Here's another article too, including a link to a second study: Posting Rules in Science Discussions Prevents Problems & Increases Participation Nathan Matias also answered some questions on...
Not sure if this is legal or not but I wanted to share this sci-hub link so people don't have to pay $10 to access this journal article. Please remove this if it's illegal....
Not sure if this is legal or not but I wanted to share this sci-hub link so people don't have to pay $10 to access this journal article. Please remove this if it's illegal.
i'm not, personally, because that's the whole crux of the economic system we currently use. if enough people will pay for it to make it not a total loss, even if it's complete and utter bullshit...
i'm not, personally, because that's the whole crux of the economic system we currently use. if enough people will pay for it to make it not a total loss, even if it's complete and utter bullshit that people should have to pay for it in the first place, there's not really an incentive for people selling it to ever stop (especially if, in the long term, they can make a profit off of the model).
The reason it amazes me is because I feel a very strong ethical and moral obligation for humanity to share its aggregated knowledge amongst itself with as few concessions and roadblocks as...
The reason it amazes me is because I feel a very strong ethical and moral obligation for humanity to share its aggregated knowledge amongst itself with as few concessions and roadblocks as possible, one that at a younger age I assumed everyone felt but, as I grow older, am realizing is in shorter supply than I could've estimated. I understand that's not very conducive to the world's current economic climate, of course, just dreaming of better days.
In the /r/science thread about this, Nate says (in response to a question about harassment vs. other reasons for removing a comment):
In the /r/science thread about this, Nate says (in response to a question about harassment vs. other reasons for removing a comment):
In answer to your first question, we weren't able to isolate harassment from the other kinds of unruly behavior that is frequently posted to r/science. That's why I try to be clear in the paper that it looks at unruly behavior in the sub, which includes but is not limited to harassment. In conversation with the subreddit, we considered a number of options, including machine learning models and manual analysis like the ones used by the SAFELab at Columbia. Unfortunately, we weren't convinced that any of the options were reliable enough or practical for the community to help with. A follow-up analysis (with the consent of the community) that manually coded these comments would be amazing.
A quick scan of the paper didn't reveal any strict definition, and in cases where an author doesn't define parameters for a specific term I usually default to the publicly recognized definition,...
A quick scan of the paper didn't reveal any strict definition, and in cases where an author doesn't define parameters for a specific term I usually default to the publicly recognized definition, which in this case is:
aggressive pressure or intimidation
But, I also think that harassment is in most cases self-evident, because if someone is accused of harassment and they did not intend to, I would think they would just say, "That wasn't my intent." Unfortunately trolls love to pretend they're just offering dissenting opinions, without acknowledging the criticisms of their own behavior, so I'm sure they muddied up the data somehow.
Related article: https://www.inverse.com/article/55348-r-science-experiment-community-guidelines-prevent-harassment
Here's another article too, including a link to a second study: Posting Rules in Science Discussions Prevents Problems & Increases Participation
Nathan Matias also answered some questions on reddit here: https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/bita3a/researchers_have_found_that_pinning_a_reminder_of/
Not sure if this is legal or not but I wanted to share this sci-hub link so people don't have to pay $10 to access this journal article. Please remove this if it's illegal.
https://sci-hub.tw/10.1073/pnas.1813486116
I will never cease being amazed at how much knowledge we, as a global society, arbitrarily keep locked away from people in the name of profit.
Even more distressing: how much knowledge we, as a global society, keep locked from ourselves away for lack of want.
i'm not, personally, because that's the whole crux of the economic system we currently use. if enough people will pay for it to make it not a total loss, even if it's complete and utter bullshit that people should have to pay for it in the first place, there's not really an incentive for people selling it to ever stop (especially if, in the long term, they can make a profit off of the model).
The reason it amazes me is because I feel a very strong ethical and moral obligation for humanity to share its aggregated knowledge amongst itself with as few concessions and roadblocks as possible, one that at a younger age I assumed everyone felt but, as I grow older, am realizing is in shorter supply than I could've estimated. I understand that's not very conducive to the world's current economic climate, of course, just dreaming of better days.
What constitutes 'harassment', in this case? A concentrated effort to disrupt someone's life...or, just being kind of a dick to another person?
In the /r/science thread about this, Nate says (in response to a question about harassment vs. other reasons for removing a comment):
A quick scan of the paper didn't reveal any strict definition, and in cases where an author doesn't define parameters for a specific term I usually default to the publicly recognized definition, which in this case is:
But, I also think that harassment is in most cases self-evident, because if someone is accused of harassment and they did not intend to, I would think they would just say, "That wasn't my intent." Unfortunately trolls love to pretend they're just offering dissenting opinions, without acknowledging the criticisms of their own behavior, so I'm sure they muddied up the data somehow.
Usually true, but I imagine a scientific paper would have a more rigorous test than "you'll know it when you see it."
Agreed