What is Digg?173 Comments
- themastersb, on 10/12/2007, -20/+154Finally. Some of the admins there are real *****. I tried posting that the African Elephant population had tripled in the previous six months, what was true, and some ***** banned me. Then I asked him why and he just said "You know why" in some smug expression that I couldn't see but knew he had.
- shiftt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+89It'd be great if someone can accurately summarize his blog for us. As much as I'd like to read all of it, I don't have the time to do so. That doesn't mean I'm not interested to know what's really happening, but he has quite a few entries so it'd be easier if someone could sum it up for the public to process.
- tredglx, on 10/12/2007, -9/+91Wikipedia biased?
Wow. There's a surprise... - mistshadow2k4, on 10/12/2007, -6/+76"The writer comes across as one of the whiny "I hate the inner circle" types that have been present in online communities since the BBS days."
I'd be more sympathetic to your statement if you'd explain to use why there should even be an inner circle in a public community site in the first place. - Firemeboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+69"Digg's inclusion of all those things that you listed is a representation of the democracy enjoyed here."
Digg is great, but don't be fooled into thinking it doesn't have it's own problems. Stories are buried all the time simply because a group of folks don't like them. The 'fan boys' can bury a story before the majority gets a chance to view it. The end result is that we see stories that the mob likes, and not stories that might be controversial, but important. I wrote a small piece on this topic a few weeks ago. Somebody posted it to digg, it made it to the front page...only to be buried within a few minutes.
Wikipedia does have problems, but you can look at every single version of ever single page. Of course it can get messy, it's follows the style of the bazaar not the cathedral. - dancpsu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+64Wouldn't Parker Peter be the secret identity of Man-Spider?
- m1rth, on 10/12/2007, -5/+58Biased? Yeah. But the nice thing is, IF this guy gets some notice - keep digging him! - then maybe it'll help change things. Wikipedia isn't unsalvageable but there are some major problems with their setup thanks to some real jerk admins.
- m1rth, on 10/12/2007, -9/+61I encourage everyone who sees this to read the entire blog: the guy has some great insight to why Wikipedia's problems exist.
- Detritus, on 10/12/2007, -16/+60I know I shouldn't feed the trolls... but I think JAVandiver is sincerely ignorant so I'll try to clue him in. Despite what Michelle Malkin told you, Digg and YouTube have very little Administrative interference. Or what would be called "Bias". Wikipedia on the other hand, gets fooled around with a lot by the admins and not just the users.
Digg's inclusion of all those things that you listed is a representation of the democracy enjoyed here. That means no matter how ***** fanatical the Mac and Linux crowd may be, they can get their psycho blogs on the front page just like you can get your LGF garbage up there too. Kevin Rose doesn't pick and chose. If you want to be shielded from the dangerous Mac users and Atheists you should consider using Fark where all material is approved by a libertarian/neo-conservative administration. - wonderchemist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+31"Select the text and goto Safari/Services/Summarize"
He was one person, and even though other people supported his edits, they were perhaps more familiar with wikipedia, they knew how the system works, and even if they didn't, they know now: cross the Muslim Guild, or any of Wikipedia's organized POV-pushing groups, and they will abuse, attack, lie, cheat, and use every underhanded trick in the book to destroy you while the administrators look on and do absolutely nothing about it. - theblackgecko, on 10/12/2007, -2/+30The problem is that the Wikipedia is not 'a damn website that any schmuck can modify.' Rather, moderators and admins have used the Wikipedia to force their own points of view and prevent others from modifying the site.
I've had run ins with ***** moderators, and I'm saddened. Basically, a mod deleted two articles which I had submitted, Lucious Pusey (remember him, he made the front page of digg) and Bobby Hauck. The mod used a lack of relevance tag, and deleted both within minutes. So, I go to the talk page, argue that the articles need to exist. Case is completely ignored. Send e-mail. Case is completely ignored. Check guy's talk page. ***** has six pages of archived material dealing with the same problem.
The problem is that too many moderators simply abuse their powers, and that non-moderators have zero power to deal with moderators. - oneSaint, on 10/12/2007, -14/+42Apple Users:
Select the text and goto Safari/Services/Summarize. - gardnmi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+29Can I please get an article that isn't scattered all over the place and has a intro, beginning, middle, and conclusion.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+30I can't tell you how many times my related external links have been cut out, while other "favoured" sites (with much less information than my own!!!) are left there. Sometimes people post my articles naturally to Wikipedia, and I have no idea, and even those people have to deal with the constant deletions.
I write articles about porn sites as my business, have done so since 2002. Sometimes my articles have 10x the information on the subject than the Wiki page has, my site is probably LINKED TO by the site in question, but heaven forbid I link to my article with all the details! I actually go inside the sites with a password and explain what members get with access. Does Wikipedia do that? No. They do not offer the information I offer, nor could they. Furthermore, the information for my articles are Reviews, which are acceptable External Links, and are better suited to my review than the main Wikipedia article body.
So they let pornography on, but then even the most trusted and informational sites aren't allowed.. Unless of course you're in their good club, like SportyBabes or IAFD!
The truth is, if you want to get your information to Wikipedians, you need to hire a team of Wiki Editors, otherwise you're pretty much fighting a losing battle. I have other things to do than sit there all day protecting my links, mostly from people who have no idea about the topic even, they're just 'keeping standards' based on THEIR own views of what's acceptable, not even the texts about what IS acceptable. - GabrielS, on 10/12/2007, -0/+24In my experience, often times there is one person that starts the rallying cry to silence someone they personally do not like. Other people, otherwise unfamiliar with the squabble, are far too trusting of one person's opinion and end up supporting it in order to silence the identified offender.
This is like COINTELPRO stuff. "Through counter intelligence we can identify potential troublemakers and neutralize them."
A trouble maker isn't a person that spends their time writing posts identifying the loopholes in Wikipedia. It's a significant contribution. - MudMan69, on 10/12/2007, -2/+26As far as I can tell from reading this there is some sort of secret nerd war going on at Wikipedia...
- 5hop4orce, on 10/12/2007, -2/+26PERFECT example: Here we are, agreeing that Wikipedia is biased and rife with abusive cliques. When somebody says the same is true of Digg, though? Total breakdown of rational thought. The blinders are glued on with epoxy! LOL
I'm not going to get into the various ongoing flame wars here. I'm not taking a side on Christians vs. Atheists or Liberals vs. Conservatives or even Political vs. Apolitical. What I'm saying is that you'd have to be brain damaged to not recognize that such dichotomies a) exist on Digg and b) have a dominant, i.e. "winning," side. The parallels are clearly there between Wikipedia and Digg. The difference being that we're actually ON Digg right now, so nobody wants to admit that such bias exists.
Michael Jackson was the bravest man in the world. Do you know why? Because he looked at the man in the mirror. - benitojuarez, on 10/12/2007, -22/+45how corrupt wikipedia really is? WTF? Youre acting like wikipedia dictates foriegn and public policy. stfu. Its a damn website that any schmuck can modify, if you want the quality ***** go buy the encyclopedia britannica or something.
- EclecticShadow, on 10/12/2007, -3/+25I'm a contributor, whenever i have free time i go edit articles, add sources, check for errors. I'm really disappointed. I use to have so much respect for the idea of an anarchist system like that of wiki working. Too bad.
- ophilye, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21I suppose it depends on what part of the Human Element you're talking about.
Intelligence or Ego? - DrScott, on 10/12/2007, -7/+26I'm not surprised. Wikipedia.org is full of information, which makes it very powerful. Introduce the human element, corruption is inevitable.
- Drood, on 10/12/2007, -9/+27This is why I've always disliked Wikipedia. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that this goes on. Even trivial entries on there, like certain controversial sports figures, have their entries whitewashed and any attempt to introduce facts that reflect in a bad light are quickly removed, even if proven to be true.
Totally corrupt, and I always laugh when folk think that something is true, "because it says so on Wikipedia". That's a sure fire sign that you're dealing with a know nothing idiot. - LatencyRemix, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19This isn't the only case where wikipedia admins have been caught, as I'm sure that there are many others out there that haven't been publicly announced, due to the bad PR that they would receive it they were (such as this one).
- merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21"this is some stupid FUD."
I'd argue instead that this is the wikipedia process working correctly. There will inevitably be some crappy admins. Then, they'll be exposed on the internet, and removed.
A real flaw in the system would be admins *not* being exposed like this. - TroubleInMind, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20See, I thought I have no life because I play WoW from time to time. I see now it could be MUCH worse; I could obsess about political machinations at Wikipedia. I feel much better about myself now.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+23Wasn't there a study that determined that Encyclopedia Britannica was as accurate as Wikipedia overall?
EDIT: I found it. http://news.com.com/Study+Wikipedia+as+accurate+as+Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html - michaelholloway, on 10/12/2007, -11/+27I like wikipedia
- 5hop4orce, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18"He was, for instance, caught last month using multiple e-mail addresses pretending to be two different people. He has repeatedly made derogatory comments toward groups of people (namely Muslims) and particular individuals."
So, you just called him a liar and a bigot without providing any evidence to support your claim?
RunedChozo's user talk page seems to indicate that he became an "enemy" after facing abuse on Wikipedia, exactly like Parker Peters said he did. Now you seem to be claiming the abusers "proved" he was no good from the start after they provoked him into blowing up on them. - 5hop4orce, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16Great chunk of truth right here:
"First of all, the idea of 'consensus' is thrown under the bus as soon as an organized group shows up trying to push their own point of view. Wikipedia's seen this countless times; we have Arab/Muslim groups ('The Muslim Guild', 'The Sunni Guild', 'The Shi'a Guild', etc). For a time there were groups opposing these Muslim POV-pushing groups, but they became outnumbered and were destroyed using the time-honored techniques mentioned in Lessons 1 and 2.
'Likewise, we have groups who have 'ownership' issues on articles regarding Scientology, though they are a tad more secretive about their personal connections. We have groups involving conflicts on such mundane items as Pokemon and kitsch '80s toys, groups that push POV regarding religion in general, groups that push POV regarding terminology for transvestites and "transsexuals", and just about any other possible conflict you can think of.
"Second of all, once a 'consensus' has resulted, the group who formed 'consensus' have just formed the ties of an organized group dedicated to 'owning' that page. Anyone who comes in and corrects the information, or adds something new that contradicts the 'consensus' - even if sourced - is going to be attacked for 'violating consensus.' Thus, even for articles that aren't targets of deliberate POV-pushing by groups like the Muslim Guild or pro-Pedophilia groups or the Scientologists or one of a hundred other organized groups that try to own whole article categories, chances are an article of any size has an organized group ready to beat down anyone who disagrees with their groupthink."
Expand that to cover ALL online forums. If you think about it, the politics section on Digg or the Castlevania forums on GameFAQs are just like categories of articles on Wikipedia. All messageboard threads are wiki articles. The group dynamics are identical. - budlight, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16This is akin to Diggers renouncing Apple and all rushing to purchase Vista.
- batmn42, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19From TFA: "Don't worry. I can still see everything they do. They're running around trying to figure out my sources right now, conducting their own internal Kristallnacht."
I invoke Godwin's Law. You lose.
Seriously though, Wikipedia is exactly what it says it is: an encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone. Useful for broad overviews and lots of biased information, but you should only trust it as far as you can throw it. - interiot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Apparently it'll never have a page... Jimbo urges him to take the issues to arbcom because they do seem like they're important issues if true: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-October/054984.html
But Parker Peter doesn't think the arbcom works: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-October/054991.html
So... Digg is more effective than arbcom at dispute resolution, I take it? - 5hop4orce, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14This is a great resource--not only for Wikipedia, but for the study of group behavior on Internet forums in general. ***** like this happens in practically every forum on the Internet, and it appears nigh-impossible to get anyone caught up in the group to see it.
I've had a real lucky streak for the past six months or so, but I just ran into "n00b hostility" trouble on three forums in a week. If it's never happened to you, it may blow your mind when you see a forum's inner circle circling the wagons to repel an unwelcome outside element.
It seems that most people have either never experienced it or are caught up in irrational social politics of their own--maybe they see themselves in the behaviors of the people you're claiming are abusive--and either can't see it or see it and rationalize it away. The most common rationalization I've seen, when I try to demonstrate this behavior, is that I'm bringing it on myself by not bending to the group will (by being polite and submissive). It's a big blame-the-victim shell game with most people. They appear to be using logic, but they're actually just shuffling around excuses to obfuscate the issue. Ultimately, they'll never accept any example in which you personally participated. That's why this Wikipedia LiveJournal is such a good resource, though a lot of people will say this guy is obsessive and crazy and probably brought it on himself. (Another pitfall: The more thorough and logical you are, the more CRAZY you are!)
This is a rambling comment, but this subject is one of my primary interests going back about ten years now.
I actually brought a whole forum to its knees once by civilly debating the abusive members for about two weeks. It is possible to win against these odds; it just demands a Christ-like capacity for patience and pity. The moment you blow up on the abusers, that's when they've "won" by "proving" that you're just an *****. Note, however, that I'm not advising anyone to show patience or pity for these people--I'm just saying that's how the dynamics of the situation work out. My actual advice for anyone caught in that situation is to just leave, because that forum is full of ***** and nobody's going to do anything about it. Even that forum I "won" in is still full of *****--they're still doing the same ***** to any "n00b" who comes along and doesn't hold their consensus opinions.
One thing that helps, though, and I want to try doing this more often, is to reference examples of exactly the same behavior in which the irrational group members are engaging. You might have read an article a while back that said something like "label the situation, not the participants." That's the general idea. Catalog various situations so you can post a link to them when they come up. A lot of the "highbrow" abuse that takes place (like on Wikipedia or Metafilter) is structurally identical to group behavior on GameFAQs forums (i.e. kid's *****). If you can show people that they're behaving like kids, without directly insulting them, it might make a difference. Although...I'm betting they'll just rationalize that away. I mean, you've gotta instill a ***** spiritual AWAKENING in people to make them stop pulling this *****. It's an idea, though.
That "flame warrior" website is also good, as are the lists of logical fallacies; but more often than not that kind of thing just takes the "battle" to a new battleground--anything you could possibly write, in a sense, only gives the irrational person something new to nitpick. - Fairly, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13I am not one bit surprised. There are several 'mini-mafia' inside there. It's been obvious for some time. The 'stench' from them is both tangible and unbearable.
- boiledhotdogs, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Peters Parker?
- tariqabjotu, on 10/12/2007, -12/+24Don't believe him for a second. Parker Peters was recently banned from the English Wikipedia mailing list for what ultimately amounted to trolling. He was, for instance, caught last month using multiple e-mail addresses pretending to be two different people. He has repeatedly made derogatory comments toward groups of people (namely Muslims) and particular individuals. Frankly, he has time and time again mischaracterized problems and events on Wikipedia and, unfortunately for him, this has obfuscated any valid points he attempts to get it. He was given many chances, but never took the opportunity to redeem himself. Don't trust me either? Fine; head over the Wikipedia mailing list -- http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/ -- and check out the truth for yourself (although it's a bit to wade through). Take a look at RunedChozo's contributions -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RunedChozo -- and the associated user talk page. The writing is on the wall...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13The problem with Wikipedia is the NPA policy. That means no personal attacks. So when you point out that an admin is corrupt or did something wrong then YOU are the one who gets banned for violating NPA. Jimbo assumes an egalitarian user base that doesn't fit with the reality of the real world and the internet.
Read more about wikipedia policies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NPA - adameros, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13After having an edit of mine, that was properly cited, removed under the name of "vandalism", I have to agree that wikipedia admins are on a power trip.
- DavidDigg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12"I'd argue instead that this is the wikipedia process working correctly."
Well, no, this is just journalism working correctly. This is a problem that was outed on digg.com, so what you really mean is that Wikipedia has a chance of working correctly as long as it takes note of what is happening on digg.com... The fact is that Wikipedia FAILED to address the issue of abusive admins BEFORE it became a story. Wikipedia working correctly == we don't hear about abusive admins on digg.com or anywhere else because they are squelched before they do a substantial amount of damage. - zixxer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13wikipedia is getting a little stupid. I say we download the content that is up there, then post it up somewhere else on a "better" wiki or whatever and never visit the site again.
yes, I know ill be dug down for saying that...but seriously...it is like a high school "in crowd" over there - DisposableRob, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13"Digg's inclusion of all those things that you listed is a representation of the democracy enjoyed here."
I have to post a Wikipedia link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ochlocracy - powerclam, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13You're probably not using it for anything remotely controversial.
Where a topic generates strong opinions, wikipedia can be worse than useless. - thelab101, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Does this event have a wikipedia page yet?
- budlight, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Holy ***** an article criticizing wikipedia got dugg?
- ryanmetcalf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11His article get edited or locked because of abuse?
LOL, wikipedia indeed. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14Wikipedia = The next DMOZ. Mark my words.
- utcursch, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13@themastersb
If you're the user who posted that the African Elephant population had tripled in the previous six months, let me tell you that you were not banned for that reason:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=African_elephant&diff=prev&oldid=109995311
You were banned by User:Blnguyen for these obviously bad edits:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&diff=prev&oldid=109998652
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&diff=prev&oldid=109998989
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Padua_Franciscan_High_School&diff=prev&oldid=109998423
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Padua_Franciscan_High_School&diff=prev&oldid=109997551
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human&diff=prev&oldid=109995831
And don't tell me that you were not warned. You were warned 5 times before being blocked:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fannypackgap91 - Winters, on 10/12/2007, -6/+16Yea, I really hope nobody is surprised by this.
The ones I feel really sorry for are the average contributors. - s1ade, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Put the vast majority of people in a position of power and eventually they would abuse it. And yes, I do include myself in the "vast majority". Power corrupts etc etc, its Human Nature.
- merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14"but you should only trust it as far as you can throw it."
That's why its articles (and *all* scholarly texts) have citations. Read them. -
Show 51 - 100 of 173 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is