Testing Adding Damage Reduction to PvP
Testing Adding Damage Reduction to PvP
Get Up to 33% off Select Game Services
MMO-Champion
Fascinating article on toxicity in online communities. Researches sifted through Wiki comments and parceled out the as hominem attacks. The next question would be, would policing the toxic minority improve the overall community discourse?
[source]
We've all heard anecdotes about trolling on Wikipedia and other social platforms, but rarely has anyone been able to quantify levels and origins of online abuse. That's about to change. Researchers with Alphabet tech incubator Jigsaw worked with Wikimedia Foundation to analyze 100,000 comments left on English-language Wikipedia. They found predictable patterns behind who will launch personal attacks and when.
...
The researchers also found that an outsized percentage of attacks come from a very small number of "highly toxic" Wikipedia contributors. A whopping 9% of attacks in 2015 came from just 34 users who had made 20 or more personal attacks during the year. "Significant progress could be made by moderating a relatively small number of frequent attackers," the researchers note. This finding bolsters the idea that problems in online communities often come from a small minority of highly vocal users.
Recent Blue Posts
Recent Forum Posts
-
2017-02-12, 11:29 PM #1Old God
- Join Date
- Jul 2012
- Location
- Shitposter Burn Out
- Posts
- 10,037
Handful of “highly toxic” Wikipedia editors cause 9% of abuse on the site
-
2017-02-12, 11:33 PM #2The Undying
- Join Date
- Apr 2014
- Location
- Nevada
- Posts
- 33,542
I would have to see what these personal attacks are before I judge, some people get really upset over some minor stuff.
.
"This will be a fight against overwhelming odds from which survival cannot be expected. We will do what damage we can."
-- Capt. Copeland
-
2017-02-13, 12:43 AM #3I am Murloc!
- Join Date
- Nov 2010
- Location
- Orange, Ca
- Posts
- 5,836
TIL Wikipedia has a comments section.
-
2017-02-13, 12:51 AM #4Old God
- Join Date
- Jul 2012
- Location
- Shitposter Burn Out
- Posts
- 10,037
If you enjoy reading a good train wreck, check the "talk back" or "edit history" tabs on controversial articles, like anything Israel-Palestine.
Originally Posted by HBpapa
Though the "edit history" on Rick Santorum's page is a joyful bundle of snark and sarcasm.
-
2017-02-13, 01:55 AM #5Deleted
There is a movie on the subject of corruption on Wikipedia. It is called 'The dark side of the Wikipedia' and highly interesting but sadly in german. I do not know if there is an english version available.
They have done research with names on who is editing in the 'Wikipedia hierarchy' and explain how you advance in the system as an editor. There is a few names at the top that edit certain politics related articles in a way to portray certain people in undesirable ways. Monitor their pages and make sure it stays that way.
Point of this movie is to question if Wikipedia can be used as citable source on certain subjects -and- if Wikipedia is politically neutral towards certain names and people critical towards US.(Its not) The main example in this movie being Dr. Daniele Ganser.
Last edited by mmocfb72b6c64d; 2017-02-13 at 01:58 AM.
-
2017-02-13, 08:29 PM #6Deleted
"We've all heard anecdotes about trolling on Wikipedia ..." - I dont even think most people knew about the comments.
"A whopping 9% of attacks in 2015 came from just 34 users who had made 20 or more personal attacks during the year." - Im pretty sure people on this forum have managed to make more than 20 personal attacks in a single thread.
"They defined personal attacks as directed at a commenter (i.e., "you suck")" <- LOOOOOOOOOOL.
-
2017-02-13, 08:31 PM #7Deleted
The wikipedia administration system is severely broken.
In the german wikipedia, an activist of the alt right AFD is controling part of the edits, and bans everyone who is not willing to cater to his line.
And they didnt manage to get rid of him up to now.Last edited by mmoc903ad35b4b; 2017-02-13 at 08:37 PM.
-
2017-02-13, 08:37 PM #8Elemental Lord
- Join Date
- Jun 2015
- Location
- Buffalo, NY
- Posts
- 8,668
Of course it would. The two private political forums I belong to have zero tolerance for toxic behavior and bad argumentation. Ad hominem attacks? You get a couple warnings and then you're banned. Lies and personal attacks? sometimes an instant ban. Amazingly, those belonging to the forum, on both the right and the left, easily adhere to the rules and are amazingly bipartisan when someone breaks those rules. As a result the discussion is at a level rarely seen on public forums. Originally Posted by Slacker76
The bottom line is the discussion is only as good as the people who participate and that includes moderation. Does Wikipedia want to be taken seriously? If so then their moderation needs to be heavy handed. If they are more interested in popularity than quality... well, then they have no one to blame but themselves as the site degrades further and further.
-
2017-02-13, 08:59 PM #9Deleted
Wikipedia is getting counter productive. People using direct insults are less abusive than someone deliberately screwing around.
Originally Posted by rym
That's strange because it's completely the opposite everywhere else.
-
2017-02-13, 10:39 PM #10Scarab Lord
- Join Date
- Jun 2012
- Posts
- 4,871
MMO-C would get no less than 30%.
Reply With Quote
