He makes possibly valid points but does not provide any evidence at all. What is the point of citing things at all if you are only going have references for things you are not arguing?
He talks about how reputation inhibits actions and only lists positives. There are a couple of things he gets wrong aswell. For example, if Wikipedia actually had a good blocking system the number of of collateral blocks from autoblocks would be almost insignificant(that is it could be implemented without changing anything regarding membership). Wikipedia does have a membership system and it has had it the whole time. There are plenty of people that edit/revert war even logged in, some to the point of breaking 3RR (or just gaming it as it may be). Infact, even admins wheel war. Obviously, if the top tier of the membership (those with privledges, reputations) are willing to edit and wheel war his points about reputation stopping such actions are false.
Almost all of his points Wikipedia has already, yet he uses it as an example that could be improved? 5 is covered mostly by the users placing warnings on another user's talk page. It isn't as transparent and integrated as say eBay's system, but it works decently. What is the alternative, being able to rate every revision? I'm not sure how that would significantly help . The rules and policies could use better arrangement though.
tl;dr - Uses examples without understanding them, makes claims and provides no evidence, I give it a D+
anti-anonymity is so web 2.0...
anonymity = web 3.0
actually, going to extremes is bad. becauseitswinter.com strikes a nice balance between the two posistions; but unfortunately its' closing.
This article is long, so I'll summarize. The author:
then I stopped reading. But at the end it says the author is an "expert in online psychology and behavior", so he must be right.
I think this article is a troll. I can't imagine anyone truly being that stupid. Here are some highlights:
> Anonymity allows people to hide behind their computers while saying whatever they want with little ramification. [...] Pseudonymous systems [..] have been shown to work very well
> Some websites have discovered fairly innovative ways to allow for anonymity [...] Slashdot[..] has long had a moderation system[..]
> Members who have an investment in something within your community are far less likely to blow that investment through inappropriate, negative behavior.
> Let's use Wikipedia as our example. Up until very recently, they were an almost completely open, registration-free system.
> People happily and willingly engage in such a registration when they readily understand the value given to them for registering--to purchase a product, to be able to post to a forum, etc.
> it's not the quality of the registration data that is the purpose of registration--it's the process itself. By requiring users to take an affirmative action (that requires some minimal effort on their part), it weeds out the casual troublemaker from an interested user.
> Although easy to manipulate, the reputation system is a foundation of eBay's growth and popularity.
> ratings and reputation systems can take many forms. The simplest is the number of posts made to the community. The more posts a member makes, the more "senior" they become. Date of registration can also be used as an indicator of a member's seniority.
> Reputation systems can also be tied directly to a role system, so those with increasingly senior reputations can be given greater access or responsibilities within the community.
>>3
FWIW, this guy's arguments are not Web 2.0. Inconveniencing users with a pointless registration process is not Web 2.0 at all.
ALA stopped being relevant years ago FYI
>>6
You're wrong, it's 100% OK as long as it uses AJAX!
>>4 Just because it's no longer winter here does not mean that our mission is over. http://www.becauseitswinter.com will continue to flourish. Additionally, we now have a mitten board.
>>9
That ID looks like "extreme." KAMI!
>>7
I've only heard of alistapart recently. How long ago was it relevant, and why?
>>9 But you don't have posters! There's even a thread proposing to close the site!
I was going to post a comment to the article, but A. Nonymous has already exposed the fallacies better than I ever could.
>>5 is a fag for having such a weird ID and making my points better than I did
Ahahahahah, this comment is brilliant:
>> “As most party hosts knows, it’s usually the people who just “show up” and that you don’t know who can create the biggest headaches.”
> Standing there in the living room with a sight full of punk haired agonists. There you be, centric to a miserable community of mutated bottom feeding, wine guzzling, bourgeois dullards Restricted within the nutshells of their imagination and, well, good luck to you.
> But please please, stay out of the freaking way.
>>11
Back when it talked about web standards before anybody considered it. Right now it is just some self-promotional tool for Zeldman's friends.
Anyway, you should really argue your case on this site, it is extremely influential among the cool web 2.0 ajax floksonomy kids. Or somebody with a respectable weblog should post a direct reply and promote this post, that's how their game work.
> respectable weblog
Ha ha.
>>5
Truly, the author of the original article has the nature of the troll. Let's peel back the outer layer of the adequacy-style under-bridge dwellers' protocol and look at the meaty core:
> Anonymity allows people to hide behind their computers while saying whatever they want with little ramification. [...] Pseudonymous systems [..] have been shown to work [just the same].
> Although [it only works if only honest people are involved], the reputation system [with its flaws, has not overmuch hindered] eBay's growth and popularity.
> Let's use Wikipedia as our example. Up until [sometime in 2002], they were an almost completely open, registration-free system [the details to which I'm too lazy to actually look up, considering that it is entirely voluntary].
> Members who have an investment in something within your community are far less likely to [express honest opinions or state the impolite obvious for fear of being caught in an internet celebrity drama fight and getting banninated by some LiveJournal prima donna admin's buddy].
> it's not the quality of the registration data that is the purpose of registration--it's the process itself. By requiring users to take an affirmative action (that requires some minimal effort on their part [such as setting up an e-mail address, remembering account details somewhere and possibly renewing subscriptions or changing passwords every six months or so]), it weeds out the casual [contributor who is not interested in playing bureaucracy games however informed he may be] from an interested [sad wanker with an axe to grind and virtually limitless time on their hands for said games who can fit within the forum rules while still remaining a wanker].
Yeah, I think that kind of does it, don't it?
>>18
Boom, headshot.
( ﾟ ヮﾟ) I dike lyslexia.
Someone wanna make up an account on that gay blog >>1 gave us so I can post? I can't be fucked registering.
>>19
Not bad, hehheh
I would comment to say that I rarely bother to sign up to websites just to post a comment to an article, but I'd need to sign up to do so. (Wee, positive feedback loop!)
Much of the comments are tl;dr material, too -- and many of the ones that I did read were just regurgitating the same old crap ("enforced registration keeps griefers out": yet I need more than one hand to count the number of forums I've left because of fully registered, well recognised and clearly identifiable griefers).
I'll generally sign up where there is some sort of service I'm interested in; but reading and replying to discussion do not, in my book, count as services. If what I want to say stands on its own without an identity attached to it, then I don't see why I shouldn't be able to post it anonymously -- and if it doesn't, it's hardly worth bothering to register for.
>>23
wtf's a 'griefer'? Never heard that one before.
One of my favorite problems with signup forums etc is when they block access to all the forums or downloads without registering. I especially hate it when I'm trying to find something using Google and I can't even access it when I do.
>>24
MMO term, users who ruin the game for others.
>>24
I started writing trolls/whingers/drama queens/.../etc, but the list was getting too long to repeat, so instead I dug into my vocabulary and found a one-word-fits-all. Concise ftw.
>favorite problems
heh
maybe he should be sent a link to shii's document about anonymity
ok so what should /b/ be divided into? the < a style="" href="http://christian-magic.net">real /b/ industries </a> seems to have done a good job
and this is why we love http://becauseitswinter.com
a friendly community.
>>28
lol what
2channel was created for posts to be anonymous. I just felt like bringing this up, because this is bascially the English-language equivalent of 2channel.
Here, have a cookie.
>>31
I think we have all been aware of that for a while now.
and yet, espousing anonymity is the elevation of mediocrity. discuss. show your work. this will count towards 20% of your final grade.
Freedom is a powerful drug.
So a work can not be impressive without a creator attached to it? I don't think that argument will hold up very well.
>>36
You also have to wade through a whole lot of crap to find it. Once you've found it, how are you going to find more of it?
>>37
Wade through more crap.
>>38
my god he is right!
to hell with anonymous, why should quality be a game of chance?
>>37
Have vast armies of anonymous people wade through crap, rating on it and reviewing it. Look at things they rate highly. Occasionally rate and review unrated things (i.e. wade through crap) in order to give back.
I THINK THAT EVERYONE SHOULD REGISTER BY IP ADDY!
>>41
Yeah, that's a great idea! Then people behind an office/school NAT would all look like the same person. And people dialing up for Internet access would be like 942 different people. What a brilliant idea!
>>40
I don't know. Look at the ratings on Amazon, or moderation on Slashdot-alike sites. Based on that, I have almost no faith in the rating abilities of people.
Then there's the problem of ballot stuffing. If you're truly anonymous, there's no way to prevent it. Trolls will have a field day, while normal people will be too lazy.
I think the Japanese have beaten us to an ideal Anonymous system. It has its problems, but you're not going to get much better. Ratings are overrated.
What you should do is to not assign any objective value to ratings, but have a system that compares your own ratings to those and others, and bias other's ratings by how well they match yours. That should give a much better result than an absolute scale.
However, it might very well just breed uniformity, in that you would only ever be recommended things you already like, and never anything new and challenging.
>>44
An interesting idea, but exceptionally expensive. A naive implementation would intractable, and I doubt you'll find anything better.
There's also the problem of how the system will track users. IP and cookies are too unreliable to build a history like this.
Could someone explain what's up with this board and the big red text at the end of certain post headers: http://www.nijiura.com/restest/index.htm ?
>>46
隊長！ = Commander!
殿堂入りです！ = Entering the hall of fame!
Probably a joke.
It's a voting system ("MoeCountSystem").
Click the "GJ" button on the reply pages to vote for a picture.
High-rated pictures are marked with big red text and added to a special gallery. Click [ＧＪカウント殿堂ギャラリー] in the top corner to browse it (with no thumbnails...).
Were you expecting it to be capcodes?
Having to register, as simple as it might be, is definitely a stopper for me.