4 replies to this topic

[downinit]

As persons either part of, or aspiring to enter, a profession in which reasoned argument has a privileged status, should we really be encouraging debate to deteriorate into a popularity contest?

[Bure10]

downinit, on 26 May 2011 - 07:48 AM, said:

As persons either part of, or aspiring to enter, a profession in which reasoned argument has a privileged status, should we really be encouraging debate to deteriorate into a popularity contest?

Meh, I think it's working. Pyke, Diplock, Mal have the highest reps and they usually give the best and most honest information, also people that troll usually get down posted.

[veecee]

downinit, on 26 May 2011 - 07:48 AM, said:

As persons either part of, or aspiring to enter, a profession in which reasoned argument has a privileged status, should we really be encouraging debate to deteriorate into a popularity contest?

+infinity to veecee for ironically voting up your post.

[Diplock]

I'm of two minds here.

On the one hand, I believe in crowd sourcing. That is - the wisdom of the mass is greater than that of any individual. So I believe in voting up and down to give a better view of what should be trusted and what shouldn't. On the other hand, I believe in voting in relation to content rather than what you rightly call a popularity contest - voting for the individual. I'm well aware that any particular person might have a good or a bad day. Despite being cited as one of the most reputable advisors here, I might still be full of shit on a specific topic.

What balances this out, in my opinion, is that the votes on a specific post are what people actually see in a discussion and the reputation of a member (even if it is the cumulative total of all those votes) is hidden on their profile page. I'm okay with this system, because it removes the danger of lending artifical authority to what is otherwise a bad post. If I post something really dumb it will presumably get voted down and while my reputation would remain high otherwise it's the down votes you'd see on the post itself.

Maybe it can seem childish, in a small community, but I do believe in crowd sourcing. If it's good enough for all kinds of other social media, I don't see why it can't work usefully here.

[downinit]

veecee, on 26 May 2011 - 07:57 AM, said:

+infinity to veecee for ironically voting up your post.

I'm actually expecting to get slammed pretty hard with -rep as an ironic commentary on my request.

Diplock, on 26 May 2011 - 08:30 AM, said:

I'm of two minds here.

On the one hand, I believe in crowd sourcing. That is - the wisdom of the mass is greater than that of any individual. So I believe in voting up and down to give a better view of what should be trusted and what shouldn't. On the other hand, I believe in voting in relation to content rather than what you rightly call a popularity contest - voting for the individual. I'm well aware that any particular person might have a good or a bad day. Despite being cited as one of the most reputable advisors here, I might still be full of shit on a specific topic.

What balances this out, in my opinion, is that the votes on a specific post are what people actually see in a discussion and the reputation of a member (even if it is the cumulative total of all those votes) is hidden on their profile page. I'm okay with this system, because it removes the danger of lending artifical authority to what is otherwise a bad post. If I post something really dumb it will presumably get voted down and while my reputation would remain high otherwise it's the down votes you'd see on the post itself.

Maybe it can seem childish, in a small community, but I do believe in crowd sourcing. If it's good enough for all kinds of other social media, I don't see why it can't work usefully here.

I'm completely at odds with your belief that the crowd is wiser than the individual. More moderated, perhaps -- certainly larger samples are better at predicting the views of the population as a whole, but this says absolutely nothing about the wisdom of their views.

Also, a person's general reputation is always confounded with the content of their posts. Some people will deduct a point because they don't like what the person said; others will deduct a point because they generally don't like the person and feel as though it's a fitting opportunity to put them in their place. Somebody with a reputation as glowing as your own would have to become pretty disagreeable before anybody would dare to make a point deduction, and you'd likely find yourself being rewarded for saying things that would be completely overlooked if stated by anybody else. This isn't to detract from the content of your posts, which is generally excellent, but it serves to recognize that even those people who deserve recognition might actually have their impact skewed when petty prejudices become involved.

Ultimately I would hope that people are independent enough that they wouldn't waver based on what a few non-randomly selected voters think of what they've said, but the impulse to conform is there, and I don't think conformity is useful unless it can be backed up by actual reasoning.