That's sad to hear. I don't doubt that the effect they identified can occurred. But it's unfortunate that they couldn't find any solution to address it satisfactorily. Of course, this is an old problem, and there are many solutions that have been tried: * Straight up moderation (e.g. by an employee/employees of the newspaper, or a small list of trusted people) before posting appears (fails, mainly due to the time required and resulting lag). * Real-name comments (my understanding is people are less likely to be rude if using their real name, though I don't think it magically solves the whole problem) * Meta-moderation - Let readers and active participants moderate, and let/require other active participants check whether they're doing a good job The public policy problem they discussed (everyday people suddenly thinking they're expert scientists and that real scientists don't know what they're talking about) is also real and worrisome.

On 09/25/2013 09:58 PM, Steven Walling wrote: Stack Overflow is pretty good about this. I don't see a lot of blatantly bad posts (ad hominem, etc.). I think this is partly because of who ends up on the site to start with, partly because of the structure the technology imposes, and partly because of good moderation): StackOverflow is *very* structured (I think enforcement has also gotten stricter over time) in terms of what you can post. * If you post a question that is off-topic (you'll be sent to the appropriate other Stack Exchange site, if any), a duplicate (you'll be linked to what it's a duplicate of) or just unreadable/spammy/very bad, it will be closed. Questions can also be -1'ed. * If you post a bad answer, it will be -1'ed. If it's very bad/spammy, it can be deleted, though this is not as common for just badly informed posts. An interesting case is that "Thank you!" answers are also deleted, because they're not, well, answers. * Comments should be used when you're actually commenting on someone's question or answer. "Thank you!" comments can also be deleted. There is a review tool (http://stackoverflow.com/review) specifically to ensure adequate moderation. Since it's StackOverflow, you can get badges for reviewing (http://stackoverflow.com/help/badges) The review tool currently has (parentheticals are my own explanation): * Close Votes (closing questions requires a quorum, so this lets you support a close, if appropriate) * Suggested Edits (Stack Overflow is a wiki, but if you have < 2000 reputation your edits have to be approved Flagged Revisions style). * First Posts (pretty self-explanatory; first posts are more likely to need moderation) * Late Answers (these can also require moderation; "Thank you!" posts are common here) * Low Quality Posts (moderate posts the Stack Exchange software flagged as potentially problematic) * Reopen Votes (similar to Close Votes, but voting to reopen). Some moderation can be done simply by higher-repped users (http://stackoverflow.com/help/privileges), but there are also diamond moderators with extra powers (http://stackoverflow.com/help/site-moderators). These are elected, except for new sites that don't have an electorate yet. Matt _______________________________________________ EE mailing list EE(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ee

I think we can learn a lot from Stack Overflow about the structure and moderation of comments. Creating and sustaining useful environments for web comments is a difficult task for anyone, but there are methods that can make the experience better.

In a related note, YouTube is trying out different approaches for their own comments sections, integrating them more closely with Google+, as detailed here: "You'll start to see a new set of comments rise to the top: those by the video's creator, "popular personalities" (i.e., YouTube celebrities), "engaged discussions" with a long thread, and people you know and interact with — both on YouTube and Google+." http://mashable.com/2013/09/24/youtube-comments-upgrade/ I think the last one is key -- surfacing comments from people you know and interact with seems like a sensible way to weed out the trolls.

In our environment, this could possibly be done by tracking who you interact with -- and eventually providing the option to 'follow' users you find interesting, which I think is long overdue.

This whole field is particularly challenging, as nobody has found a killer app yet that solves all these issues. Until we do, I think comments will remain an important component of interacting on the web, even if their crude and unsatisfying form. But there are some promising approaches which we might want to learn from and possibly adapt for Wikipedia.

But it's unfortunate that they couldn't find any solution to address it satisfactorily.

* Real-name comments (my understanding is people are less likely to be rude if using their real name, though I don't think it magically solves the whole problem)

Yes. (a) there's no evidence for this theory (b) it's seriously discriminatory: http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Who_is_harmed_by_a_%22Real_Names%22_poli…

As I told Jared and some of you, I am worried that we're entering a slippery slope where we start designing incentives and functionality around real names and we end up treating pseudonym users as second-class citizens. There are many intermediate options between real names and "cheap" pseudonyms. Paul Resnick and Kaliya Hamlin gave excellent presentations at the Reputation workshop last year [1] on many alternatives that can be explored. I asked them to share a couple of readings on this issue and I'll forward them to the list when I hear back from them.

I feel that we'll be better off encouraging strong pseudonymity over real identity. I feel that trying to force people into using their real names works against some of our core values. I'd suggest that we *stop* talking about "real names" and maybe begin thinking about "display names". The terminology is different but the end result is the same. (I also feel that adding a "real name" field to the site will go over like a lead balloon). On Sep 26, 2013, at 11:38 AM, Steven Walling &lt;swalling(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: --- Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate _______________________________________________ EE mailing list EE(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ee

On 09/26/2013 01:40 PM, Steven Walling wrote: Yeah. Just be clear, I was not advocating it for Wikimedia sites. Jared has, in the past, suggested that for users that choose to set Yes, officially the main point of the real name field in MediaWiki is "giving you attribution for your work". Note that Wikimedia specifically overrides this setting to make the field hidden (not just optional, but sot so no one can fill it out). If people did choose to fill in a real name field (which would have to be clearly marked as public), then it's worth considering displaying it in discussions. Interesting example of failure of real name requirements: for a time Very interesting, particularly the distinction between drive-bys and long-time users. Matt ______________________________**_________________ EE mailing list EE(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/ee<https://lists.wikimedi…