Man, hacker news comments can be so reddit quality with how dismissive and gut instinct they are... i came here to avoid that
37 karma · joined May 22, 2024
Man, hacker news comments can be so reddit quality with how dismissive and gut instinct they are... i came here to avoid that
But overall I think it's better to lean positive, in a similar sense to how overconfident people tend to be more successful.
But yeah go ahead and assume I'm a thoughtless sheep, very condescending of you. Of course your intellect is so superior
Wikipedia doesn't establish consensus by pure numbers or voting, although it is a contributing factor. In disputes, it has moderated discussions with verdicts given by elevated users, including admins. Things like statistics and even (perhaps especially) precedent all weigh in. Popularity of a side can be weighted, but ruling purely based on popularity is actively discouraged.
This can lead to scenarios where 90% of users want something, but the moderater rules along with the 10%. Often, this happens when the discussion was initially among a bunch of relatively new users who aren't aware of some policy, and a more experienced editor points that a dispute is clearly not in line with some policy. This happens very regularly and is often a source of drama with long discussions.
This process actually arguably works better on popular and contentious pages; you get eyes and discussions of substance on those. Most boring pages are virtually ghost towns and are counterintuitively more susceptable to popularity-based consensus. Whatever you put up will likely stick, so it's just a matter of how many people and who will protect the page for the longest.
Also read this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_vie....
The second page addresses your concern about not giving too much weight to fringe theories. It's not enforced as well as it could be in many places though; it can be hard to judge what's due or undue weight.
At some point, maybe poorly-trained chatbots that consistently produce what's seen as avoidably/negligantly poor results may become regulated. Like how if a company poorly trains its employees, it is on the hook for their employees' behavior.