4 ms·
The idea of voting for a link for any reason other than its quality is completely anti ethical to a karmic voting system like the one used here.
by Karunamon 11y ago
The idea of voting for a link for any reason other than its quality is completely anti ethical to a karmic voting system like the one used here.
- dragonwriter 11y agoYes, but "quality" is both vague and subjective, not only will different people evaluate aspects of quality differently, different people will legitimately have different views on what components "quality" of a link has. I don't think it's unreasonable to consider the source as a one factor in overall quality (if nothing else as a proxy for things the rater is unable to evaluate about the article in isolation.)
- Karunamon 11y agoBut why should things other than the article directly linked to matter? Why should it be acceptable to downvote an otherwise interesting and correct article just because of the source? That smacks of voting for ideological correctness over truth or interestingness, a problem that otherwise intelligent people should be able to look past. What makes this site meaningfully different from the front page of Reddit if people will crap on an article because it comes from a source that doesn't align with their politics?
- dragonwriter 11y ago> Why should it be acceptable to downvote an otherwise interesting and correct article just because of the source? "Correct" is often a probabilistic assessment, not something a potential up/downvoter can determine absolutely. The source is often an important input to that probabilistic assessment. > That smacks of voting for ideological correctness over truth or interestingness Different outlets of the same ideological bent (whether relatively neutral or not) can have wildly different editorial standards which produce wildly different reliability.