out full of reasonable, productive discourse, like HN, and then go downhill once they become popular? How many endless summers has the internet suffered?
Mediocrity is the enemy of progress.
Edit: I also take strong offense to the nonsense that the desire to aggregate knowledge began with the Islamic Golden Age. People have been centralizing knowledge for far longer than Islam has existed[1]. Frankly, the inclusion of Islam in this article comes off as forced and unnecessary. It doesn't surprise me that the author is from Iran, although his wikipedia page doesn't list any information regarding religion...
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_libraries_in_the_ancie...
Look at public schooling in the US, how organizations are working to cut it down with charter school diversions, corrupting history and science textbooks with religious concepts, and forcing teachers to be parents, police, social workers, and underpaid teachers, and to do it with a smile on their face. Higher standards than police and politicians.
Add all this up and you start to see the educational system looking like it's being sabotaged.
Add all this up and you start to see the educational system looking like it's being sabotaged.
Social Media as an idea was great when it started. But like any idea, when taken to an extreme, it tends to do disservice to its many participants. It seems often some product ideas are just better when they are not scaled. Craigslist, HN news, Basecamp - are good examples.
I think you should replace "taken to an extreme" with "monetized in the pursuit of mythical unbounded growth". It's usually not the concept itself taken to the extreme, it's all the other crap bolted on because otherwise it's merely profitable, and that doesn't suffice anymore.
When it comes to articles like this, part of me agrees with the whole "attention economy" problem. Companies want to suck away our time, etc etc.
But another part of me also realizes that this problem is going to be very, very hard to get rid of. As long as social media keeps feeding our brains with "things you might like" and endless junk notifications, it's going to be near impossible to stop.
But another part of me also realizes that this problem is going to be very, very hard to get rid of. As long as social media keeps feeding our brains with "things you might like" and endless junk notifications, it's going to be near impossible to stop.
Just stop using it. It's really not that difficult. Admit you're addicted and browse impulsively and then give it up.
That's like saying, "just stop smoking" in 1960. Ok, there's a handful of us that recognize the danger here, and have ceased using social media, but what are we going to do to help everyone else?
What are we going to do? Accept that it is not our job to stop people from doing things we don't like? I have no social media accounts, I never have, but I don't begrudge others their pacifiers.
We all do harmful things to ourselves. I find it easier to accept if I just accept my own negative acts. It's easier, for me at least, to accept that other people enjoy different things. I'd probably make a piss poor evangelist, but the reward is I spend less time being unhappy with other people's choices.
We all do harmful things to ourselves. I find it easier to accept if I just accept my own negative acts. It's easier, for me at least, to accept that other people enjoy different things. I'd probably make a piss poor evangelist, but the reward is I spend less time being unhappy with other people's choices.
The problem is that the dangers and impacts don't simply stop at individuals. "Who Hacked the Election? Ad Tech did. Through “Fake News,” Identity Resolution and Hyper-Personalization":
The data I present here suggests that before we keep pointing fingers at specific countries and tweeting about companies “hacking the election,” as well as to solve the scourge of “fake news,” it might be good to look inward. By this, I mean we should start the quest for transparency in politics with a few firms based in New York City and Silicon Valley.
The author is Jonathan Albright, Director of Research, Tow Center for Digital Journalism, School of Journalism, Columbia University. And ex-Googler.
https://medium.com/tow-center/who-hacked-the-election-43d401...
The role of liberal democratic society is to identify the threats to itself and address those, when necessary.
And it's now necessary.
The data I present here suggests that before we keep pointing fingers at specific countries and tweeting about companies “hacking the election,” as well as to solve the scourge of “fake news,” it might be good to look inward. By this, I mean we should start the quest for transparency in politics with a few firms based in New York City and Silicon Valley.
The author is Jonathan Albright, Director of Research, Tow Center for Digital Journalism, School of Journalism, Columbia University. And ex-Googler.
https://medium.com/tow-center/who-hacked-the-election-43d401...
The role of liberal democratic society is to identify the threats to itself and address those, when necessary.
And it's now necessary.
You have no social media accounts that must be liberating! I suppose you wouldn't know though as you haven't "been through the looking glass" as it were, the dark side of Facebook.
I removed my accounts for a few months and whilst it was liberating it wasn't as life changing as I thought it would be. Horse for courses I suppose.
I removed my accounts for a few months and whilst it was liberating it wasn't as life changing as I thought it would be. Horse for courses I suppose.
I've never had one. At least not one of the ones people consider social media. HN and Slashdot are both social media, but nobody seems to call them that. So, no Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, etc... G+ may have made me a profile. The others may have data about me, but they aren't my accounts.
I never saw a need for one. If people want me, they know where to find me. It's not some secretive thing. It's just more inertia. I can't be bothered to make accounts and they'd just take away more of my time. I am not even all that private, people know who I am. I've had many, many Internet friends in my home. One stayed for about five years, as she and I decided to date. Similarly, I haven't ever used online dating sites. That just kind of happened.
I never saw a need for one. If people want me, they know where to find me. It's not some secretive thing. It's just more inertia. I can't be bothered to make accounts and they'd just take away more of my time. I am not even all that private, people know who I am. I've had many, many Internet friends in my home. One stayed for about five years, as she and I decided to date. Similarly, I haven't ever used online dating sites. That just kind of happened.
Information in minds is not the same as cigarettes.
And that’s discounting the fact that cigarettes are highly taxed and banned now.
So are opioids and hard drugs.
Society has a tendency to install a floor under functions that have bad externalities and have no end state.
And that’s discounting the fact that cigarettes are highly taxed and banned now.
So are opioids and hard drugs.
Society has a tendency to install a floor under functions that have bad externalities and have no end state.
How about inviting others to what you do instead? Probably easier to replace then just remove the addiction.
> very, very hard to get rid of
Previous generations used taxes to manage business models that harmed many for the benefit of a few.
But since these companies can buy and hack democracy, will we ever see the much needed advertising tax?
Previous generations used taxes to manage business models that harmed many for the benefit of a few.
But since these companies can buy and hack democracy, will we ever see the much needed advertising tax?
>You cannot think with images
I disagree, and I think the way computers have made us regress to a purely textual interchange format as the common denominator is an unrecognized tragedy.
My notes in school used to be richly layed out, mixing diagrams, symbols and formatting as needed, which was trivial on paper. Now I'm typing to you through a predictive text engine because tapping or swiping out words is itself too error prone on this device.
We've created a massive gap between what can be produced and what can be consumed easily, information-wise.
I think the GET/POST nature of the web is also responsible. Rather than make it easy to collaborate in a shared space, we all have to write on little immutable post its and paste them side by side.
I disagree, and I think the way computers have made us regress to a purely textual interchange format as the common denominator is an unrecognized tragedy.
My notes in school used to be richly layed out, mixing diagrams, symbols and formatting as needed, which was trivial on paper. Now I'm typing to you through a predictive text engine because tapping or swiping out words is itself too error prone on this device.
We've created a massive gap between what can be produced and what can be consumed easily, information-wise.
I think the GET/POST nature of the web is also responsible. Rather than make it easy to collaborate in a shared space, we all have to write on little immutable post its and paste them side by side.
Wittgenstein would have argued the precise opposite of the quoted point. Ideas are pictures in our minds.
That particular point within the article is one of numerous specious and vapid objections it raises.
That particular point within the article is one of numerous specious and vapid objections it raises.
This article portrays a very distorted view of the past vs the present.
It portrays the push for encyclopedic collation of textual knowledge, in the past, and social media, in the present, as if they were complete, representative pictures of all the attitudes within societies towards information and knowledge in the respective time periods.
As if low epistemic-quality discussions and communication mediums weren't widespread in the past, and as if there were no other ways that knowledge is treated these days.
It portrays the push for encyclopedic collation of textual knowledge, in the past, and social media, in the present, as if they were complete, representative pictures of all the attitudes within societies towards information and knowledge in the respective time periods.
As if low epistemic-quality discussions and communication mediums weren't widespread in the past, and as if there were no other ways that knowledge is treated these days.
There are hundreds if not thousands of social media platforms designed for learning and intellectual collaboration, many of which are as or more effective than universities. Wikipedia itself is a social media platform. I think there is some truth in what the author is saying, but it's also completely lacking in nuance.
Can you name a few of your favourites? I'm interested in participating and building communities like this. I feel like certain subreddits are as close as I've found.
So many/most professional associations have one, and they usually have pretty good mailing lists and often other functionality as well. So if you Google for whatever professional associations exist for your industry you will likely find some stuff.
There are a lot of academia-related ones also, e.g. researchgate.
There are a lot of academia-related ones also, e.g. researchgate.
Ok, so the article lists a litany of things I personally don't like: videos, like buttons, facebook. But so what? I don't like them, so I avoid them.
Other people are different. Why get upset about it? Why the urge to decide how other people spend their free time?
Other people are different. Why get upset about it? Why the urge to decide how other people spend their free time?
It is not about hobbies, it's about the addiction that so many are unable to leave because everyone they know also does it. Never leading to insight or realisation, but hate and depression from unrealistic expectations and stress to find the next thing and never reflect.
> Wikipedia, one of the last remaining pillars of the open and decentralized web, is in existential crisis.
Wikipedia is decidedly not "decentralized"; it is a centralized system that people are allowed to copy: that is not at all the same thing.
Wikipedia is decidedly not "decentralized"; it is a centralized system that people are allowed to copy: that is not at all the same thing.
In every other sentence, the author proffers an unsubstantiated claim, and the article is premised on these.
"[Online social networks] reduce our curiosity by showing us exactly what we already want and think, based on our profiles and preferences."
I hate to defend the world's largest algorithmically-enforced echo chamber, but is this a really strong claim - is this seriously true? Like, a measurable reduction in curiosity across the board for Facebook users? What about if your friends are thoughtful and use Facebook primarily as a means of textual interchange?
And if the inverse is true - that being shown what we do not want and do not think makes us more curious - how does the author explain polarization? And are those irrelevant Youtube ads supposed to make me more curious about the world?
I hate to defend the world's largest algorithmically-enforced echo chamber, but is this a really strong claim - is this seriously true? Like, a measurable reduction in curiosity across the board for Facebook users? What about if your friends are thoughtful and use Facebook primarily as a means of textual interchange?
And if the inverse is true - that being shown what we do not want and do not think makes us more curious - how does the author explain polarization? And are those irrelevant Youtube ads supposed to make me more curious about the world?
With all do respect there is no surprise (level of intellect and human sensitivity) that Mr. Trump is also president... because of social media.
Almost nobody reads what they share and get only the title based on the sheep following model.
Social media became a sense of belonging and replaces analog socializing.. we became more and more shallow and incapable of solving simple tasks while we delegate to externals, either a machine or other app, simple life tasks.
Almost nobody reads what they share and get only the title based on the sheep following model.
Social media became a sense of belonging and replaces analog socializing.. we became more and more shallow and incapable of solving simple tasks while we delegate to externals, either a machine or other app, simple life tasks.
I'd be careful characterizing Trump as only being elected because of social media. Not everyone who disagrees with you are idiots. Misplaced hope and conscious bias against the "other" (aka non-whites; women) are as much factors to his success as memes. It's a fundamental problem (if you believe it's a problem) that will never be tackled if it's characterized as outright stupidity.
I really like this article, especially its point about typographic vs. photographic information transfer and the mental pathways that are activated when we process each respective medium.
It endangers not only knowledge by the mere sanity of many people...
Social interaction endangers knowledge.
Social media just exacerbates the problem further.
Social media just exacerbates the problem further.
Wow, this article's claim that text is what enables us to think is incredibly elitist. Are illiterate people incapable of rational thought? Oral traditions are deep wellsprings of human knowledge and culture.
Hmmm... do you mean written versions of oral traditions? We really don't know them past one generation since all of recorded history was literally written by the winners.
How many truly illiterate people do you know?
I suppose you could say that most 5 year olds are illiterate... are they capable of rational thought, perhaps... are they wellsprings of human knowledge and culture, I personally doubt.
How many truly illiterate people do you know?
I suppose you could say that most 5 year olds are illiterate... are they capable of rational thought, perhaps... are they wellsprings of human knowledge and culture, I personally doubt.
I do fieldwork on a lamguage that lacks a written form, so I actually know quite a lot of illiterate people, and they are quite capable of complex and rational thought.
In a literate society like ours, we tend to equate language with writing, but they're not at all the same thing. I agree that language is necessary for complex thought, just not writing.
In a literate society like ours, we tend to equate language with writing, but they're not at all the same thing. I agree that language is necessary for complex thought, just not writing.
The historical record does seem to indicate, at least to my reading, that illiterate people are at a significant disadvantage when it comes to engaging in high-level rational thought.
Writing things down doesn't just store and transmit information, it forces an author to crystallize and review their arguments. Writing certainly makes me more rational.
Those societies that never developed writing did have oral traditions with lots of "human knowledge and culture" but neither of these things are rational thought. Most oral traditions are rich with culture, but shot through with extreme irrationalism, exaggeration, fabuluism. This applies as much to a tribal society as to the stories your friends tell at the bar.
Writing things down doesn't just store and transmit information, it forces an author to crystallize and review their arguments. Writing certainly makes me more rational.
Those societies that never developed writing did have oral traditions with lots of "human knowledge and culture" but neither of these things are rational thought. Most oral traditions are rich with culture, but shot through with extreme irrationalism, exaggeration, fabuluism. This applies as much to a tribal society as to the stories your friends tell at the bar.
What exactly are you counting as high-level rational thought? If it's the ability to clamp down on "extreme irrationalism, exaggeration, and fabuluism", and Western societies are better at this, then I'd think Fox News wouldn't be a thing. ;)
It may not be "text", but "words" as symbolic constructs do enable us to think. Read Helen Keller's biography; it's a quick read and fascinating seeing her account of how scattered and frustrating her mind was as she was growing up before she learned language.
Of course, that might be exacerbated by her blindness/deafness, where for example a sighted person could probably conceptualize objects better without a specific language.
Of course, that might be exacerbated by her blindness/deafness, where for example a sighted person could probably conceptualize objects better without a specific language.
Wow, this article's claim that text is what enables us to think is incredibly elitist.
But is it true?
Are illiterate people incapable of rational thought? Oral traditions are deep wellsprings of human knowledge and culture.
Knowledge and culture is not the same as rational thought. Of course you can reason without writing, but the manipulation of thoughts is much easier when you can write them, the same as you can make calculations much more easily when you can write the operations.
But is it true?
Are illiterate people incapable of rational thought? Oral traditions are deep wellsprings of human knowledge and culture.
Knowledge and culture is not the same as rational thought. Of course you can reason without writing, but the manipulation of thoughts is much easier when you can write them, the same as you can make calculations much more easily when you can write the operations.
But is it true?
You wouldn't know from the article, because the author of the article doesn't cite any studies and just sort of takes Neil Postman's word for it.
You wouldn't know from the article, because the author of the article doesn't cite any studies and just sort of takes Neil Postman's word for it.
Rational thought, yes. Critical reasoning, a little doubtful, especially these days. Oral traditions are so inefficient at transmitting multiple viewpoints, at collecting multiple viewpoints, at codifying multiple viewpoints, and eventually at balancing multiple viewpoints that human society desperately sought and successfully figured out written ones. For example, great orators with really bad messages could easily sway people down all kinds of wrong directions. I am yet to see a great writer who achieved anywhere near the same effect (without also being able to articulate the same message just as well orally).
For example, think of the first time you read a comment on HN which you impulsively disagreed with. If you gave it a second and a third chance, sometimes you come away with an alternate viewpoint, and sometimes you actually agree with the statement. That is the power of writing.
Now imagine what happened the last time you verbally disagreed with someone. Chances are, you soon branded them an idiot, and then slowly stopped talking to them. I would say a part of it was simply because the message was conveyed orally, with all kinds of meaning ascribed to intonations. And unlike reading a piece 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 communication.
For example, think of the first time you read a comment on HN which you impulsively disagreed with. If you gave it a second and a third chance, sometimes you come away with an alternate viewpoint, and sometimes you actually agree with the statement. That is the power of writing.
Now imagine what happened the last time you verbally disagreed with someone. Chances are, you soon branded them an idiot, and then slowly stopped talking to them. I would say a part of it was simply because the message was conveyed orally, with all kinds of meaning ascribed to intonations. And unlike reading a piece 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 communication.
Oral traditions are so inefficient at transmitting multiple viewpoints, at collecting multiple viewpoints, at codifying multiple viewpoints, and eventually at balancing multiple viewpoints
To these ends I agree that oral traditions wouldn't "scale up" quite as well as written ones - but we're talking about pretty small groups of people, so they're going to have less viewpoints on the whole and therefore less need of a system that helps them manage intellectual pluralism. And as a side note, I'd think you don't really need multiple viewpoints to engage in deductive reasoning, if we're counting that as critical reasoning.
great orators with really bad messages could easily sway people down all kinds of wrong directions
Massive lapses of critical reasoning also affect post-literate Western societies.
think of the first time you read a comment on HN which you impulsively disagreed with...
You can impulsively disagree with someone and subsequently change your mind without the need to write everything they said down. You probably do this every day in casual conversation - especially if you're a software engineer - I'd bet most programmers are no strangers to impulsive disagreement. So I think your blessing here is really self-reflection - not a writing system. I think self-reflection falls under critical reasoning.
Now imagine what happened the last time you verbally disagreed with someone...
When you say that oral discourse has "all kinds of meaning ascribed to intonations", you're making it sound like speech is sort of a richer, more complex style of interchange than something purely textual like an email. Like, a speech act can have all kinds of richness and ambiguity. So wouldn't it then require more critical reasoning to parse out a speech than an email?
To these ends I agree that oral traditions wouldn't "scale up" quite as well as written ones - but we're talking about pretty small groups of people, so they're going to have less viewpoints on the whole and therefore less need of a system that helps them manage intellectual pluralism. And as a side note, I'd think you don't really need multiple viewpoints to engage in deductive reasoning, if we're counting that as critical reasoning.
great orators with really bad messages could easily sway people down all kinds of wrong directions
Massive lapses of critical reasoning also affect post-literate Western societies.
think of the first time you read a comment on HN which you impulsively disagreed with...
You can impulsively disagree with someone and subsequently change your mind without the need to write everything they said down. You probably do this every day in casual conversation - especially if you're a software engineer - I'd bet most programmers are no strangers to impulsive disagreement. So I think your blessing here is really self-reflection - not a writing system. I think self-reflection falls under critical reasoning.
Now imagine what happened the last time you verbally disagreed with someone...
When you say that oral discourse has "all kinds of meaning ascribed to intonations", you're making it sound like speech is sort of a richer, more complex style of interchange than something purely textual like an email. Like, a speech act can have all kinds of richness and ambiguity. So wouldn't it then require more critical reasoning to parse out a speech than an email?
Does a day go by without the traditional media pushing an article about how bad social media is?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CiPHPerCoder
Created an account, created a barebones skeleton user page just to make the red text link go away, immediately flagged for special deletion. Even when the person agreed with my point, their tone was mildly hostile and lectury.
(Epilogue: I ended up not really contributing much since then simply because of how I was greeted.)
Behavior like this drives new contributors away.