|
Re^4: Can I please have multiple downvotes per (certain monk's) posts.
by Anonymous Monk on May 31, 2015 at 09:59 UTC
|
This is probably true but I think it is not a problem as long as the nonsense is confronted.
It is the knowledgeable people's (and BrowserUk is one of them) burden to make the world a better place by pointing out where less knowledgeable spread nonsense - again and again and again.
This is exactly what the trolls build on: To waste other people's time. Your argument appears to support the trolls in this effort. You said below "I don't vote at all when at least I should have downvoted some postings", and your posting history shows that you've replied to the monk who we are talking about only three times so far. My suggestion to you is that you try the policing and technical refuting that you are advertising, and maybe then you will get an idea of why several monks are supporting a more efficient way to go about it.
I can understand that BrowserUk is getting tired of it but everything else would amount to censorship....
Sorry, but that's complete nonsense, as it usually is when the word "censorship" is uttered on the internet (except in China). You said below you live in a country where holocaust denial is illegal. No matter whether it's morally supportable, that's censorship. The current suggestion above is not censorship, and here's why: First, the current suggestion is to simply hide or label such posts - everyone is still free to read them. Second, the individuals are still perfectly free to post their opinion in other places where everyone can read them.
| [reply] |
|
|
You said below you live in a country where holocaust denial is illegal. No matter whether it's morally supportable, that's censorship.
P.S. Before anyone misunderstands this statement: Being a supporter of free speech does not mean that you support any of the truly idiotic and wrong opinions that it allows people to express. The point was more generally that whenever a government says "it is illegal to express opinion X", that's censorship (unfortunately no matter how upsetting you may find X).
On the internet, except in a few places, everyone is free to start their own website and post whatever opinion they want, so the "censorship" argument is almost always complete junk. It's the equivalent of someone whining they didn't get let into some club by the bouncer - they're free to make that decision not to let you in, and you're still free to go party somewhere else.
| [reply] |
|
|
Besides, we already have censorship; we just call it consideration.
So the question isn't whether we should have censorship, but whether this particular kind of posting should be added to the list of those that may be considered.
The page on consideration says:
- You may consider nodes which are "highly offensive" (in terms of being not-safe-for-work).
- You should NOT consider nodes for having factual errors.
In this case, neither of those really covers the problem. The posts aren't offensive in the sense that you wouldn't want your kids to see them, and they're often factually incorrect or misleading, so technically they might fit in the second category. But is it really a factual "error" when you're doing it intentionally even after being corrected multiple times? And isn't it offensive to intentionally waste people's time and try to reduce a site's usefulness?
I'm sure that whoever wrote "factual errors" there meant mistakes made out of ignorance or sloppiness. A week or so ago, I made a mistake in a piece of untested code. Someone pointed it out and I updated my code, so the correction provided a bit more information for the learner. That's how it's supposed to work, and why "factual errors" should be replied to with corrections instead of reaped.
But that doesn't work as intended in this case, because the "errors" are being made intentionally. At what point does that rise to the level of "offensive"? If posting 10 links to porn sites should be reaped because they harm the site's effectiveness, why not 10 nodes saying, "Here, use this bad idea which I'm presenting because I have a personal grudge against some members of this site"?
Aaron B.
Available for small or large Perl jobs and *nix system administration; see my home node.
| [reply] |
|
|
|
|
| [reply] |
Re^4: Can I please have multiple downvotes per (certain monk's) posts.
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on May 30, 2015 at 23:51 UTC
|
I can understand that BrowserUk is getting tired of it but everything else would amount to censorship....
If he came on here spouting misogyny, holocaust denial, eugenics, or sexual preference intolerance; (almost) no one would blink an eye at his being censored or censured.
Is his brand of widely recognised, deliberate, willful, disinformation any less harmful because the grouping he targets crosses the boundaries of recognised groups?
I recognise, and would defend, his right to free speech, when posted on his own web site. But here, he taints us all with his uttering, and by any legal convention, we have the right to defend our -- and this sites -- reputations, from association with him, and his incompetence and remorseless lack of attempt to either correct his mistakes; nor learn from them.
Two of my greatest hates are: nannying states; and the imposition of one man's opinions upon another; but both censuring and censorship have their place in a tolerant, but strong, knowing and defended community.
With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
| [reply] |
|
|
Yes, there is already "censorship" every time a post is reaped. The only question is whether another particular kind of posting should be censored as well. And not even censored in an absolute sense, if possible, but somehow discouraged more strongly than the current system allows, since that isn't working.
Another thing to consider: maybe as long as only one member is doing it, BrowserUK and other experts can keep up with replies to all his harmful posts, pointing out to newbies what's wrong with them (though I don't know why they should be obligated to do so). But what if there were a dozen members doing it, or he retired from his day job and could post 12 times as often? Would they still be able to alleviate all the damage with replies? Should they have to?
PerlMonks is the most open forum I've ever participated in, other than unmoderated Usenet groups. That's a good thing in a lot of ways. It makes the site very welcoming for newcomers; even those who post without reading the most basic instructions are treated respectfully and generously helped. But that openness and desire for loose enforcement of standards does have a downside, in that it can be taken advantage of by those who shamelessly flout the voluntary standards of the community.
Aaron B.
Available for small or large Perl jobs and *nix system administration; see my home node.
| [reply] |
|
|
PerlMonks is the most open forum I've ever participated in,
I agree. And I wouldn't want that to change; certainly not in any autocratic way; and absolutely not in any way that gives me that right.
But I do think there is a place for democratic censorship. And if that could be strengthened or extended to deal with this persistent irritation; I think that would be an acceptable trade.
With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
| [reply] |
|
|
he taints us all with his uttering
Why?
I don't think in the least that you (or this forum or whatever) is tainted in any way by allowing nonsensensical posts that then get refuted by people that know better.
As I said I can understand your frustration but nevertheless allowing nonsense to be uttered while unambiguously calling nonsense nonsense is the way to do it.
And just because you mentioned it: I live in a country where holocaust denial is not only censored - it is actually considered a crime.
However that does not bother the so inclined...
But I must admit that I don't vote at all when at least I should have downvoted some postings...
| [reply] |
|
|
that then get refuted by people that know better
I'm sick of making that effort.
I was looking for a solution that doesn't allow this irritant to waste so much of my time; whilst preventing his garbage from wasting that of other people who might be taken in by it.
With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
| [reply] |
|
|
morgon: Why? ... unambiguously calling nonsense nonsense is the way to do it. Yeah few of us tried that -- a number of such nodes got reaped for trolling
3809 nodes is a lot of garbage to refute
| [reply] |
|
|