TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Craig Newmark donates $500k to reduce harassment on Wikipedia

152 点作者 The_ed17超过 8 年前

20 条评论

guaka超过 8 年前
I started editing Wikipedia in 2003. It was fun. Over the years it became less fun, I gave up on participating and quite a few articles I had started ended up being deleted.<p>I also often found myself looking for articles I knew had been on Wikipedia, but had been deleted.<p>In December 2013 I had enough of the deletionism. I spent a few hours to set up <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;deletionpedia.org&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;deletionpedia.org&#x2F;</a> - to rescue articles from deletion.<p>It doesn&#x27;t deal with harassment, but it&#x27;s a useful resource if you want to find back something that was deleted on Wikipedia.<p>(The site had been set up before, but the original creator let it slip.)
评论 #13498828 未加载
评论 #13496628 未加载
评论 #13499149 未加载
评论 #13498208 未加载
redsummer超过 8 年前
&quot;support the development of tools for volunteer editors and staff to reduce harassment on Wikipedia and block harassers.&quot;<p>The only harassment I&#x27;ve seen on Wikipedia is from Little Napoleon long-term admins who grind contributors down with petty bureaucracy.
评论 #13498494 未加载
评论 #13496956 未加载
评论 #13496957 未加载
throwaway420超过 8 年前
Not a huge fan of this.<p>The editors on Wikipedia wield a large amount of power in shaping the site.<p>When they go and make arbitrary decisions about the content on the site, and users start calling out the editors for bias and bogus decisions, well now all of a sudden the crooked editor can just cry &quot;harassment and cyberbullying!&quot; and go a long way to shutting down rational criticism.
评论 #13497422 未加载
评论 #13496330 未加载
smcmurtry超过 8 年前
In 2012 I wrote my first Wikipedia article on the 50-person startup I was working for at the time. I didn&#x27;t include anything overly self-promoting, just the basic facts and referenced some news articles. My article was immediately nominated for deletion and a number of community members accused me of being a &quot;single purpose account&quot;, i.e. not interested in contributing, just advertising. Needless to say I did not go on to create&#x2F;edit more articles after a welcome like that.<p>A couple of editors did come to my defence. I got the impression there was a lot of internal conflict about this sort of thing.<p>Edit to add the following: The article: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Ecobee" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Ecobee</a> Deletion discussion: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion&#x2F;Ecobee" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletio...</a>
评论 #13496475 未加载
评论 #13496615 未加载
评论 #13496500 未加载
评论 #13496492 未加载
评论 #13497396 未加载
briholt超过 8 年前
The anti-online harassment industry is becoming a toxic den of snake oil salespeople. Those offering &quot;solutions&quot; tend be politically-motivated cash grabbers who line their own pockets by manufacturing vague and amorphous problems to exploit society&#x27;s genuine empathy.
评论 #13501350 未加载
vdnkh超过 8 年前
&gt; Blocking – making it more difficult for someone who is blocked from the site to return<p>If they&#x27;re talking about IP bans on viewing Wikipedia here, this is a terrible idea. If some troll gets banned on a college campus that will result in the inadvertent ban of thousands of other connected to the same network. This line strikes me as naive.
评论 #13496036 未加载
评论 #13496605 未加载
评论 #13499635 未加载
评论 #13496263 未加载
评论 #13496029 未加载
评论 #13496235 未加载
评论 #13496197 未加载
评论 #13496264 未加载
redthrowaway超过 8 年前
Toxicity, not harassment, has always been the glaring issue with the Wikipedia community. Of course there are the occasional miscreants who look to personally attack and harass people, but the entire <i>site</i> seems to be dedicated to finding the most lawyerly and acrimonious way to discourage contribution.<p>Some of that is certainly warranted. When political topics are the target of massive edit wars as each side seeks to enshrine their particular truth in the public record, you need rules and enforcers and arbitrators. But it can get extraordinarily toxic.
sergiotapia超过 8 年前
Will this money be put towards reducing harassment from the moderators? Wikipedia and it&#x27;s gaggle of moderators make it difficult to add&#x2F;remove things.<p>Consider using an alternative such as:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;infogalactic.com" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;infogalactic.com</a>
评论 #13497285 未加载
评论 #13499142 未加载
WhitneyLand超过 8 年前
Is this talking about harassment by moderators? Serious.
评论 #13496284 未加载
sparkzilla超过 8 年前
It&#x27;s interesting that after 15 years of operation, Wikipedia does not apparently have decent tools to detect harassment &#x2F;sarc.<p>There will be a lot of discussion about the symptoms here, but the cause is straightforward: Wikis are built through conflict, and much of that conflict involves harassment, doxxing etc. Ask anyone who has tried to edit any major page.<p>The real solutions to harassment are counterintuitive: Enforce full anonymity, take measures to stop people and gangs &quot;owning &quot; pages, stop using a system that lets any user at any level veto other user&#x27;s edits, have a proper editorial workflow, and many more. But none of these will never happen, so the harassment will continue.<p>It should also be noted that the Wikimedia Foundation just raised millions of dollars in its latest fundraising drive, and has millions more in the bank, so it really doesn&#x27;t need the money.
评论 #13496490 未加载
netman21超过 8 年前
I wish he would donate $500K to filtering scams from Craig&#x27;s list.
评论 #13496480 未加载
nl超过 8 年前
I&#x27;m reading the harassment report[1] and I&#x27;m having trouble understanding it.<p>Of those surveyed, 38% said they had experienced harassment. I understand that bit.<p>Then, those who had been harassed or witnessed harassment were asked to identify the type of harassment. Of these, one of the least common types is &quot;hacking&quot;, with an <i>average</i> of 2.69 times.<p>I don&#x27;t understand what that is saying. Each person who was harassed was hacked 2.69 times on average??! How can that be possible?<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;upload.wikimedia.org&#x2F;wikipedia&#x2F;commons&#x2F;5&#x2F;52&#x2F;Harassment_Survey_2015_-_Results_Report.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;upload.wikimedia.org&#x2F;wikipedia&#x2F;commons&#x2F;5&#x2F;52&#x2F;Harassme...</a>
Nomentatus超过 8 年前
What hasn&#x27;t been said is that Wikipedia has adopted an explicitly narcissistic goal, of being embarrassed by being the only wrong source the fewest possible number of times (namely never) - as opposed to doing the best job of accurately informing more people, more of the time; even if the data is new, or uncommon. I&#x27;ve had the New York Times rejected as a source because it just wasn&#x27;t prestigious enough, and deleted. Which is charming if there&#x27;s a better contrary source, but there wasn&#x27;t. This goal is not compatible with that of being a very widely sourced, and very current encyclopedia. It is quite compatible with ossification.
Sir_Cmpwn超过 8 年前
I can&#x27;t believe a half a million dollars is necessary to reduce harassment. I&#x27;m all for reducing harassment online but that much money could make a serious difference applied in a different way. Look at Wikimedia&#x27;s report on harassment (which this is in response to):<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;upload.wikimedia.org&#x2F;wikipedia&#x2F;commons&#x2F;5&#x2F;52&#x2F;Harassment_Survey_2015_-_Results_Report.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;upload.wikimedia.org&#x2F;wikipedia&#x2F;commons&#x2F;5&#x2F;52&#x2F;Harassme...</a><p>There&#x27;s room for improvement but not a half a million dollars worth of room for improvement. I suppose people will donate to what&#x27;s important to them, though.
评论 #13496302 未加载
评论 #13495873 未加载
评论 #13496308 未加载
评论 #13495747 未加载
评论 #13495937 未加载
评论 #13498117 未加载
WikipediasBad超过 8 年前
This is a great donation by Craig. I fully support it. I also think there should be more legitimate alternatives to Wikipedia and some more competition, but there is not unfortunately.<p>I&#x27;ve tried to edit Everipedia which bills itself as an alternative to Wikipedia like other alts like rationalwiki etc and although they have a long way to go to get their software and UX up to par, their premise is pretty cool. They want to have a live updating branch of wikipedia always on their site in real time to edit and fork by their own community. I&#x27;d say the best alternatives so far are Everipedia, RationalWiki (if you can call this an alternative), and smaller projects that are niche like Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. There should be more legitimate ones in my opinion though.
ThomaszKrueger超过 8 年前
I wonder if there is a larger issue here. I see parallels with sites like StackOverflow - it was fun and productive in the beginning, now there seems to be an army of users and moderators on the ready to shut down questions they don&#x27;t like for whatever reason.
kaslai超过 8 年前
I was hoping that this was a donation intended to lessen Wikipedia&#x27;s nagging for donations...
toodlebunions超过 8 年前
Wikipedia has almost as many trolls as social media.
swayvil超过 8 年前
In my experience the editors of Wikipedia definitely deserve to be harassed.
aaron695超过 8 年前
Is Wikipedia getting worse - No<p>Is Wikipedia losing editors - Yes, because it&#x27;s 99% done. The work is not there.<p>Do people not like the fact what they think is important gets rejected - Yes<p>Do they blame that on harassment - ?<p>I really think this is solving a problem that doesn&#x27;t exist.<p>Wikipedia is winding down not ramping up.