Let me state for the record that this problem is not unique to either the "left" or "right".
For my part, I've written a number of comments and articles on this subject, all dealing with the quality of comments and personal responsibility. I generally find the individuals to whom I'm directing them show little or no recognition of their part in the problem.
We are frequently dealing with individuals that have passionate views on the subjects being discussed. This can sometimes lead to intemperate responses that, if infrequent, should be tolerated. The tenor of the articles and comments which have appeared to deteriorate over the last six months can be attributed to the general deterioration of civility within our society as a whole. Combined with the anonymity afforded by this medium this trend can be exacerbated.
I am astonished at how many logical fallacies are posited for the purpose of arguing against the article and frequently marginalizing the writer. I have encountered threads with as many as 10 red herrings! Personal attacks on the writers are a common means of disputing the subject of the article. When combined with the anger so apparent on the internet these logic issues truly hurt the Gather experience.
What can we do as responsible members of the community? First is the obvious, treat others with respect. Recognize the writer's effort. Without those articles there will be no Gather. Second, ignore the flamers. Don't comment on the flame. Like a flower without water, they will wilt. When commenting on the article one might start with, "to get back on the topic of the article."
What can Gather do? I read Tom's comment on Candida's article with interest. I don't envy Gather's position regarding this problem. Many of the solutions proposed would be extraordinarily expensive to implement and could result in Gather's life or death. Recognizing that Gather wishes to avoid censorship, which I agree with, I've commented below (C:).
I read the five potential solutions proposed by Tom.
1) Allow you to moderate or remove comments from your articles (perhaps showing other readers when comments have been removed, so the community knows that something has been deleted that was posted previously)
C: This allows the writer too much control of the content of the comments. There will be writers who delete many or all of the comments that dispute the thesis of the article and could lead to a dumbing down of the site.
2) Allow you to block members you don't want to see so that you never encounter their content (articles, profiles, comments, messages) at all
C: Could lead to problems following the treads. As for the articles, we can just ignore them. I don't think many will actually use this option because of the disruption. Besides, some individuals who abuse the political discourse may be writing fine articles in other areas.
3) As above in #2, but add a second filter where a user flagged above a certain threshold does not appear unless people explicitly opt-in to see content the community has deemed unhelpful.
C: Same as above
4) We could allow comment rating and organize comments by quality (this would require threaded comments to make the comments make sense). This system could allow users to set a minimum threshold for comments they want to view.
C: See below, except for the minimum threshold idea which I disagree with as above.
5) We could allow a more detailed flagging system for negative content. Flagging might include "flaming, copyright violation, overtly commercial content" and allow users to call this out to Gather editorial. Our team can suggest corrective behavior if we receive multiple complaints about the same person.
C: See below
My proposal is a combination of item four and five.
For articles: I would install the detailed rating system, although I don't know how much good it will do. If the flamers are trying to reduce the ratings why do we think they will abide by this system? Unless you can develop a report that shows patterns of abuse (compared with the other users) and remove rating privileges from the abusers. As for filtering out the articles themselves? The community knows who these people are; they can just avoid their articles.
For comments: Comment rating would be nice, but most individuals don't even comment on the articles, will they rate the comments? I propose a series of flagging options.
Logical fallacy, content inaccuracy, personal attack, overly commercial content. When flagged the comment will show a colored dot next to the authors name a color for each of the flags. If the gather editorial staff sees egregious abuses of the system they could take appropriate action. Otherwise, community recognition of these issues, through the flags will lead to marginalization of the abusers. All this while minimizing censorship.
What do you think?
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 19
I would like to see a variation of the #1 option. I would like the author to be able to move comments to a status of: "the author finds the following comments as going over the line in terms of civility or pertience to the subject matter."
Everybody would be able to access these comments still, possible toggle them on and off?
Bill, I have no real objection to your proposal as long as the reader ultimately has access to the writing. I do think some form of community rating would help determine whether to turn these remarks off and on.
Seth, I agree there appear to be many more representatives from the "left." There may be many more individuals in the "center" that we don't know about because the rage exhibited in many of the political posts chase those away that don't have an "extremist's passion."
Candida, I think the generous attitude exists here. It is frequently overshadowed by those who choose not to practice it. I also don't want a policed or censored site. But more information, in the form of flags, does two things. First, it provides guidance to users. If they see the flags then they know they are not alone in recognizing that there is a problem with the comment. And two, it discourages the miscreants from continued abuse of the system. After all, who wants flags consistently displayed next to their name? It will marginalize their input.
Monica, I did as you suggested, joined and posted this article to BABG. I thought of the problem you mentioned regarding "vindictive flagging". I suggest that there is some algorithm that exists to identify abusers based on averages. Perhaps there could be an appeal process or button. But that may be cost prohibitive.
Again thanks for the comments.
I know this is a chronic problem on most, if not all, web forums. Many forums enable members to notify the adminstrator of inappropriate posts. Some forums appoint teams of volunteer member/moderators who monitor such things, and who follow a formal procedure for deciding which posts should be deleted as inappropriate, or whether a member should have posting priviledges revoked for repeated flaming.
There should definitely be an extensive, readily accessible page describing "Gather etiquette" to which folks are automatically directed when joining Gather. Perhaps all Gatherers should be asked to click "I agree to abide by these terms" when they join. It wouldn't stop the truly obnoxious, but it would provide a formal agreement which could be referred to if and when problems develop.
Thanks for your comment.
But anyway, let's just start the point system at 6. That way, everyone is happy to get a 6, which means they are above average. Anything above 6 is gravy, but if no one is given less than a 6, no one is hurt or traumatized or depressed or decides to swear off writing forever.
jstew and Mimi, I'm not obsessed with the rating system. If I was I wouldn't write any political articles. In fact I think as a rule the ratings given are much too high. One should only get a 10 for a truly well written article that provides either information or a story, etc. that is presented in a compelling manner. Personally, I'm not that good a writer. I know because I'm married to one and her ability always blows me away.
However there are people who find meaning in the ratings and over time patterns exist. For instance this article had three tens, and then a three and a one. Usually these show up just before or after a "liberal" comments on my article. Which is funny because I'm a liberal myself. But I guess I treat the conservatives with too much respect for some peoples taste. IN any case, these seem to be punitive in nature and that's what the fuss is about.
So in reality the quote should have been "LOL, well somebody doesn't like me, they gave this a 3."
The reason I proplesed this system has little or nothing to do with the rating system. Its designed to discourage abusive posts without resorting to censorship.
Thanks again for your comments.