| Richard Wallace |
03-10-2016 15:47 |
Re: Looking Forward Fall 2016 Survey
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abdul Compton
(Post 1609906)
...
-Anonymous: allows for the "truth" and minority opinions to be heard
-Student Input: obviously more kids prefer reddit so you get input and coverage from the kids who benefit from LF
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris is me
(Post 1609964)
This is why, really. Reddit is very easy for trolling - anonymous accounts are tolerated, "unpopular" (actually popular) opinions can be heavily upvoted, bad technical advice can rise to the top while good technical advice can be downvoted to the point of being invisible, etc.
On CD, there's less anonymity, equal visibility given to all posts, and accountability for going out of line. Not even a comparison for me.
|
I am fascinated by this discussion.
Being a grey-hair, my view of informed discussion is based on the model of the Royal Society, which was founded by 17th century Natural Philosophers, before the word "Scientist" had been invented. They are still one of the world's most respected societies for advancing knowledge. The quote below is from their History site:
Quote:
The Royal Society's motto 'Nullius in verba' is taken to mean 'take nobody's word for it'. It is an expression of the determination of Fellows to withstand the domination of authority and to verify all statements by an appeal to facts determined by experiment.
|
"Taking nobody's word for it" is a pillar of scholarship and inquiry -- it is the reason that papers submitted for publication are often given to peer reviewers without their author's name(s) on them. That is one side of the anonymity argument -- ideas stand on their own merit, not on a person's reputation.
However, when anonymous contributors vastly outnumber capable reviewers, the result can be useless (or worse than useless) noise generated by an uninformed, unaccountable rabble. |
