h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

In a recent discussion, Sho said that people were being put off contributing to the Forum because of links ping-pong - where one person posts a link that makes claim X, and another posts a link that rebuts the first link, and so on and on. I don't know if this is happening, but you do notice on the Forum that it's mostly a small group of regulars having the same old conversations over and over. And links ping-pong when it does happen is certainly boring. Perhaps as part of addressing that problem - if there is one - we could have something on the main page about how to post links. On the thread mentioned above, I suggested to Sho that we should think of links as footnotes. The post on h2g2 should stand as it is, but the link can back up the claim for someone who wants to look into it further. So, questions: (1) Is links ping-pong a real problem putting people off? (2) Are there other things that put people off the forum? (3) What is the best way to post links in a thread? (4) Any other suggestions? The first thing that occurs to me is that you could make it more explicitly like a footnote. That is, you say something like "Aardvarks have green tongues [1]" and then at the bottom of the post you have "[1] http://www.aardvarks-have-green-tongues-conspiracy.com". The only danger is that such a formal style would put people off.

Afternoon Dogster

What puts most people of , I suspect, is being 'attacked' for a point of view, rather than a discussion, All of us post something we believe to be 'right', sometimes it is painful to find out how far off the planet one is, especially when it is accompanied by unpleasant comments.

The Links busines is another matter, but very off putting IMHO

I prefer to post a link to give the background to my own opinion, so that posters at least know what I am drivelling about. Posting Link after Link is as pointless as posting contradictory passages of scripture. All they prove is that the posters have the time and erudition to researcg the bits which back their opinion.

Novo

I don't mind links to back-up an argument (although I'm a stickler for any relating facts to be from a reputable news-source like Reuteurs or the BBC rather than some bloke with a Blog and a bee in his bonnet) but what I can't stand is people who cut and paste huge tracts from said link to embelish their argument. In internet debates, there's a type of person who thinks long-winded tracts make their arguments seem more solid and more based in fact whereas 9/11 conspiracy theorists, global-warming deniers and creationists are all capable of waffling about their pet-beliefs for ages whilst essentially relating fairy-stories. If we discourage the use of links we encourage the use of cut and paste waffling and I know which I'd prefer.

"The first thing that occurs to me is that you could make it more explicitly like a footnote. That is, you say something like "Aardvarks have green tongues [1]" and then at the bottom of the post you have "[1] http://www.aardvarks-have-green-tongues-conspiracy.com". The only danger is that such a formal style would put people off." Actually, I quite like this. Rather like the use of citations in Wikipedia. And I think the Forum should have a formal style. I'd rather have more civilised debate on the internet than the sort of awfulness that characterises, to use a good example, the comments section of the Guardian's "Comment is Free" website which have become a byword for abuse and crank-politics thanks to the Grauniad's "all commentary is equal" philosophy.

Hmmmm.... I cannot see how expecting people to be able to back up their assertions is ocntrary to the idea of internet debate. When talking to someone in a pub say it is not possible to back up what you are saying unless you carry around great tracts of information written down. When on the internet however you have at the click of a button access to pretty much the entirity of human knowledge.

On this site (and others) many people (probably including myself from time to time) have a tendancy to spout opinion as fact, and then say "end of argument". Further people often support an argument with something others know to be patently untrue. In those circumstances how can it be unfair to say:-

"Well matey you got anything that backs that up?"

If you are stating "My opinion is xyz....." then clearly there is no problem with not supplying a link, but when people are allegedly refering to factual info I do not think they can complain. If something is an opinion then express it as such.

On the one hand, background is often welcome. On the other, sometimes the links become a bit overwhelming, I can't be bothered to read them all and I wish people would put the relevant bits succinctly in their own words.

Links are also pretty useful conversation starters, locating the thread in the context of a current debate.

As evidence, well we aren't essays, there's really no point putting links that are just the source of your argument. This is evidence that someone else shares my view...great, well done, have a cookie. Links to decent data to support factual claims are good though - we're on the internet and have this resource, so why not use it?

Thinking about it is some posts:-

"I think that this is xyz"

Then my probably response is likely to be "I disagree because of this..."

However if someone posts:-

"This is the way it is..."

Then my probably response is likely to be "prove it"

And a new logical fallacy is born: 'Argumentum ad googleum'



An argument should stand alone

Links are useful for providing additional detail, illustration, or background data, but do not satisfactorily substitute for proof

Hmm really? If someones argument is "X is the case because of Y" then surely it is legitimate to examine "Y"?

I only grew weary of the tone rather than the content in the Forum. When I stopped thinking *Oh, isn't that interesting? I wonder if my take on the subject would interest anyone?* and started thinking *Oh, obviously there are a lot of agendas here.*, I backed away smiling and nodding.

I question the motives of people who turned an amusing and generally fascinating look at L,tU&E with an informative twist into a contest of sorts.

I agree. A degree of parry and thrust is entirely natural - but it's happening to way too many threads far too quickly. Puts me off entirely.

The problem isn't links - it's a free-flowing discussion being brought to a juddering halt by the demand for links, not as a form of discussion but as a form of point-scoring. Researcher X disagrees with the point just made but, instead of expressing their own position in opposition to it, thinks they've 'scored' by pointing out the original poster hasn't produced reams of apparatus to back it up. Whole thing starts focussing on the failings of the original poster (usually on a personal level) and any sense of discussion gets shut off. Dull, pointless, futile...

Sorry, Taliesen, that's not how it's done in science and engineering.

To repeat what I said to Sho yesterday:

This goes to the root of what a message board like Hootoo should be. Any fool can Google, (heck, even me), but it's the human experience that fills out the spaces between the rows of figures. Often there's just too much information available, much of it slanted for political purposes. That's where Hootoo should come into it's own. With such a potentially wide cross-section and a multitude of experiences, the scope to actually learn something meaningful at a human level is immense.

Did I miss a memo? Is this a Forum to prove theorems or for scientific publishing? Are we awarded points? Do I get a lolly if I get it right?
Nonsense.
At best we can to put forward opinion and if that opionion is questioned then explain why one has tha opinion.

SWL, that was a simulpost.

Simul-thinking too

..and written in haste so excuse the spelling errors.

Well zoomer, was that directed at me? It it was then I wonder why you agree with Taliesen that arguments must be able stand alone, with out evidence.

Obviously you're expected to argue from pure reason .