7 ms·

Community Notes will likely have some of the same pros and cons of wikipedia. Community Notes are not written or curated by some centrally selected set of expe

Community Notes will likely have some of the same pros and cons of wikipedia. Community Notes are not written or curated by some centrally selected set of experts; rather, they can be written and voted on by anyone ... It's not perfect, but it's surprisingly close to satisfying the ideal of credible neutrality... Well, that's the optimistic pro. But the con is that if a particular demographic is more drawn to contributing to those notes (or comes to overwhelm Twitter itself), we will see the same problems of bias we see on Wikipedia in (say) social-cultural subjects which - whatever it results in - is certainly not "credible neutrality".

mmq 3y ago
Users can rate community notes.
- emilecantin 3y ago
  90% of the article is about HOW the ratings are taken into consideration...
- Hamuko 3y ago
  Which sounds like a pretty terrible idea in itself. At least to me, it would sound pretty chaotic if the edit that wins out on Wikipedia is the one that receives the most votes by other Wikipedia users, and if you wanted to get something on Wikipedia fixed, you'd need to gather enough people to support your fix over the previous version. I've ran into issues with Wikipedia mods ignoring sources and going off whatever priors they had, but at least then I was able to just passive-aggressively berate them on the talk page to get them to bend.
  - MichaelZuo 3y ago
    What's the alternative method for credibly neutral decision making on a public internet site anyone can participate in?
    - Hamuko 3y ago
      "Alternative" method for "credibly neutral decision" would imply that there exists one already.
      - MichaelZuo 3y ago
        It seems a large number of HN users, judging by this post, believes that community notes is credibly neutral.
chrisco255 3y ago
I don't know if community notes takes this into account, but you could weight bias according to how a contributor has voted in the past and medianize the output to prevent "dogpiling" or "brigading" from one side or the other.
- ewi_ 3y ago
  > I don't know if community notes takes this into account, but That's most of the article. If you're asking yourself that, you should read it
- jaybaxter 3y ago
  Indeed, it does this! >For a note to achieve a high intercept term (which is the note’s helpfulness score), it must be rated helpful by raters with a diversity of viewpoints (factor embeddings) https://communitynotes.twitter.com/guide/en/under-the-hood/ranking-notes#matrix-factorization https://communitynotes.twitter.com/guide/en/under-the-hood/r...
hajile 3y ago
Wikipedia is WAY worse because they enshrine particular editors over particular sets of pages (esp. political ones) to make sure the edits only go the way those people want. Anyone can review community notes and mark them as useful/not useful.

mmq 3y ago

Users can rate community notes.

emilecantin 3y ago
90% of the article is about HOW the ratings are taken into consideration...
Hamuko 3y ago
Which sounds like a pretty terrible idea in itself. At least to me, it would sound pretty chaotic if the edit that wins out on Wikipedia is the one that receives the most votes by other Wikipedia users, and if you wanted to get something on Wikipedia fixed, you'd need to gather enough people to support your fix over the previous version. I've ran into issues with Wikipedia mods ignoring sources and going off whatever priors they had, but at least then I was able to just passive-aggressively berate them on the talk page to get them to bend.
- MichaelZuo 3y ago
  What's the alternative method for credibly neutral decision making on a public internet site anyone can participate in?
  - Hamuko 3y ago
    "Alternative" method for "credibly neutral decision" would imply that there exists one already.
    - MichaelZuo 3y ago
      It seems a large number of HN users, judging by this post, believes that community notes is credibly neutral.

chrisco255 3y ago

I don't know if community notes takes this into account, but you could weight bias according to how a contributor has voted in the past and medianize the output to prevent "dogpiling" or "brigading" from one side or the other.

ewi_ 3y ago
> I don't know if community notes takes this into account, but That's most of the article. If you're asking yourself that, you should read it
jaybaxter 3y ago
Indeed, it does this! >For a note to achieve a high intercept term (which is the note’s helpfulness score), it must be rated helpful by raters with a diversity of viewpoints (factor embeddings) https://communitynotes.twitter.com/guide/en/under-the-hood/ranking-notes#matrix-factorization https://communitynotes.twitter.com/guide/en/under-the-hood/r...

hajile 3y ago

Wikipedia is WAY worse because they enshrine particular editors over particular sets of pages (esp. political ones) to make sure the edits only go the way those people want. Anyone can review community notes and mark them as useful/not useful.