Wikileaks thread management December 14, 2010 8:39 AM Subscribe
Wikileaks: Its a big story and is going to run for a while yet, how about sidebarring the recent huge thread so that people don't feel the need to create new ones?
Or, any other ideas? I realise this isn't supposed to be newsfilter but this is a big long running story about the internet, and people are keen to talk about it, so how best to handle it?
Or, any other ideas? I realise this isn't supposed to be newsfilter but this is a big long running story about the internet, and people are keen to talk about it, so how best to handle it?
It's a tough call. From this end, a majority of the comments are "here's my snarky comment on this" and often don't involve anyone actually reading the links, knowing the details about the case, etc. For instance, the current thread has a bunch of people snarking on the bail conditions when in fact his lawyers requested those conditions. I don't know what the solution is.
posted by proj at 8:52 AM on December 14, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by proj at 8:52 AM on December 14, 2010 [1 favorite]
I think a large part of the problem is that this story is multifaceted. You have Assange, his legal troubles, wikileaks itself, government secrets, collusion and malfeasance and corporate institution secrets / unilateral acts allegedly taken on behalf of the US government but perhaps just to save themselves embarrassment. Not to mention 4Chan's involvement.
The Wikileaks story, like many others, gets deeper and more complex as it develops.
I used to think that sidebarring the single open thread, or perhaps an ongoing sidebar feature: "ongoing conversations:" would be helpful. But there's always going to be someone (I've done this myself) who thinks a new piece of news is so interesting that it deserves its own FPP. "Yes, there's an open thread, but that's about this part of the story and this is something different."
posted by zarq at 8:56 AM on December 14, 2010 [3 favorites]
The Wikileaks story, like many others, gets deeper and more complex as it develops.
I used to think that sidebarring the single open thread, or perhaps an ongoing sidebar feature: "ongoing conversations:" would be helpful. But there's always going to be someone (I've done this myself) who thinks a new piece of news is so interesting that it deserves its own FPP. "Yes, there's an open thread, but that's about this part of the story and this is something different."
posted by zarq at 8:56 AM on December 14, 2010 [3 favorites]
For instance, the current thread has a bunch of people snarking on the bail conditions when in fact his lawyers requested those conditions. I don't know what the solution is.
There isn't one, other than knowledgeable comments that rebut inaccurate ones. You can't force people to read links, any more than you can improve their reading comprehension skills.
posted by zarq at 8:58 AM on December 14, 2010
There isn't one, other than knowledgeable comments that rebut inaccurate ones. You can't force people to read links, any more than you can improve their reading comprehension skills.
posted by zarq at 8:58 AM on December 14, 2010
I don't think we can get away from snarkery, and to some extent I think just the fact that it's a big ongoing topic means we've got some extra stuff in play that makes the dynamic weirder in a no-win way than normal:
- people who know we're trying to keep the posts to a dull roar are probably more likely to flag any given post or to comment about the fact that there are open posts
- people who are tired of the topic are more likely to beef a bit in threads or to be snarky/jokey instead of engaging substantially
- people who have been following the whole thing closely are likely to be annoyed at the people not taking it seriously
- people who are frustrated that we're not letting more of the things stand may be more fighty with people making noise about the thread
My feeling is the new thread about Assange making bail (or, uh, being in the process of probably making bail, at this moment?) this morning is kind of a Well, That's Actually News development that'd probably be a decent basis for rebooting the Assange discussion in the previous 1000+ comment thread. On the other hand, we're seeing a lot of flags on and grousing in that thread; does that mean we kill it, or do we treat it as an "okay, people are grumpy, see bullet points above, but let's run with it" situation?
And that's basically the sort of discussion we've been having on Team Mod with every new wikileaks post. Our initial call this morning has been to keep that new post, but we're sort of watching it now and trying to take the temperature of the thread and the site to see if that's really going to feel like the right call in another half hour or so.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:00 AM on December 14, 2010 [2 favorites]
- people who know we're trying to keep the posts to a dull roar are probably more likely to flag any given post or to comment about the fact that there are open posts
- people who are tired of the topic are more likely to beef a bit in threads or to be snarky/jokey instead of engaging substantially
- people who have been following the whole thing closely are likely to be annoyed at the people not taking it seriously
- people who are frustrated that we're not letting more of the things stand may be more fighty with people making noise about the thread
My feeling is the new thread about Assange making bail (or, uh, being in the process of probably making bail, at this moment?) this morning is kind of a Well, That's Actually News development that'd probably be a decent basis for rebooting the Assange discussion in the previous 1000+ comment thread. On the other hand, we're seeing a lot of flags on and grousing in that thread; does that mean we kill it, or do we treat it as an "okay, people are grumpy, see bullet points above, but let's run with it" situation?
And that's basically the sort of discussion we've been having on Team Mod with every new wikileaks post. Our initial call this morning has been to keep that new post, but we're sort of watching it now and trying to take the temperature of the thread and the site to see if that's really going to feel like the right call in another half hour or so.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:00 AM on December 14, 2010 [2 favorites]
Honestly, I am not seeing much of a problem. I think that the posts that have stayed should've stayed because they were related to majorly different facets or major new developments, and I think that the ones that have been deleted deserved deletion.
Any time there is a major, medium-to-long term developing story like this, we see lots of posts and the attendant grumblings. I think much more often than not we do just fine with it, though. Look no farther than the front page of the blue, which is chock full of awesome posts right now!
posted by rollbiz at 9:05 AM on December 14, 2010
Any time there is a major, medium-to-long term developing story like this, we see lots of posts and the attendant grumblings. I think much more often than not we do just fine with it, though. Look no farther than the front page of the blue, which is chock full of awesome posts right now!
posted by rollbiz at 9:05 AM on December 14, 2010
Also, might be good to have a link to the new post here.
posted by rollbiz at 9:06 AM on December 14, 2010
posted by rollbiz at 9:06 AM on December 14, 2010
a decent basis for rebooting the Assange discussion in the previous 1000+ comment thread
Discussion-management issues aside, scrolling to the bottom of a mega-thread on a mobile browsing device is a major nuisance.
I'm glad the new thread is, as yet, clinging to life.
posted by Joe Beese at 9:16 AM on December 14, 2010 [1 favorite]
Discussion-management issues aside, scrolling to the bottom of a mega-thread on a mobile browsing device is a major nuisance.
I'm glad the new thread is, as yet, clinging to life.
posted by Joe Beese at 9:16 AM on December 14, 2010 [1 favorite]
The easy way to do it on the iPhone site anyway is just to click "skip to menu" at the top of the screen and then scroll back up.
posted by proj at 9:16 AM on December 14, 2010
posted by proj at 9:16 AM on December 14, 2010
Let's just open up MetaWiki and get it over with.
Seriously, it would be great to do some sort of "mother ship" thread, but I agree - reading massive posts on a mobile device is a trial. Perhaps this is a topic that the much beloved site layout can't manage in a practical way? So everyone's a little miserable, isn't that a sign of a good compromise?
posted by nevercalm at 9:20 AM on December 14, 2010
Seriously, it would be great to do some sort of "mother ship" thread, but I agree - reading massive posts on a mobile device is a trial. Perhaps this is a topic that the much beloved site layout can't manage in a practical way? So everyone's a little miserable, isn't that a sign of a good compromise?
posted by nevercalm at 9:20 AM on December 14, 2010
So everyone's a little miserable, isn't that a sign of a good compromise?
Which of my siblings are you?
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:22 AM on December 14, 2010 [5 favorites]
Which of my siblings are you?
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:22 AM on December 14, 2010 [5 favorites]
You can't force people to read links, any more than you can improve their reading comprehension skills.
This is a very frustrating attitude to take. I asked about the bail conditions because they seemed pretty odd to me (especially the curfew in the middle of the day). If you don't want to talk about that aspect of the case, then don't. As it happens, I do.
As it turns out, his lawyer requested the conditions, a fact which was reported on the Guardian blog. Obviously, I must be a third-class imbecile to have failed to note that particular point, despite it not being found in any of the articles linked in FPP.
posted by ssg at 9:27 AM on December 14, 2010 [1 favorite]
This is a very frustrating attitude to take. I asked about the bail conditions because they seemed pretty odd to me (especially the curfew in the middle of the day). If you don't want to talk about that aspect of the case, then don't. As it happens, I do.
As it turns out, his lawyer requested the conditions, a fact which was reported on the Guardian blog. Obviously, I must be a third-class imbecile to have failed to note that particular point, despite it not being found in any of the articles linked in FPP.
posted by ssg at 9:27 AM on December 14, 2010 [1 favorite]
I don't think we need the flashing lights, but maybe an Iraq-War-alert type thing would help. "If you're thinking about making a post about Wikileaks..."
posted by Eideteker at 9:33 AM on December 14, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by Eideteker at 9:33 AM on December 14, 2010 [1 favorite]
I think the really frustrating thing about these threads, though, is that a great deal of the conversation is not really germane to the links and boils down to "he's a rapist," "he's not a rapist," or "he may or may not be a rapist but we can't know for sure" (the latter being the minority view). Then, people iterate and reiterate the reasons why it's painfully obvious that this is a setup or not a setup and so on. It's the same discussion over and over. For that reason, I don't see a problem with relegating it to a 1000+ comment thread. However, I realize I should just not read them.
posted by proj at 9:35 AM on December 14, 2010 [2 favorites]
posted by proj at 9:35 AM on December 14, 2010 [2 favorites]
Which of my siblings are you?
Hopefully the older one who always gets the pick of the donuts....
posted by nevercalm at 9:37 AM on December 14, 2010
Hopefully the older one who always gets the pick of the donuts....
posted by nevercalm at 9:37 AM on December 14, 2010
I find many aspects of this story compelling, I've been following it closely, and I see no problem sticking to the existing open threads. What does the new one add? What new angle or aspect or idea about the whole affair does it allow us to discuss from a fresh perspective? Just reporting the latest little bit of Assange news doesn't seem to require a new or different discussion.
posted by RogerB at 9:40 AM on December 14, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by RogerB at 9:40 AM on December 14, 2010 [1 favorite]
This is a very frustrating attitude to take.
It wasn't meant as a personal attack. I've had some experience making posts in which people comment but don't read the contents of the links. In one memorable instance, someone accused me of not mentioning an aspect of a story in a post, but it hadn't yet come to light when the post was created.
As it turns out, his lawyer requested the conditions, a fact which was reported on the Guardian blog. Obviously, I must be a third-class imbecile to have failed to note that particular point, despite it not being found in any of the articles linked in FPP.
My comment isn't about you personally. It was a general statement, meant to be applied to people who don't read the links in a post.
posted by zarq at 9:46 AM on December 14, 2010
It wasn't meant as a personal attack. I've had some experience making posts in which people comment but don't read the contents of the links. In one memorable instance, someone accused me of not mentioning an aspect of a story in a post, but it hadn't yet come to light when the post was created.
As it turns out, his lawyer requested the conditions, a fact which was reported on the Guardian blog. Obviously, I must be a third-class imbecile to have failed to note that particular point, despite it not being found in any of the articles linked in FPP.
My comment isn't about you personally. It was a general statement, meant to be applied to people who don't read the links in a post.
posted by zarq at 9:46 AM on December 14, 2010
And zarq's point also further underscores the difficulties of posts on developing news topics.
posted by proj at 9:50 AM on December 14, 2010
posted by proj at 9:50 AM on December 14, 2010
Aren't we having a 'best wikileaks post of the month' contest this month?
posted by empath at 9:54 AM on December 14, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by empath at 9:54 AM on December 14, 2010 [1 favorite]
It was a general statement, meant to be applied to people who don't read the links in a post.
seems to me that if you're going to accuse people of that, you ought to read them yourself and make sure that your statement is accurate
posted by pyramid termite at 9:58 AM on December 14, 2010
seems to me that if you're going to accuse people of that, you ought to read them yourself and make sure that your statement is accurate
posted by pyramid termite at 9:58 AM on December 14, 2010
seems to me that if you're going to accuse people of that, you ought to read them yourself and make sure that your statement is accurate
It seems to me that you should probably direct your ire at proj rather than me, considering that I was responding to his initial statement. But hey, whatever.
posted by zarq at 10:09 AM on December 14, 2010
It seems to me that you should probably direct your ire at proj rather than me, considering that I was responding to his initial statement. But hey, whatever.
posted by zarq at 10:09 AM on December 14, 2010
The problem here is that you are taking an inadequate measure of my personal preferences on this issue.
OH DON'T BOTHER ASKING NOW. I KNOW YOU DON'T REALLY CARE.
*snif*
posted by norm at 10:15 AM on December 14, 2010
OH DON'T BOTHER ASKING NOW. I KNOW YOU DON'T REALLY CARE.
*snif*
posted by norm at 10:15 AM on December 14, 2010
And zarq's point also further underscores the difficulties of posts on developing news topics.
Unfortunately, once any thread gets a few hundred comments or more we inevitably see folks who want to jump into the discussion without reading what came before. Often, they rehash discussion points that have already been covered. Or offer up links which have already been posted earlier in the thread. Or yes, complain that a post is incomplete after the fact.
I think this is a similar, related problem to the one you noted earlier, but in this case, rather than not reading the links in a post, people may not want to read hundreds of comments in order to weigh in. Which is kind of understandable.
posted by zarq at 10:20 AM on December 14, 2010
Unfortunately, once any thread gets a few hundred comments or more we inevitably see folks who want to jump into the discussion without reading what came before. Often, they rehash discussion points that have already been covered. Or offer up links which have already been posted earlier in the thread. Or yes, complain that a post is incomplete after the fact.
I think this is a similar, related problem to the one you noted earlier, but in this case, rather than not reading the links in a post, people may not want to read hundreds of comments in order to weigh in. Which is kind of understandable.
posted by zarq at 10:20 AM on December 14, 2010
^ Also, might be good to have a link to the new post here.
Except he isn't out on bail pending the high court appeal in two days time.
I agree that after 1000 comments plus that the threads get very confused and seem to rehash old arguments ad infinitum (but this is metafilter so that's what happens.)
I welcome a new thread every three or four days especially as the old one will have scrolled well off the page, thus only aficionados will seek them out. However the present one is not it as the basic headline announcement is wrong.
posted by adamvasco at 10:26 AM on December 14, 2010 [1 favorite]
Except he isn't out on bail pending the high court appeal in two days time.
I agree that after 1000 comments plus that the threads get very confused and seem to rehash old arguments ad infinitum (but this is metafilter so that's what happens.)
I welcome a new thread every three or four days especially as the old one will have scrolled well off the page, thus only aficionados will seek them out. However the present one is not it as the basic headline announcement is wrong.
posted by adamvasco at 10:26 AM on December 14, 2010 [1 favorite]
people may not want to read hundreds of comments in order to weigh in. Which is kind of understandable.
Yes it is, and it's a great argument for why a "no matter how continually developing, multi-faceted, or important the topic, it can only have one post" policy would not be ideal.
posted by rollbiz at 10:38 AM on December 14, 2010
Yes it is, and it's a great argument for why a "no matter how continually developing, multi-faceted, or important the topic, it can only have one post" policy would not be ideal.
posted by rollbiz at 10:38 AM on December 14, 2010
If we don't have a wikileaks post EVERY DAY people will assume Juliann Assange is dead and freak out.
In fact perhaps we could just devote the top half of the homepage to being a Juliann Assange status monitor which shows his current leel of health, happiness, legal entanglement, etc... etc...?
posted by Artw at 10:52 AM on December 14, 2010
In fact perhaps we could just devote the top half of the homepage to being a Juliann Assange status monitor which shows his current leel of health, happiness, legal entanglement, etc... etc...?
posted by Artw at 10:52 AM on December 14, 2010
In fact perhaps we could just devote the top half of the homepage to being a Juliann Assange status monitor which shows his current leel of health, happiness, legal entanglement, etc... etc...?
I have built a tool for you.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:56 AM on December 14, 2010
I have built a tool for you.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:56 AM on December 14, 2010
Also, we could debate what level of red his photos should be photoshopped to make him seem the most satanic. Oh wait, that's already in the current one.
posted by proj at 10:56 AM on December 14, 2010
posted by proj at 10:56 AM on December 14, 2010
I welcome a new thread every three or four days especially as the old one will have scrolled well off the page, thus only aficionados will seek them out.
Well, that and people who have already commented in the original thread will be able to follow using their recent activity tabs. :)
I like this idea, but wonder if it might drive people nuts trying to keep up with lots of threads on the same topic.
posted by zarq at 10:56 AM on December 14, 2010
Well, that and people who have already commented in the original thread will be able to follow using their recent activity tabs. :)
I like this idea, but wonder if it might drive people nuts trying to keep up with lots of threads on the same topic.
posted by zarq at 10:56 AM on December 14, 2010
I read the new thread and man.... the commentary has really sunk to new lows. Anagrams of Assange's name and discussion of the tint on one of the photos? Really? This is what we need another Assange-related thread for? REALLY?!
Man, we disappoint me sometimes.
I am a sucker for a good Swedish chef joke though. Børk børk børk.
posted by sonika at 11:12 AM on December 14, 2010 [2 favorites]
Man, we disappoint me sometimes.
I am a sucker for a good Swedish chef joke though. Børk børk børk.
posted by sonika at 11:12 AM on December 14, 2010 [2 favorites]
Can we have a conspiracy thread and a non-conspiracy thread?
posted by Ad hominem at 11:19 AM on December 14, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by Ad hominem at 11:19 AM on December 14, 2010 [1 favorite]
Anagrams of Assange's name and discussion of the tint on one of the photos?
I thought they were some of the better comments in that thread.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 11:28 AM on December 14, 2010
I thought they were some of the better comments in that thread.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 11:28 AM on December 14, 2010
It's the same discussion over and over.
I don't read any of the Wikileaks stuff on Mefi now. Not because I'm not interested in the story, which I do follow in mainstream media, but because the ratio of interesting comments to rehashes of the same-old same-old is not very appealing.
I don't know what could be done about this though, apart from much stricter moderation, which is probably unfeasible.
posted by philipy at 11:30 AM on December 14, 2010
I don't read any of the Wikileaks stuff on Mefi now. Not because I'm not interested in the story, which I do follow in mainstream media, but because the ratio of interesting comments to rehashes of the same-old same-old is not very appealing.
I don't know what could be done about this though, apart from much stricter moderation, which is probably unfeasible.
posted by philipy at 11:30 AM on December 14, 2010
we could debate what level of red his photos should be photoshopped to make him seem the most satanic
To my mind, #740707 has that real Reign in Blood feel. YMMV.
posted by Joe Beese at 11:33 AM on December 14, 2010
To my mind, #740707 has that real Reign in Blood feel. YMMV.
posted by Joe Beese at 11:33 AM on December 14, 2010
You damn kids, with your Wikileaks links, you outta be ashamed. In my day we made posts about decent things, like cat scans and Apple product announcements.
...but because the ratio of interesting comments to rehashes of the same-old same-old is not very appealing.
Yeah this. It's reminding me of CNN, where the same story is blared repeatedly for hours, whether anything important has occurred or not. Combine that with the screeching "The sky is falling" political posts and it feels like a certain segment of the population is losing its shit, sort of like teabaggers, but in reverse. It ain't pretty.
posted by nomadicink at 11:38 AM on December 14, 2010 [2 favorites]
...but because the ratio of interesting comments to rehashes of the same-old same-old is not very appealing.
Yeah this. It's reminding me of CNN, where the same story is blared repeatedly for hours, whether anything important has occurred or not. Combine that with the screeching "The sky is falling" political posts and it feels like a certain segment of the population is losing its shit, sort of like teabaggers, but in reverse. It ain't pretty.
posted by nomadicink at 11:38 AM on December 14, 2010 [2 favorites]
Can we have a conspiracy thread and a non-conspiracy thread?
They're all conspiracy threads, man. They just don't want you to know.
posted by shakespeherian at 11:40 AM on December 14, 2010
They're all conspiracy threads, man. They just don't want you to know.
posted by shakespeherian at 11:40 AM on December 14, 2010
The tea is on the outside of the bag, but there is still tea, and there is still a bag.
posted by found missing at 11:42 AM on December 14, 2010
posted by found missing at 11:42 AM on December 14, 2010
Is there a spoon?
posted by nomadicink at 11:48 AM on December 14, 2010
posted by nomadicink at 11:48 AM on December 14, 2010
Yes, but it is convex rather than concave.
posted by found missing at 11:51 AM on December 14, 2010
posted by found missing at 11:51 AM on December 14, 2010
I don't know what could be done about this though, apart from much stricter moderation, which is probably unfeasible.
is not very appealing. That depends are your views on text and media.
It's the same discussion over and over. refer above.
The main problem is data. (a big pun intended) The subject matter is Journalism and Espionage. Even as we type the legal defintion to determine the definitiveargument for further action are going through 'brute force like' motions. The farady cages are whirling and the media cannot pick up on this as much as they would like. It violates the three source "Code". DC "insiders" of course would rib me to shreads but i doubt they would post here with opined conjecture. now a journalist can give a great prespective but the scramble for context shifts almost hour to hour. This event has been underestimated in its short term circumstances. The aspect of espionage is usually based in humour which i find most comforting.
(rhetoric:)
so joe, what type of camera was the journalist using?
They're all conspiracy threads, man. They just don't want you to know.
Descartes, yes.
'I take as metaphysical poetry that in which what is ordinarily apprehensible only by thought is brought within the grasp of feeling, or that in which what is ordinarily only felt is transformed into thought without ceasing to be feeling.'
T. S. Eliot
posted by clavdivs at 11:57 AM on December 14, 2010
Is that a serious clavdivs post or a cryptic clavdivs post? I can't tell.
posted by proj at 12:01 PM on December 14, 2010 [2 favorites]
posted by proj at 12:01 PM on December 14, 2010 [2 favorites]
They're all cryptic clavdivs posts. :D
I kid, I kid....
posted by zarq at 12:03 PM on December 14, 2010 [2 favorites]
I kid, I kid....
posted by zarq at 12:03 PM on December 14, 2010 [2 favorites]
Seriously, what the fuck is that meant to say? It's like talking to RACTER.
posted by RogerB at 12:04 PM on December 14, 2010 [2 favorites]
posted by RogerB at 12:04 PM on December 14, 2010 [2 favorites]
We need koesilitz to belt out some 2000+ word post on why calvdivs is great, like he did with ... Faze ...
Seriously, I love clavdivs. Just trying to read his posts brightens my day.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 12:23 PM on December 14, 2010
Seriously, I love clavdivs. Just trying to read his posts brightens my day.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 12:23 PM on December 14, 2010
It's like talking to RACTER.
Are you suggesting that clavdivs is a chatterbot?
Now that you mention it, I believe it would be possible to construct an Artificial MeFite, which could pass the MeTuring Test. Perhaps it's already been done.
posted by philipy at 12:26 PM on December 14, 2010
Are you suggesting that clavdivs is a chatterbot?
Now that you mention it, I believe it would be possible to construct an Artificial MeFite, which could pass the MeTuring Test. Perhaps it's already been done.
posted by philipy at 12:26 PM on December 14, 2010
'Canadian weather shuts down production at General Motors' Flint Truck Assembly'Published: Tuesday, December 14, 2010, 3:12 PM
so, it was CANADIAN WEATHER huh. really, to ask for coherence is like asking for wonka bars to fly out of my screen. do i blame the weather or canada for the impediment of commerce because this could be construed as an act of war. That CANADIAN weather.
look, the central subject is espionage and journalism. is this not so?
the subject matter in the "grey"
"Or, any other ideas? I realise this isn't supposed to be newsfilter but this is a big long running story about the internet, and people are keen to talk about it, so how best to handle it?
Our initial call this morning has been to keep that new post, but we're sort of watching it now and trying to take the temperature of the thread and the site to see if that's really going to feel like the right call in another half hour or so.
posted by clavdivs at 12:39 PM on December 14, 2010
so, it was CANADIAN WEATHER huh. really, to ask for coherence is like asking for wonka bars to fly out of my screen. do i blame the weather or canada for the impediment of commerce because this could be construed as an act of war. That CANADIAN weather.
look, the central subject is espionage and journalism. is this not so?
the subject matter in the "grey"
"Or, any other ideas? I realise this isn't supposed to be newsfilter but this is a big long running story about the internet, and people are keen to talk about it, so how best to handle it?
Our initial call this morning has been to keep that new post, but we're sort of watching it now and trying to take the temperature of the thread and the site to see if that's really going to feel like the right call in another half hour or so.
posted by clavdivs at 12:39 PM on December 14, 2010
Now that you mention it, I believe it would be possible to construct an Artificial MeFite, which could pass the MeTuring Test.
Oddly enough, I was just discussing with Jessamyn this morning the idea of a domain-specific chatterbot designed to escape detection as a bot by relying on being so rhetorically maddening that people would be too busy reacting to its bad faith mode of argumentation to notice that it was a bot. Basically load it up with a rich vocabulary of annoying rhetorical idioms and have it take snotty potshots at random users using some very simple topic detection; in a context where people aren't expecting a bot, they'd likely (if it was done well) assume they're dealing with someone who is just an annoying jerk.
By refraining from trying to engage a topic coherently (which is a Hard Problem), the bot avoids revealing itself through implausible incoherence. By avoiding trying to engage specific users in any meaningful way (e.g. it might namecheck a commenter dismissively but not in any substantial meta-knowledgeable way) it avoids revealing itself as a bot through bungled ongoing engagements. It concentrates on vague but rhetorically sticky constructions and relies on the annoyance of others at its useless behavior to create a reaction. A troll bot. It doesn't have to convince you its real because you ("you" being, notably, a large crowd among whom at least a couple people are likely to respond even if they should know better) are too busy assuming it is in fact a flesh-and-blood asshole.
The problem with this idea is that if I actually built something reasonably successful I'd be barred by every ethical bone in my body from actually testing it on an unsuspecting audience.
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:41 PM on December 14, 2010 [3 favorites]
Oddly enough, I was just discussing with Jessamyn this morning the idea of a domain-specific chatterbot designed to escape detection as a bot by relying on being so rhetorically maddening that people would be too busy reacting to its bad faith mode of argumentation to notice that it was a bot. Basically load it up with a rich vocabulary of annoying rhetorical idioms and have it take snotty potshots at random users using some very simple topic detection; in a context where people aren't expecting a bot, they'd likely (if it was done well) assume they're dealing with someone who is just an annoying jerk.
By refraining from trying to engage a topic coherently (which is a Hard Problem), the bot avoids revealing itself through implausible incoherence. By avoiding trying to engage specific users in any meaningful way (e.g. it might namecheck a commenter dismissively but not in any substantial meta-knowledgeable way) it avoids revealing itself as a bot through bungled ongoing engagements. It concentrates on vague but rhetorically sticky constructions and relies on the annoyance of others at its useless behavior to create a reaction. A troll bot. It doesn't have to convince you its real because you ("you" being, notably, a large crowd among whom at least a couple people are likely to respond even if they should know better) are too busy assuming it is in fact a flesh-and-blood asshole.
The problem with this idea is that if I actually built something reasonably successful I'd be barred by every ethical bone in my body from actually testing it on an unsuspecting audience.
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:41 PM on December 14, 2010 [3 favorites]
If we don't have a wikileaks post EVERY DAY people will assume Juliann Assange is dead and
...release the insurance file. Mefi is the canary in the coal mine. Two consecutive days of no wikileaks posts, and the file about the lizard people gets dumped into a new thread here, throws the world into turmoil, and wins the December best post competition.
posted by reynir at 12:51 PM on December 14, 2010 [1 favorite]
...release the insurance file. Mefi is the canary in the coal mine. Two consecutive days of no wikileaks posts, and the file about the lizard people gets dumped into a new thread here, throws the world into turmoil, and wins the December best post competition.
posted by reynir at 12:51 PM on December 14, 2010 [1 favorite]
And since I'm bringing up the past....
I've recently finalized the sale of a long-running community website to a major media conglomerate. I have not yet told the users. Should I embed a veiled admission in a jokey April Fool's page so that I can point to it later and claim that, technically, I *did* warn them?posted by zarq at 12:52 PM on December 14, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by anonymous to food & the drink at 9:16 AM - 1142 answers [+] [!]
empath: "Cleanup on aisle c13 needed."
I flagged that shit.
posted by zarq at 1:12 PM on December 14, 2010
I flagged that shit.
posted by zarq at 1:12 PM on December 14, 2010
empath: "Me too! *high five*"
We should create a second MeTa post where people can make all the sexist remarks about alleged rape victims they want without creating a derail. That'll end well.
posted by zarq at 1:26 PM on December 14, 2010
We should create a second MeTa post where people can make all the sexist remarks about alleged rape victims they want without creating a derail. That'll end well.
posted by zarq at 1:26 PM on December 14, 2010
We should create a second MeTa post where people can make all the sexist remarks about alleged rape victims they want without creating a derail.
People should STFU or GTFO instead, actually.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 1:34 PM on December 14, 2010 [1 favorite]
People should STFU or GTFO instead, actually.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 1:34 PM on December 14, 2010 [1 favorite]
jessamyn: " People should STFU or GTFO instead, actually."
If only.
posted by zarq at 1:36 PM on December 14, 2010
If only.
posted by zarq at 1:36 PM on December 14, 2010
The problem with this idea is that if I actually built something reasonably successful I'd be barred by every ethical bone in my body from actually testing it on an unsuspecting audience.
Tell me more about your reasonably successful I'd be barred.
posted by Mayor West at 2:00 PM on December 14, 2010 [3 favorites]
Tell me more about your reasonably successful I'd be barred.
posted by Mayor West at 2:00 PM on December 14, 2010 [3 favorites]
'MSTPT'
best.name.ever.
while work halts, snow crane enjoys sun
i walk soft around mess to say domo
that is all.
posted by clavdivs at 2:03 PM on December 14, 2010
best.name.ever.
while work halts, snow crane enjoys sun
i walk soft around mess to say domo
that is all.
posted by clavdivs at 2:03 PM on December 14, 2010
MetaFilter: to ask for coherence is like asking for wonka bars to fly out of my screen
posted by Marla Singer at 7:17 PM on December 14, 2010 [2 favorites]
posted by Marla Singer at 7:17 PM on December 14, 2010 [2 favorites]
people who are tired of the topic are more likely to beef a bit in threads or to be snarky/jokey instead of engaging substantially
It would be nice if they simply refrained from bothering with the thread, then.
posted by idiomatika at 6:11 AM on December 15, 2010
It would be nice if they simply refrained from bothering with the thread, then.
posted by idiomatika at 6:11 AM on December 15, 2010
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:46 AM on December 14, 2010