Slashdot Mirror
Mob-Sourcing — the Prejudice of Crowds
An anonymous reader writes "ZDNet takes a look at how crowd-moderation can capture and reflect the prejudice of individuals. 'As more web content is crowd-sourced and crowd-moderated, are we seeing only the wisdom of crowds? No, we're also seeing their prejudice. The Internet reflects both the good and ugly in human nature. ... Any system relying on people implicitly encodes prejudices as well. In a world where one politician with a call girl is forced to resign and another is handily reelected, there is no hope for moral or intellectual consistency in crowd-sourced or moderated content.'"
Also called the illusion of confidence.
beat me to it; I figured there would be some comment about Slashdot groupthink (not 100% by any means, but very often a significant majority of people lean a certain way on here TBH)
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
The web might be filled with prejudice but this is a guy who got flagged on craigslist as a business because he accepted credit cards. That would sound like a business to me too. I'm so sorry Craig isn't ready to come down and give you special treatment honey...
"Editor gets treatment he doesn't like, says them inner-tubes iz evil, news at eleven"
Are you sure that Clinton lied under oath?
Clinton was asked, under oath, if he had a sexual relationship with Lewinsky. Clinton did not immediately answer the question, but instead asked what was meant by a "sexual relationship". He was told that a sexual relationship was a relationship where they had sexual intercourse. Clinton then said that he did not have a sexual relationship with Lewinsky.
Clinton and Lewinsky had oral sex, but they did not have sexual intercourse. Clinton was slippery, but he does not seem to have lied.
you need a math that can speak about itself consistently.
OT: Didn't Gödel prove this to be impossible?
http://oldweb.ct.infn.it/cactus/peter_principle_sup_material.html
Actually, some serious works seem to indicate that when promotions are randomly distributed, an organization is more efficient than when promotions are distributed by regular managers. So we can now say with scientific proofs that comparing managers to monkeys is actually insulting for the monkeys.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
Morality is entirely subjective, although it often seems objective to the individual. So hoping for moral consistency is a pipe dream. Why even bring it up? A politician with a call girl is not really thrown out due purely to morality reasons -- voters make a judgment about their ability to lead them and whether they trust them to make good judgments and be the kind of person they want to have lead them, which are not moral judgments.
Currently hooked on AMP
The hell with parties -- parties have little effect on public opinion -- they just game opinion so they can stay in power. People vote for what they fear and what they want. In some areas, it seems significant that their guy screws hookers, especially if they are married. In some areas, it does not. If districts were not gerrymandered to protect incumbents, maybe we could even find out what really matters to people.
Currently hooked on AMP