Mob-Sourcing — the Prejudice of Crowds 178
An anonymous reader writes "ZDNet takes a look at how crowd-moderation can capture and reflect the prejudice of individuals. 'As more web content is crowd-sourced and crowd-moderated, are we seeing only the wisdom of crowds? No, we're also seeing their prejudice. The Internet reflects both the good and ugly in human nature. ... Any system relying on people implicitly encodes prejudices as well. In a world where one politician with a call girl is forced to resign and another is handily reelected, there is no hope for moral or intellectual consistency in crowd-sourced or moderated content.'"
Re:Why should this suprise anyone? (Score:3, Informative)
Also called the illusion of confidence.
Re:Clearly (Score:3, Informative)
beat me to it; I figured there would be some comment about Slashdot groupthink (not 100% by any means, but very often a significant majority of people lean a certain way on here TBH)
Uh... (Score:1, Informative)
The web might be filled with prejudice but this is a guy who got flagged on craigslist as a business because he accepted credit cards. That would sound like a business to me too. I'm so sorry Craig isn't ready to come down and give you special treatment honey...
"Editor gets treatment he doesn't like, says them inner-tubes iz evil, news at eleven"
Are you sure that Clinton lied under oath? (Score:2, Informative)
Clinton was asked, under oath, if he had a sexual relationship with Lewinsky. Clinton did not immediately answer the question, but instead asked what was meant by a "sexual relationship". He was told that a sexual relationship was a relationship where they had sexual intercourse [wikipedia.org]. Clinton then said that he did not have a sexual relationship with Lewinsky.
Clinton and Lewinsky had oral sex, but they did not have sexual intercourse. Clinton was slippery, but he does not seem to have lied.
Re:Calling Hari Seldon (Score:2, Informative)
you need a math that can speak about itself consistently.
OT: Didn't Gödel [wikipedia.org] prove this to be impossible?
Re:Are you sure that Clinton lied under oath? (Score:1, Informative)
Setting up a situation where you can say something that, on its face is a lie according to the understanding of the average person, but due to having previous set a bunch of conditions about how you answer the question, would not technically be a lie, is the worst kind of lie.
Re:Clearly (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, some serious works seem to indicate that when promotions are randomly distributed, an organization is more efficient than when promotions are distributed by regular managers. So we can now say with scientific proofs that comparing managers to monkeys is actually insulting for the monkeys.
Moral consistency does not exist anyway (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Not all politics is a matter of mob rule (Score:3, Informative)