PSA: Our site culture is dropping.

submitted by wizzwizz4 from self.SaidIt

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

That's also a good idea, but not what I was proposing.

Look. Erm… I'm bad at explaining stuff. But…

Imagine the site looks like this:

+--------+---------------------------------
| Saidit |    subname
+--------+-----------------------------------
| Title           | chat
| content content | chat
|                +-------------
| content content | How do you feel about THING?
| content         | (not shared publicly)
|                | 1 o o o o o o o o o o 10
|                | [submit]

And then we do that for a lot of THINGs, but one of the THINGs (that we only ask half of the people about, so we have an A group and a B group, one of which is possibly primed to be extra cautious about all of the THINGs they've seen and the other of which isn't) is the TARGET. We have people attacking that TARGET with completely cherry-picked / false evidence posted to select areas of the site and voted insightful enough to get it onto the front page, and then afterwards post a thing saying "TARGET isn't actually bad; this was made up" with the results.

The results would be found by analysing the data from before the TARGET's campaign started, as the campaign progressed, and after the big reveal to see what effect on the Saidit populace this has. Then, eventually, it should stop having so much of an effect because people start going in and analysing what they're being shown.

Yes, the poll thing would be opt-in in the preferences. And I'd try to make it as flexible as possible.

You found that link confusing. That's my fault, sorry; I expected a short inferential distance again. That would also explain why the not misrepresented one I posted got very few Insightful votes; nobody could understand a word of what it was saying.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yours seemed too complex.

I still don't see why folks need their votes private. Just be men (and women, and whatev) and own your voice and vote. So this not-shared-publicly thing is stupid IMO.

It still seems too complex. How are you going to limit folks from seeing the other groups content? How do you know they don't already have access or experience with it? This sounds more like something for a University study, not for social media. Too much authoring and prep for so little payoff. And if you're writing the questions/surveys/fakesenarios count me out. This also sounds like some of Facebooks human experiments.

IMO this is a bad idea. At least the group A and B and faked news thing. Too elaborate for naught.

Yet I do like the idea of more stuff in the side box, interactive or not.

d3rr and I had discussed an "admin notice board" between submit buttons and chat. In this box on every page would be pinned whatever they like - with changing links - announcements, plans, top post, whatever they like. The footer links are permanent. These would change with the times. And maybe they could add your 1 to 10 thing with a simple question or survey. For more detailed questions or surveys there'd always be /s/SaidItSurveys which they could of course link to.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

It's not a vote.

The point is to see how easily influenced we are by false but well-written information, so we know that and can do something about it. (Well, I already think I know, but it's always good to check.) Your point about the Facebook thing is good, but so long as it's opt-in— wait, we'd be sharing the false news with everyone…

Urgh. Stupid ethics. :-p Yeah, you're probably right.