Commenters Try to Fix Broken Link in FPP December 19, 2001 10:30 AM Subscribe
This is interesting. Postroad's post had a bad link and other members went searching for an appropriate link. And finally they did find one which seems to fit perfectly(Good work, Tubes and Real9!)
I had a link too, but hesitated, as I didn't know whether this would be intruding on Postroad's post. How could I tell it was my link he was thinking of? Is it ethical or just Darwinian to provide a FPP's missing link?
So - is it right to "find a link" by proxy, based on a post's wording? (FWIW, I think it's acceptable, but strange).
We all know people who post to the FP should check that their links work. But shouldn't they also hang around for an hour or so to see if any there are any solvable problems?
I had a link too, but hesitated, as I didn't know whether this would be intruding on Postroad's post. How could I tell it was my link he was thinking of? Is it ethical or just Darwinian to provide a FPP's missing link?
So - is it right to "find a link" by proxy, based on a post's wording? (FWIW, I think it's acceptable, but strange).
We all know people who post to the FP should check that their links work. But shouldn't they also hang around for an hour or so to see if any there are any solvable problems?
miguel:
We all know people who post to the FP should check that their links work. But shouldn't they also hang around for an hour or so to see if any there are any solvable problems?
no. there isn't really anything more the poster can do that the commentors cannot. i think no one should have to be a thread's custodian if they don't want to be (though i've done it in the past, as have others).
How could I tell it was my link he was thinking of? Is it ethical or just Darwinian to provide a FPP's missing link?
does it really matter? in postroad's case, the issue was a news item, so the source would not seem to matter much. i think fixing a broken link is a nice thing to do, but to say it's "ethical" seems too severe. the crux of my opinion, i suppose, is that i think no one truly has a responsibility to participate in a thread -- not even the poster. but it is nice to offer up a fix if you've got one.
posted by moz at 10:44 AM on December 19, 2001
We all know people who post to the FP should check that their links work. But shouldn't they also hang around for an hour or so to see if any there are any solvable problems?
no. there isn't really anything more the poster can do that the commentors cannot. i think no one should have to be a thread's custodian if they don't want to be (though i've done it in the past, as have others).
How could I tell it was my link he was thinking of? Is it ethical or just Darwinian to provide a FPP's missing link?
does it really matter? in postroad's case, the issue was a news item, so the source would not seem to matter much. i think fixing a broken link is a nice thing to do, but to say it's "ethical" seems too severe. the crux of my opinion, i suppose, is that i think no one truly has a responsibility to participate in a thread -- not even the poster. but it is nice to offer up a fix if you've got one.
posted by moz at 10:44 AM on December 19, 2001
Yes, I think it does matter, moz.
The point is this wasn't a case of fixing a link - there was nothing there to fix. It pointed to a MeFi URL. We had to Google and hunt. That is the question. Also, news items in Middle East politics are notoriously different from each other. You can easily get a pro-Israeli or a pro-Palestinian report.
Suppose I made a FPP, forgot to provide a fixable link, and someone else found another one which was, to me, inappropriate? Wouldn't that cause a problem? Would I have the right to then break into the thread, interrupting an interesting discussion and say "Hey, that's not the link? This one is!".
I don't think I would.. But it's not that simple. It involves custodianship and responsibility for one's posts, which is, IMHO, always interesting.
(Btw, Postroad has just confirmed one of the links was the one he meant!)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 10:58 AM on December 19, 2001
The point is this wasn't a case of fixing a link - there was nothing there to fix. It pointed to a MeFi URL. We had to Google and hunt. That is the question. Also, news items in Middle East politics are notoriously different from each other. You can easily get a pro-Israeli or a pro-Palestinian report.
Suppose I made a FPP, forgot to provide a fixable link, and someone else found another one which was, to me, inappropriate? Wouldn't that cause a problem? Would I have the right to then break into the thread, interrupting an interesting discussion and say "Hey, that's not the link? This one is!".
I don't think I would.. But it's not that simple. It involves custodianship and responsibility for one's posts, which is, IMHO, always interesting.
(Btw, Postroad has just confirmed one of the links was the one he meant!)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 10:58 AM on December 19, 2001
miguel:
Suppose I made a FPP, forgot to provide a fixable link, and someone else found another one which was, to me, inappropriate? Wouldn't that cause a problem?
if you think the links that others provide are inappropriate, say so -- everyone is entitled to their opinion. otherwise, i think no problem is caused in particular. consider if others think that your chosen link (you being the hypothetical poster) are inappropriate; why haven't they as much right to request that it point to something which they approve of? the reason why, as you say, is that as a poster you would like "custodianship" of your content.
i disagree with the notion that one owns their content (besides copyright) here, and i think it is counter to the environment here. on many community systems, you are allowed to edit your posts -- perhaps to update them, or to strike out content -- but you cannot do so on metafilter. (which may or may not be influenced by the fact that the infamous dave winer has supposedly written controversial material, which others write about, only to see dave's posting removed by him later. see the rant on camworld where cam points out something dave has written? cam used a screenshot to quote from in case dave removes the relevant posting later.)
matt has, in the past, stated that he prefers things to be that way. in the system we have here, it seems to me such ownership of content would be out of place. i see matt's point, and i agree with it; when changes are called for in the content of a comment or fpp, he's the one to make them. otherwise, let what you've written stand.
Would I have the right to then break into the thread, interrupting an interesting discussion and say "Hey, that's not the link? This one is!". I don't think I would..
i don't see why you can't interject. i don't see commentary on metafilter as wholly analagous to spoken conversation; you won't break anyone's train of thought by offering your own opinion, for they can simply skip past your words (if they like).
posted by moz at 11:27 AM on December 19, 2001
Suppose I made a FPP, forgot to provide a fixable link, and someone else found another one which was, to me, inappropriate? Wouldn't that cause a problem?
if you think the links that others provide are inappropriate, say so -- everyone is entitled to their opinion. otherwise, i think no problem is caused in particular. consider if others think that your chosen link (you being the hypothetical poster) are inappropriate; why haven't they as much right to request that it point to something which they approve of? the reason why, as you say, is that as a poster you would like "custodianship" of your content.
i disagree with the notion that one owns their content (besides copyright) here, and i think it is counter to the environment here. on many community systems, you are allowed to edit your posts -- perhaps to update them, or to strike out content -- but you cannot do so on metafilter. (which may or may not be influenced by the fact that the infamous dave winer has supposedly written controversial material, which others write about, only to see dave's posting removed by him later. see the rant on camworld where cam points out something dave has written? cam used a screenshot to quote from in case dave removes the relevant posting later.)
matt has, in the past, stated that he prefers things to be that way. in the system we have here, it seems to me such ownership of content would be out of place. i see matt's point, and i agree with it; when changes are called for in the content of a comment or fpp, he's the one to make them. otherwise, let what you've written stand.
Would I have the right to then break into the thread, interrupting an interesting discussion and say "Hey, that's not the link? This one is!". I don't think I would..
i don't see why you can't interject. i don't see commentary on metafilter as wholly analagous to spoken conversation; you won't break anyone's train of thought by offering your own opinion, for they can simply skip past your words (if they like).
posted by moz at 11:27 AM on December 19, 2001
i don't see commentary on metafilter as wholly analagous to spoken conversation; you won't break anyone's train of thought by offering your own opinion, for they can simply skip past your words (if they like).
Well, you're right there, moz. Thanks. But isn't the poster's intention - the link he would like to be discussed, the one he built his question around - his editorial property, as it were?
The question here is that it is possible for other commentators to unthinkingly derail the poster's opening intention by putting up a different link from the one he had intended, thus setting a whole new mojo running.
So that when the poster does intervene, the thread is probably already tired and others will indeed tend to skip over his original link.
In Postroad's post there's the added disadvantage that the source is fishy and Postroad is generally impeccable with his sources, though he is "over 70", or so the young rascal now tells us.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 11:38 AM on December 19, 2001
Well, you're right there, moz. Thanks. But isn't the poster's intention - the link he would like to be discussed, the one he built his question around - his editorial property, as it were?
The question here is that it is possible for other commentators to unthinkingly derail the poster's opening intention by putting up a different link from the one he had intended, thus setting a whole new mojo running.
So that when the poster does intervene, the thread is probably already tired and others will indeed tend to skip over his original link.
In Postroad's post there's the added disadvantage that the source is fishy and Postroad is generally impeccable with his sources, though he is "over 70", or so the young rascal now tells us.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 11:38 AM on December 19, 2001
There are two things that are important in MeFi: the link and the discussion. As we have seen many times in the past, the link can be perfect, yet the discussion degrades to flame wars and trolling. Sometimes the opposite is true--bad link and a great discussion.
Is it right to correct somebody else's link? Why wouldn't it be? It's part of the discussion and whether it's the link the original poster wanted or not, it shouldn't matter. Once the FPP is done, the only thing that matters is the discussion.
posted by ashbury at 11:59 AM on December 19, 2001
Is it right to correct somebody else's link? Why wouldn't it be? It's part of the discussion and whether it's the link the original poster wanted or not, it shouldn't matter. Once the FPP is done, the only thing that matters is the discussion.
posted by ashbury at 11:59 AM on December 19, 2001
I agree with ashbury's original remark above. I've even inadvertently hijacked my own thread -- and in the FPP itself, too! -- but, though I regretted it, I don't think that the thread's following a tangent was somehow "wrong". The idea of a thread being "your" thread just doesn't fly, for me: The author of a post has no more claim on the subsequent thread than anyone else here.
That is, once it's posted, a post has its own life, like a novel or poem or painting. The author's intentions are interesting historically, perhaps, but people should be free to react to and contribute to a thread as they see fit (within the guidelines for good behavior, of course), and so long as they act in good faith they needn't follow any supposed direction specified by the poster, unless of course that's what interests them. There is no "right" interpretation of a post, that its author somehow has some right to insist on (though, of course, on MetaFilter the original poster is free to join in on the discussion, too).
posted by mattpfeff at 12:10 PM on December 19, 2001
That is, once it's posted, a post has its own life, like a novel or poem or painting. The author's intentions are interesting historically, perhaps, but people should be free to react to and contribute to a thread as they see fit (within the guidelines for good behavior, of course), and so long as they act in good faith they needn't follow any supposed direction specified by the poster, unless of course that's what interests them. There is no "right" interpretation of a post, that its author somehow has some right to insist on (though, of course, on MetaFilter the original poster is free to join in on the discussion, too).
posted by mattpfeff at 12:10 PM on December 19, 2001
Once the FPP is done, the only thing that matters is the discussion.
I agree too - but is a FPP "done" without a link? This isn't a question of correcting or fixing a link - but actually finding one, where none or no semblance of one exists.
Besides, I defended Tubes and Real9's actions - they brought the thread to life. And it's a good one.
So is it OK to post links to linkless posts, based on the wording and assuming the poster has mistakenly linked to something else - or nothing - entirely?
posted by MiguelCardoso at 12:43 PM on December 19, 2001
I agree too - but is a FPP "done" without a link? This isn't a question of correcting or fixing a link - but actually finding one, where none or no semblance of one exists.
Besides, I defended Tubes and Real9's actions - they brought the thread to life. And it's a good one.
So is it OK to post links to linkless posts, based on the wording and assuming the poster has mistakenly linked to something else - or nothing - entirely?
posted by MiguelCardoso at 12:43 PM on December 19, 2001
Miguel: Yes, of course, how could it be otherwise?
posted by Mack Twain at 12:46 PM on December 19, 2001
posted by Mack Twain at 12:46 PM on December 19, 2001
Mack: The policy could be that linkless posts would not be allowed unless the poster put up an appropriate link within a reasonable time.
Say I want to put a Palestinian POV in a FPP but, due to some mishap, completely garble the link, making it undetectable. I've worded my post to the effect, say, that things in the Middle Easr aren't always what they seem to be.
I go to bed and wake up to find someone has kindly misinterpreted the wording to mean that we should consider the POV of the Israeli settlers, who also don't have much of a voice. So they post a persuasive settlers' link with a long list of grievances against the Palestinians.
Is this a problem or not? I agree with you but it certainly isn't clear-cut. It could be otherwise.
I can recall dozens of linkless threads, some with good points, that have been pancaked and ponied into oblivion.
So, from now on, when I think a potentially good discussion is being lost, I can come to the rescue with an appropriate link, without incurring wrath and damnation?
Good!
posted by MiguelCardoso at 1:08 PM on December 19, 2001
Say I want to put a Palestinian POV in a FPP but, due to some mishap, completely garble the link, making it undetectable. I've worded my post to the effect, say, that things in the Middle Easr aren't always what they seem to be.
I go to bed and wake up to find someone has kindly misinterpreted the wording to mean that we should consider the POV of the Israeli settlers, who also don't have much of a voice. So they post a persuasive settlers' link with a long list of grievances against the Palestinians.
Is this a problem or not? I agree with you but it certainly isn't clear-cut. It could be otherwise.
I can recall dozens of linkless threads, some with good points, that have been pancaked and ponied into oblivion.
So, from now on, when I think a potentially good discussion is being lost, I can come to the rescue with an appropriate link, without incurring wrath and damnation?
Good!
posted by MiguelCardoso at 1:08 PM on December 19, 2001
Miguel: I think you're beating a dead horse.
If the FPP is out and out wrong, ie no link, intolerable subject, troll, etc., then it will be taken care of in the appropriate manner by Matt.
Frankly, I'm not sure what your argument is, if you have one.
posted by ashbury at 1:11 PM on December 19, 2001
If the FPP is out and out wrong, ie no link, intolerable subject, troll, etc., then it will be taken care of in the appropriate manner by Matt.
Frankly, I'm not sure what your argument is, if you have one.
posted by ashbury at 1:11 PM on December 19, 2001
Based on other clues from Miguel:
First of all, it is against the MeFi rules to post a linkless post. A post with a non-working link and no clues to its actual intentions or sources is akin to rumor mongering. And secondly, it is a sign of good MeFi membership and courtesy to other members to make sure that the links work. By sticking around to fix anything shows that the poster cares. And it also, as Miguel suggested, removes any chance of a thread hijack.
posted by tamim at 2:26 PM on December 19, 2001
1. The point is this wasn't a case of fixing a link - there was nothing there to fix. It pointed to a MeFi URL.I gather that what ever Postroad posted, either had no link, or something other than a HTML validated link in his post and left no clue as to the source of his point. I agree with Miguel that this is akin to a linkless post. And if I am reading him correctly, Miguel is asking how to deal with linkless, un-clued posts and who holds the responsibility to put those back on track?
2. In Postroad's post there's the added disadvantage that the source is fishy . . .
3. . . . but is a FPP "done" without a link? This isn't a question of correcting or fixing a link - but actually finding one, where none or no semblance of one exists.
- So is it OK to post links to linkless posts, based on the wording and assuming the poster has mistakenly linked to something else - or nothing - entirely?I
- So, from now on, when I think a potentially good discussion is being lost, I can come to the rescue with an appropriate link, without incurring wrath and damnation??II
First of all, it is against the MeFi rules to post a linkless post. A post with a non-working link and no clues to its actual intentions or sources is akin to rumor mongering. And secondly, it is a sign of good MeFi membership and courtesy to other members to make sure that the links work. By sticking around to fix anything shows that the poster cares. And it also, as Miguel suggested, removes any chance of a thread hijack.
posted by tamim at 2:26 PM on December 19, 2001
So. everyone is in agreement, then? A post without a link, or with a pretend link, is like having a theory and playing with the numbers to make your theory valid. Providing additional links, pro or con, is sort of what keeps this think tank going. The weight of your opinion is strengthened by the supporting links you provide. Refusal to repair the damage done by posting with a screwed-up link is an open invitation to subject hijacking, either from ambiguity or cruelety.
posted by Mack Twain at 3:24 PM on December 19, 2001
posted by Mack Twain at 3:24 PM on December 19, 2001
My, FP and FPP are trendy acronyms.
posted by timothompson at 4:19 PM on December 19, 2001
posted by timothompson at 4:19 PM on December 19, 2001
Wow, I never imagined such a discussion...
Seemed like a simple choice to me. It appeared that Postroad had accidentally created an invalid *link,* but had at least provided enough info to pique interest. We took a stab at finding a relevant news article, and managed to give the still-valid *topic* of the thread somewhere to go.
Had Postroad piped up to indicate a different, corrected link, then the conversation could have turned another way -- as conversations often do.
posted by Tubes at 4:28 PM on December 19, 2001
Seemed like a simple choice to me. It appeared that Postroad had accidentally created an invalid *link,* but had at least provided enough info to pique interest. We took a stab at finding a relevant news article, and managed to give the still-valid *topic* of the thread somewhere to go.
Had Postroad piped up to indicate a different, corrected link, then the conversation could have turned another way -- as conversations often do.
posted by Tubes at 4:28 PM on December 19, 2001
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by nprigoda at 10:41 AM on December 19, 2001