SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Phys.org is running a story on some of the issues with modern peer review:
Once published, the quality of any particular piece of research is often measured by citations, that is, the number of times that a paper is formally mentioned in a later piece of published research. In theory, this aims to highlight how important, useful or interesting a previous piece of work is. More citations are usually better for the author, although that is not always the case.
Take, for instance, Andrew Wakefield's controversial paper on the association between the MMR jab and autism, published in leading medical journal The Lancet. This paper has received nearly two thousand citations – most authors would be thrilled to receive a hundred. However, the quality of Wakefield's research is not at all reflected by this large number. Many of these citations are a product of the storm of controversy surrounding the work, and are contained within papers which are critical of the methods used. Wakefield's research has now been robustly discredited, and the paper was retracted by the Lancet in 2010. Nevertheless, this extreme case highlights serious problems with judging a paper or an academic by number of citations.
Personally, I've been of the opinion that peer review is all but worthless for quite a while. It's nice to know I'm not the only one who has issues with the process.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by c0lo on Wednesday November 19 2014, @02:41AM
I disagree - I think having a moderation system is part of the fun.
I disagree with your base assumption that a moderation system really equates with peer review. May have some overlapping, but again there are parts/purposes/effects specific to it. E.g.:
Except the suggested behaviour doesn't address trolling (deliberately inflammatory posting, with zero meaningful content, much less one that qualifies as "original thought").
(with a perfectly troll, this is of course true: in a total meaningless message, there's nothing to refute. But we aren't living in a perfect world)
Having a moderation system allows for decanting the mud without engaging in a flamewar.
If you love so much reading all the comments, you can of course browse them with a -1 threshold.
As you have a solution, you don't need to ask me to drop something I consider valuable
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 19 2014, @03:39AM
Censorship should be an option for those people, like yourself, who wish to limit their exposure to the real world.
However, it should never be the default.
Everyone should browse at -1 by default.
If you want to subject yourself to the censorship the moderation system provides, then you should have to voluntarily sign up and enable it for your account, and your account alone.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Wednesday November 19 2014, @03:56AM
Isn't it a bit like saying: it's wrong for the SN members to value the community above other publicity?
How about: if you do not want to subject yourself to the default setting, make yourself an account and read to whatever level you like? Because the members can do that.
Careful with that inflammation, buddy, treat it early. You have no idea what threshold I'm using when browsing SN or what are my choice of limits in regards with the "exposure to the real world". As such, I don't see what stand you have to make value judgements.
Anyway... allow me a question: if you are willing to unlimited expose yourself to the real world, why posting as AC? Make yourself an account and feel free to expose your real name and email address. Eh?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 19 2014, @04:08AM
Why do I post as an AC? Because I'm not going to waste my time creating yet another fucking website account, especially when I don't need one to comment here. I've got enough other accounts that I rarely use for shitty sites that require them. I'm not going to create another one here! That would be fucking idiotic.
Besides, it doesn't matter who posts a comment. The name is totally irrelevant. It's the message that's what matters. I don't care whose name is on a comment. I usually don't even bother to look. It's the comment I'm reading and replying to, not the goddamn name above it.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday November 19 2014, @04:41AM
Never asked that, never been interested.
I asked what standing do you have to make judgement values about my willingness (or the lack thereof) to "exposed myself to real world".
Used the matter of the "why not create an account?" to point you have limits in this regards, so you should accept others having them as well (take it as a hint: don't preach what you can't follow. It hurts the message).
Others will tend to disagree. Even letting aside the matter of authorship, take for instance those who value some tunes more for the melody and less for the lyrics; is a bad thing?
...
(speaking of "form over meaning": I don't care how strong you feel about the real world, using profanity in a gratuitous mode sounds bad to my ear. In other words, your form impacts on your message.
...
Eh...eh... stop there. Don't even think to say "I don't care" in whatever form).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 19 2014, @06:25AM
You don't need an account to set the threshold. I change it all the time.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 19 2014, @07:05AM
Are you some kinda moron?
(Score: 2) by monster on Thursday November 20 2014, @09:15AM
You say it as if there hadn't ever been AC posts getting +5 moderation (hint: there are).
(Score: 2, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Wednesday November 19 2014, @07:08AM
If you want to subject yourself to the censorship the moderation system provides, then you should have to voluntarily sign up and enable it for your account, and your account alone.
Funny that. That's exactly what I do. I tend to browse at '-1' because I'm too lazy to change my settings every time I have moderator points. You can do that too.
As someone who doesn't like censorship, why are you trying to foist your opinions and beliefs on everyone else and make them have the same experience that you do?
Here comes one of my favorite quotes again:
Make of that what you will.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 19 2014, @04:41PM
Censorship should be an option for those people, like yourself, who wish to limit their exposure to the real world.
"Exposure to the real world." Awesome. Sounds like it's supposed to mean that all opinions are valid while completely dismissing the possibility that some statements fail to be either opinions or coherent. Clearly, anyone who disagrees with this statement is a sheltered fascist.
It's the message that's what matters.
My message is m+ON2dhhqgsFa6R/N3HkbJHFukkJvtgj1VAclJA+4nyBkeF2XYOeGQuCx0VPomw7SynEkLBG1nYtScZ2XHdfrmk+Rv4Xmpjn+QPgdjtKZgI34L1PflPij9VEhEKFCbshK+rI0AbTFnc0Kb0RwgC1OOFMsmtaunI2Wk/5Qq8MV9m+bSOlrLyiAR5abffAcXrqK+7coR0HxZrvK2
/AhRw3/PAbZkavnrKPhQNKQwNbO9kQoUxZivkX
That's some deep matter, there, my friend. I hope you can appreciate it, and I'll be happy explain any parts that seem confusing to you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 20 2014, @05:59PM
Shouldn't the second "k" have been a "c"?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 19 2014, @03:06PM
I think the ideal moderation system is hypothetical, it would be done by the site owners who have a business interest, not just a professional interest, in the site. Craigslist comes close to that although they don't have a system of upmodding and downmodding - Craig Newmark personally tends to the site and culls troll posts and posters.
The best moderation system would welcome a broader spectrum of viewpoints than we typically see at /. at the level of 2 or above, especially on issues where the regs tend to congregate on one side or the other. Trolls, however, would still be banished.
Historically, small businessmen who operate retail stores on Main Street have been among the most welcoming for minorities in their communities, because they knew that customers can easily cross the street to the competition and they can't afford to write off a large chunk of their customer base. Shoplifters and other troublemakers are different - they need to be dealt with in a curt fashion. Of course, the businessman can't greet and check out all the shoppers himself, he has to delegate some of that to the help. And some of the help, even after training, aren't going to see the need to be quite so welcoming to folks that are of a different race, age, religion, sexual orientation, political party, etc.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday November 19 2014, @11:07PM
Have a look on the percentage already covered from funds needed by SN and think how much "business interest" is at play within SN.
Then, think that SN got their membership (especially the subscribing one) around the idea of "self-sufficient and self-regulated community that likes to discuss news interesting for people". This is the main attraction point.
Now, are you still insisting in replacing "moderation by community"? Then, read again the above until you get it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford