Comments on: Top-Down Communications, Union-Style http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/01/06/top-down-communications-union-style/ Sun, 23 Aug 2009 21:40:20 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Seth Finkelstein http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/01/06/top-down-communications-union-style/comment-page-1/#comment-953 Seth Finkelstein Thu, 11 Jan 2007 06:16:15 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/01/06/top-down-communications-union-style/#comment-953 Anna, sure, but that has problems of its own - some hate-sites deliberately seek attention to boost their rankings. Amusingly, for example, the Martin Luther King hate-site got linked so many places for being a bad example and a deceptive website, that those mentions helped send it to the top of the search results. Now, before someone objects that we're not talking hate-sites, it's posible to have this issue at a lesser level (though I think a few high-readership political bloggers edge pretty close, about as a close as you can get in modern politics). Right, there's "nofollow", but this is a pretty complex topic. I wouldn't fault anyone for thinking they don't want to play that game of navigating through all the attention power-centers and problems, that it's not for them. And again, I really dislike the "head I win, tails you lose" lack of accountability aspect, where if the A-lister's recommendation turns out to be deeply harmful, well, they're gone, off to the next "conversation" prospect, and it was all your fault anyway. Anna, sure, but that has problems of its own – some hate-sites deliberately seek attention to boost their rankings. Amusingly, for example, the Martin Luther King hate-site got linked so many places for being a bad example and a deceptive website, that those mentions helped send it to the top of the search results. Now, before someone objects that we’re not talking hate-sites, it’s posible to have this issue at a lesser level (though I think a few high-readership political bloggers edge pretty close, about as a close as you can get in modern politics). Right, there’s “nofollow”, but this is a pretty complex topic. I wouldn’t fault anyone for thinking they don’t want to play that game of navigating through all the attention power-centers and problems, that it’s not for them. And again, I really dislike the “head I win, tails you lose” lack of accountability aspect, where if the A-lister’s recommendation turns out to be deeply harmful, well, they’re gone, off to the next “conversation” prospect, and it was all your fault anyway.

]]> By: Anna Haynes http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/01/06/top-down-communications-union-style/comment-page-1/#comment-952 Anna Haynes Wed, 10 Jan 2007 22:05:49 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/01/06/top-down-communications-union-style/#comment-952 re top-down communications - anytime we're talking to newbies, we'll find this sort of disconnect and need for education on best practices (and Seth, you can still link to your opponents while providing subtle meta-info on them, e.g. "some spirited disagreement can be found _here_...") What I would find EXTREMELY valuable (does it exist in any 1 place?) is a JakobNielsen(useit.com/alertbox)-style "web community best/worst practices" site, with collected essays on the basics, explaining *why* practice A is good and practice B is bad. JN will forever be in my heart, for saving me much time/energy in the early years of the web by letting us say "see Jakob Nielsen _here_ on why this practice is undesirable" instead of having to re-explain for the 45th time... does this sort of site exist anywhere? (<a href="http://www.ojr.org/ojr/stories/061213niles/" rel="nofollow">Robert Niles</a> is making a stab at it, among others, but the web is too dispersed and/or I'm too lazy and/or ignorant as to how to do a quality search for this subject matter) re top-down communications – anytime we’re talking to newbies, we’ll find this sort of disconnect and need for education on best practices (and Seth, you can still link to your opponents while providing subtle meta-info on them, e.g. “some spirited disagreement can be found _here_…”)

What I would find EXTREMELY valuable (does it exist in any 1 place?) is a JakobNielsen(useit.com/alertbox)-style “web community best/worst practices” site, with collected essays on the basics, explaining *why* practice A is good and practice B is bad. JN will forever be in my heart, for saving me much time/energy in the early years of the web by letting us say “see Jakob Nielsen _here_ on why this practice is undesirable” instead of having to re-explain for the 45th time…

does this sort of site exist anywhere? (Robert Niles is making a stab at it, among others, but the web is too dispersed and/or I’m too lazy and/or ignorant as to how to do a quality search for this subject matter)

]]> By: Delia http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/01/06/top-down-communications-union-style/comment-page-1/#comment-951 Delia Tue, 09 Jan 2007 23:47:25 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/01/06/top-down-communications-union-style/#comment-951 Seth: I'm usually pretty tolerant with the *form* in which people express their ideas (provided there is some factual basis for the opinion); yeah, I do think controlling the flow of comments (especially in extreme cases) would improve quality. D Seth: I’m usually pretty tolerant with the *form* in which people express their ideas (provided there is some factual basis for the opinion); yeah, I do think controlling the flow of comments (especially in extreme cases) would improve quality. D

]]> By: Seth Finkelstein http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/01/06/top-down-communications-union-style/comment-page-1/#comment-950 Seth Finkelstein Tue, 09 Jan 2007 17:42:38 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/01/06/top-down-communications-union-style/#comment-950 I meant that there's many people who have deeply felt and sincere opinions, that I wouldn't say are "disagree to disagree" - but those opinions just aren't very thoughtful or well-reasoned. Even well-intentioned community forums have real problems that, e.g. quick popular comments can drown out anything that requires some time to think through. I meant that there’s many people who have deeply felt and sincere opinions, that I wouldn’t say are “disagree to disagree” – but those opinions just aren’t very thoughtful or well-reasoned. Even well-intentioned community forums have real problems that, e.g. quick popular comments can drown out anything that requires some time to think through.

]]> By: Delia http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/01/06/top-down-communications-union-style/comment-page-1/#comment-949 Delia Tue, 09 Jan 2007 16:04:26 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/01/06/top-down-communications-union-style/#comment-949 Seth: well... in order to *learn* something... it HAS to be new stuff! (if it's just a repeat... it seems to me that it would fall either under "disagree to disagree" or "agree to be agreeable" -- which, as I said, are both *useless*...) So... yeah! D. Seth: well… in order to *learn* something… it HAS to be new stuff! (if it’s just a repeat… it seems to me that it would fall either under “disagree to disagree” or “agree to be agreeable” — which, as I said, are both *useless*…) So… yeah! D.

]]> By: Seth Finkelstein http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/01/06/top-down-communications-union-style/comment-page-1/#comment-948 Seth Finkelstein Tue, 09 Jan 2007 06:55:03 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/01/06/top-down-communications-union-style/#comment-948 Delia, while it's true you can always learn more, there's a point of diminishing returns where you are very, very, very unlikely to learn more from people who haven't studied the topic. And the probability of finding such a gem must be balanced against the effort of slogging through all the nonsense. It is not costless - which is my constant complaint about the marketing, denial that there is an extremely large and significant negative and downside. I didn't mean just disagreeing to disagree. But that in many cases, the basic lines of argument ARE KNOWN, and repeating them doesn't do much if any good in terms of advancing anyone's understanding. All that happens is that the same old argument is gone around again and again. Or that each sides knows what the other thinks already, and that isn't going to change anyone's mind because there are various imperatives driving the actions. Repetition then doesn't do any good for human knowledge, or even democracy. The major effect is to line the pockets of those who make a business off argument in various ways. Delia, while it’s true you can always learn more, there’s a point of diminishing returns where you are very, very, very unlikely to learn more from people who haven’t studied the topic. And the probability of finding such a gem must be balanced against the effort of slogging through all the nonsense. It is not costless – which is my constant complaint about the marketing, denial that there is an extremely large and significant negative and downside.

I didn’t mean just disagreeing to disagree. But that in many cases, the basic lines of argument ARE KNOWN, and repeating them doesn’t do much if any good in terms of advancing anyone’s understanding. All that happens is that the same old argument is gone around again and again. Or that each sides knows what the other thinks already, and that isn’t going to change anyone’s mind because there are various imperatives driving the actions. Repetition then doesn’t do any good for human knowledge, or even democracy. The major effect is to line the pockets of those who make a business off argument in various ways.

]]> By: Delia http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/01/06/top-down-communications-union-style/comment-page-1/#comment-947 Delia Tue, 09 Jan 2007 04:18:44 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/01/06/top-down-communications-union-style/#comment-947 Seth, Unless you have a complete understanding of the situation from all possible angles (extremely rare), you can always learn more... and I think it's important to stay open. I don't see it as having to do with "punditry" -- just honest desire to take as many things as possible into consideration. Delia P.S. I agree that those who disagree just to disagree (I'm assuming that's what you mean by "merely disagree") are just as useless as those who agree just to be agreeable (maybe even more...) D. Seth,

Unless you have a complete understanding of the situation from all possible angles (extremely rare), you can always learn more… and I think it’s important to stay open. I don’t see it as having to do with “punditry” — just honest desire to take as many things as possible into consideration.

Delia

P.S. I agree that those who disagree just to disagree (I’m assuming that’s what you mean by “merely disagree”) are just as useless as those who agree just to be agreeable (maybe even more…) D.

]]> By: Seth Finkelstein http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/01/06/top-down-communications-union-style/comment-page-1/#comment-946 Seth Finkelstein Tue, 09 Jan 2007 03:05:50 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/01/06/top-down-communications-union-style/#comment-946 One more aspect - note also the asymmetry of risk involved. The blog-evangelist who leads someone into a career-harming situation can always say that s/he believes the tradeoffs (where *the other person* suffers) are worth it, for the cause of [insert buzzwords here]. Delia: Actually, we learn nothing from people who merely disagree. And in many contexts, the arguments are well-known, and simply repeated to try to get through noise. Or as part of advocacy. One of my saying is: How many problems are there, really, where the solution is: "MORE PUNDITRY"? One more aspect – note also the asymmetry of risk involved. The blog-evangelist who leads someone into a career-harming situation can always say that s/he believes the tradeoffs (where *the other person* suffers) are worth it, for the cause of [insert buzzwords here].

Delia: Actually, we learn nothing from people who merely disagree. And in many contexts, the arguments are well-known, and simply repeated to try to get through noise. Or as part of advocacy. One of my saying is: How many problems are there, really, where the solution is: “MORE PUNDITRY”?

]]> By: Delia http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/01/06/top-down-communications-union-style/comment-page-1/#comment-945 Delia Mon, 08 Jan 2007 22:57:04 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/01/06/top-down-communications-union-style/#comment-945 Dan: re: "We all learn more from people who disagree with us than from people who agree." absolutely! especially when the agreement is just to be agreeable (and that happens plenty of times); those who agree but elaborate potentially enhance our understanding of the situation but those who *earnestly* disagree and tell us exactly *why*... I think they are doing us a big favor! Delia Dan:

re: “We all learn more from people who disagree with us than from people who agree.”

absolutely! especially when the agreement is just to be agreeable (and that happens plenty of times); those who agree but elaborate potentially enhance our understanding of the situation but those who *earnestly* disagree and tell us exactly *why*… I think they are doing us a big favor!

Delia

]]> By: Garrick Van Buren .com » The Call for Public Debate That’s Actually Both http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/01/06/top-down-communications-union-style/comment-page-1/#comment-944 Garrick Van Buren .com » The Call for Public Debate That’s Actually Both Mon, 08 Jan 2007 02:53:59 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/01/06/top-down-communications-union-style/#comment-944 [...] The Call for Public Debate That’s Actually Both “…there’s lots to gain, and little to lose, in having the confidence of one’s own ideas to publicly debate the issues. At the very least, it forces people to make a better case for their own views, because the other side(s) will poke holes in flimsy arguments.” - Dan Gillmor America, Technorati [...] [...] The Call for Public Debate That’s Actually Both “…there’s lots to gain, and little to lose, in having the confidence of one’s own ideas to publicly debate the issues. At the very least, it forces people to make a better case for their own views, because the other side(s) will poke holes in flimsy arguments.” – Dan Gillmor America, Technorati [...]

]]>