3 ms·
Have you considered democratizing moderation? If many people agree that a claim is a duplicate of another claim then it's probably a duplicate or at least the c
by acover 8y ago
Have you considered democratizing moderation? If many people agree that a claim is a duplicate of another claim then it's probably a duplicate or at least the community wants to treat it as such.
Also instead of removal just make it less visible. With a big arrow pointing towards the main discussion. If people still choose to discuss there then they must see value in doing so.
PS: thank you for making this
- perfmode 8y agodelegated democracy (page rank) is pretty ideal but complex
- acover 8y agoAre there simpler heuristics than page rank? Perhaps a reputation score determines how much your vote is worth?
- Kialo 8y agoI fear that's too easy to game at our scale, given the horde out there.
- perfmode 8y agopage rank in this context is morally relativistic
- Kialo 8y agoHow would you apply it in our context?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- acover 8y agoNot OP. In page rank you have a graph of pages as vertices and links as edges. In this case you'd want users as vertices and up votes as edges. Page rank would give users a high score if they are up voted by other users with high scores. I'm not sure if page rank can deal with negative weight edges for down votes but probably.
- Kialo 8y agoRegarding democratizing, the problem are the troll hordes out there. One person with many followers tweets out a particular claim and then you'll have the strangest things suddenly appearing at the top. It's the same reason Internet polls don't really work. And the reason we consider the default perspective ALL votes, problematic (we are building something here soon). This is especially a problem due to our topics, primarily very controversal issues. These are the type of topics that very often get edit-locked on Wikipedia because of edit wars and we deal exlusively with them. That's why we built the suggestion system (https://support.kialo.com/hc/en-us/articles/115003791445-Suggesting-Claims https://support.kialo.com/hc/en-us/articles/115003791445-Sug...) and 5 permission levels (https://support.kialo.com/hc/en-us/articles/115003877705-Participant-Rights-and-Roles https://support.kialo.com/hc/en-us/articles/115003877705-Par...). Suggested claims that were not accepted, aren't deleted. users often argue back and forth with admins on those claims, often edit them and then get them accepted. Very often it's really just a clarification or "could you please add sources" or "do you mind moving this claim over there". Duplicates are thornier. What we have considered, is linking them to the ones that they supposedly are duplicates of, so you could see them there. That's possible and we might do it, but we really don't get that many complaints about them. It's really just a problem in the debates with >1k claims. but as more debates grow, this might become more of an issue and then we'll build that. Thanks for your input.
- acover 8y agoThanks, it's interesting to learn what is a practical problem when growing a discussion website. Is it possible to deter troll behavior by using a reputation system and investigating bad behavior? Reputation that takes a long time of good behavior to build but a single act of malice to destroy. It also has the statistical beauty of adding a prior probability estimate to the likelihood estimate that sorts Reddit comments.
- Kialo 8y agoAgreed. We have a "reputation system" it's the thank count next to usernames. We have not handed out any privileges based on those yet, but will probably soon take all with a certain thank count, look at their contributions and grant them some poweruser rights, e.g. commenting into all public debates and see how that goes.