A Norwegian Website Is Making Readers Pass a Quiz Before Commenting (niemanlab.org)

Joseph Lichterman, writing for Nieman Lab: Two weeks ago, NRKbeta, the tech vertical of the Norwegian public broadcaster NRK, published an explainer about a proposed new digital surveillance law in the country. Digital security is a controversial topic, and the conversation around security issues can become heated. But the conversation in the comments of the article was respectful and productive: Commenters shared links to books and other research, asked clarifying questions, and offered constructive feedback. The team at NRKbeta attributes the civil tenor of its comments to a feature it introduced last month. On some stories, potential commenters are now required to answer three basic multiple-choice questions about the article before they're allowed to post a comment. The goal is to ensure that the commenters have actually read the story before they discuss it.

Comments

I like it

[TFlan91]

"The goal is to ensure that the commenters have actually read the story before they discuss it"

A+ idea.

+1 insightful

Too many RTFA's...

Re:I like it

[Anonymous Coward]

If it were to be tried at Slashdot, I think the editors would have had to have read the articles in order to make up the quiz questions. It couldn't possibly work.

Isn't this like

[Anonymous Coward]

..requiring a literacy test to vote?

Re:Isn't this like

[courteaudotbiz]

Absolutely not. There are 1000s of reason to vote for a candidate or another. Answering questions about something you've read is just like a form of captcha that requires a minimal intellectual effort that can discourage the most lazy trolls.

OTOH, political literacy can be VERY subjective and emotional. Literacy for one can look like propaganda for the other.

Re:Isn't this like

[damn_registrars]

..requiring a literacy test to vote?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you are not trolling with that one, and share just a couple ways how these are not similar.

• Commenting on a website is not even somewhat similar to voting in terms of impact
• A website - even one run by a government - has the right to restrict what others post on it by any metric they wish. In our country you have no right to go post whatever you want on whitehouse.gov or any other government website.

Re:Isn't this like

[Maritz]

If this was about voting, and if the quiz was a literacy test, then yes.

Re:Isn't this like

[Whorhay]

I'm not sure about the effectiveness of voting vs commenting on a web forum. In some venues a well written post could change at least a single persons vote. And if it accomplishes that then it has had more impact than your single vote.

That said I agree that a literacy test for voting is a far cry from a reading comprehension test for commenting. When you go to vote you aren't presented with the entire text of proposed law changes or dossiers of politicians history and platform. Instead when you go to vote you are picking your choices from what should be a clearly delineated ballot. Literacy isn't required to understand the issues at hand or pick a favorite politician. The only hint of a valid reason literacy could be required for voting is that you are usually expected to read the ballot, but there are any number of easy workarounds for that.

Re:Isn't this like

[BarbaraHudson]

Next thing you know they're going to require a literacy test to read !!!

Slashdot Should Do This

[Anonymous Coward]

And here's the list of questions:

1) Where do hot grits go?

2) Give us a good "In Soviet Russia" joke.

3) Who is Old Ike?

4) What does the acronym GNAA stand for?

5) What movie is it a requirement to watch to join GNAA?

So...

[courteaudotbiz]

When do we get this on Slashdot? No more trolls, no more frost piss, no more "Didnt RTFA".

Or at least, they'll have a harder time getting through the keyhole.

Citation

[Major Blud]

"But the conversation in the comments of the article was respectful and productive"

[CITATION NEEDED] ;-)

I don't like it

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know why I must pass a test before being able to read a website. Also, do I have to pay for the test? How long is it? I think this is a stupid solution for a non-existent problem.

Re:I don't like it

[Anonymous Coward]

The user doesn't need to pass the test to READ the article, they need to pass the test to COMMENT on the article. Didn't you re-- ... aha. I see what you did there!

Re:I don't like it

[invalid_user]

Whoooos... aha, I see what you did there.

Awesome!

[Gravis Zero]

This sounds like a surefire way to get only the best trolls! ;)

Re:Awesome!

[esperto]

It's norway, they literally invented trolls!

Did you RTFA?

[Kludge]

Did you read the article before posting that?

Re:Did you RTFA?

[XxtraLarGe]

Did you read the article before posting that?

This is Slashdot. A lot of the members don't even read the summary before commenting...

Re:Did you RTFA?

[BarbaraHudson]

Did you read the article before posting that?

Why? The submitter probably didn't.

Wouldn't work on /.

[Nyder]

The editors would just take the questions from the summary.

It also reduces automated trolling

[parallel_prankster]

I have seen facebook posts by a tonne of accounts that seem to be posting every 2 minutes.I was pretty sure those were bots. Maybe their scripts will need to be more intelligent now?
On the flip side I hope the questions are not biased towards a point of view which would then result in filtering out a complete side of conversation from comments!

Re:It also reduces automated trolling

[chubs]

If it makes more intelligent bots, I'm on board! https://xkcd.com/810/ (warning, there's offensive language).

Re:Obligatory snarky comment

[Maritz]

Apparently in Norway it's considered reasonable that your audience will speak Norweigan. I know, nutters.

substance abuse

[PopeRatzo]

Starting April 1, Slashdot will require users to pass a drug test before commenting. Here in the /. offices, we refer to it as the "If You're Not High, GTFO Rule".

Submission of a >0.080 breathalyzer score will also be accepted for full credit.

good start

[Anonymous Coward]

now if we could make the "journalists" pass a quiz before writing an article on something they know nothing about.... even better.

qualifying can be good

[swell]

It's nice that people have to qualify for some things. Doctors, for instance, and police. Drivers tests help, but maybe should be more strict. More controversial is that parents should be tested before having children (are some parents unprepared physically, emotionally, financially?).

Qualifying before comments sounds interesting. Unfortunately many sites require commenters to register with an outside data gatherers before you can comment.

Re:qualifying can be good

[Anonymous Coward]

if only there was a quiz on the constitution before you could take an oath of office for public service in the united states.

Narrative Pushing Will Ruin It

[Kunedog]

It's not a terrible idea in theory. But if it catches on, then almost immediately news sites will start using it to filter out thoughtcrime (i.e. wrong opinions instead of wrong facts).

Every article on immigration will require you to agree on the unqualified benefits of mass immigration (and a gauntlet of other talking points), or an article will require you to say you believe in the wage gap, for example.

Re:Narrative Pushing Will Ruin It

[alvinrod]

Why would you want to post on such a site to begin with though? Conceivably some antisemitic website would require you to indicate that you believe Jews are the source of all evil or something like that. You can't have a reasonable debate in such a place to begin with and I expect that only people who would want to post there are already true believers.

As with any tool, it can be used responsibly and have good outcomes or be used for terrible purposes by immoral people. You also forget that for the website to ask a question and assign it a correct answer is a tactic endorsement that they believe it is the truth. A news site could run a story about political candidate X talking about the wage gap, but that's just reporting on something that happened, having a question where the correct answer is "the wage gap is real" on the other hand goes beyond just reporting. Any news site that used questions so irresponsibly would just hang itself.

Re:Narrative Pushing Will Ruin It

[beer_maker]

I believe you meant tacit (understood or implied without being stated) where you used tactic (an action or strategy carefully planned to achieve a specific end.) Unless that was your tactic, of course. Or was it all just strategery?

The slashdot version ...

[WoodstockJeff]

... would start with, "What day was the original version of this duplicate post posted?"

TL;DR

[grumpyman]

This summary was too long, but whatever the concept it proposes is just ludicrous.

I want to make a bot!

[MobyDisk]

I want to make a bot that can answer the quiz. My theory is that, once I have done so successfully, it can make more intelligent comments on the article than the average commenter. At that point, I think I have won my own personal turing test.

Next up: A bot that tells you if the news is fake. Has someone already done that? I imagine something like Microsoft's "clippy" popping up in the corner saying "I see that you are reading complete bu11sh*t. Would you like some help posting vitriolic comments?"

Question Bites

[fyngyrz]

The only way this can work with US readers is if the questions are shorter than 140 characters, and the answers were in the readers' twitter feeds within ten minutes of the question being asked.

Also, SQUIRREL!

The Public Service Quiz

[fyngyrz]

if only there was a quiz on the constitution before you could take an oath of office for public service in the united states.

Oh, there is. It goes like this:

[ ] Check if you think "interstate" is a synonym for "intrastate"
[ ] Check if you think "unreasonable" means "ignore the rest of this amendment"
[ ] Check if you think "ex post facto" means "pile on punishment at will post-sentencing"
[ ] Check if you think article five says "SCOTUS shall make any amendments it likes"
[ ] Check if you think article three says "article five was just there for humor's sake"
[ ] Check if you think "shall not infringe" means "infringe"
[ ] Check if you think "rights reserved to the people" means "things congress can tell them they can't do"
[ ] Check if you think "speedy and public trial" means "rot in Guantanamo indefinitely"
[ ] Check if you think "inflicting cruel and unusual punishment" means "withholding waterboarding"
[ ] Check if you can keep a straight face while intoning "support and defend the Constitution"

Bonus questions:

[ ] Check if you will take bribes from lobbyists
[ ] Check if you will do what the party "leadership" tells you to

Did you check all the boxes? Congratulations! You have qualified to pass the initial screening process of our two political parties!

Re:I want VOTERS to be subject to such a test too

[hackel]

That is a little unreasonable. I do think people should have to pass the exact same naturalization exams as any immigrant before they are made citizens and allowed to vote.