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.'"

Comments

Already learned...

[Anonymous Coward]

I learned this the hard way when I posted a counter-argument explaining a logical fallacy in a poster's statement. I had mentioned that logic should dictate the outcome of a decision and not political motivations. Because I was arguing against an extreme liberal I got called a conservative, Nazi, fascist, baby-killer, and got flagged and modded out of existence.

So now I always post anonymously (if available) when I argue logic against liberals.

Re:Dead Fish always float only downstream

[DNS-and-BIND]

So, in other words, dissenting opinions are quashed and diversity is not allowed. I think a lot of theophobes really don't understand what "tolerance" means.

Re:Dead Fish always float only downstream

[DNS-and-BIND]

Anyone find it funny that my comment about dissenting opinions not being allowed got modded -1 Troll?

OK, I got it - as long as the dissenting opinions are acceptable and not debunked, they are acceptable. Of course, if they were acceptable and had been approved by the authorities, they wouldn't be dissenting opinions, would they? The problem is people using a definition of dissent that does not appear in the dictionary.