h a l f b a k e r yYou could have thought of that.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Whereas all my stuff probably is a load of crap, there are
people whose stuff isn't, and some of those will be
commented upon askance on review and IMDB websites, or
as YouTube comments or whatever. The value of the
critique on such places is at best floccipaucinihilipilificated
by comments
which are merely snarky and destructively
critical, possibly because the commenter holds themselves
to such a high standard that they simply don't bother to put
anything of their own out there.
This can be prevented by insisting that anyone who submits
a comment or review on a creative work first submits a
link to a creative work of their own before the comment
can be approved. Granted, this work could just be the
word "blue" repeated 100 000 times, but everyone would
know, mark and inwardly digest that this was so.
Oh, and it is a CAPTCHA. The people submitting the
dragging down comments in such places are clearly
behaving robotically and have somehow been pulled into
not being real online, so they aren't real people.
This will improve the quality of their critique and make
the interaction more authentic.
A summary of Stack-Overflow's privilege System
http://stackoverflow.com/help/privileges
It's a reputation based system - where reputation points are earned by participating appropriately - it's quite complex, and new users have to start off with a fairly limited set of functionality, but it seems to foster a creative and supportive atmosphere. [zen_tom, Jun 25 2015]
[link]
|
| |
With respect, I don't think one can floccinaucinihilipilificate transitively. Although a bot might be able to. |
|
| |
Oddly the entrance bar for this place remains low. One
wonders about the conditions that keep it out of the realm
of Breitbart troll territory. |
|
| |
// I don't think one can floccinaucinihilipilificate
transitively.// |
|
| |
One most certainly can. I can
floccinaucinihilipilificate, and you can be
floccinaucinihilipilificated. Intransitive
floccinaucinihilipilification would be pointless. |
|
| |
The entry bar is indeed low. The idea is to put oneself out
there and expose oneself to criticism rather than carping
from the sidelines without risk. |
|
| |
This does rather seem fair - I've been enjoying the benefits of the stackoverflow universe over the last year or so, which operates
a privilege system which encourages sensible discourse by barring snark (and nearly anything else) from non-participators. Anyone
who wishes to participate earns the right to do so by participating nicely/precisely/well. It takes some effort to engage, more
than say, YouTube, but everyone's invested - like in your idea. |
|
| |
I quite like YouTube, but contributing is a bit like going into the high-street and doing a turn. If people don't like it, they'll
quite happily say so. Part of me thinks the honesty available there is kind of helpful - it cuts through what we might think of as
being our parochial world-views sometimes - but part of me thinks that parochiality is almost universal and it's just random
whether anyone lives in a parochial "live and let live, be nice and kind" sort of universe, or a harder, "I wouldn't get away with
this, so nor should you" kind of mode - Indeed, I think we all vacillate between the two, to some extent. Being exposed to both
extremes is probably good in that it probably helps us understand how differently people (and indeed ourselves) can see the world
at different times. I'd never come across the idea of "Hater's Gonna Hate" before the internet, but you know what, it's probably
true, and the sooner I can accept that, I think the bigger and better a person I will become. Both in receiving
floccinaucinihilipilification, and in those dark times when I forget myself and engage in it myself - and we all do that sometimes
- either privately, or publically - which is to say, I think some of those crappy comments (and I've been hurt by a few myself) are
likely to come from real people - just people who are inhabiting a more negative head-space right now - to dehumanise them while in some
ways accurate at a behavioural level (they are more likely to respond to something automatically, without engaging any kind of rational
thought if they're living in a more pressured negative head-world) is essentially to floccinaucinihilipilificate them in return, which
itself is either an automatic (i.e. robot-like) response, or a
rationalised way of justifying one after the event. |
|
| |
However, if you want a system to encourage creative content - it seems sensible to foster a more positive comment system - and a
method such as this would be a decent initial step. It's all about creating a culture of acceptance, support and all those other
nice things - easy to do in theory, but harder in practice, considering all it takes is for one person to have a bad week to have
it all come tumbling down. |
|
| |
"To complete the sign-up process for this website please study the random group of objects pictured below and complete either (a) an oil painting of them in a free, impressionist style or (b) a mixed-media textile/applique/needlework artwork representing the objects. Send your completed work to the address below for assessment by our team of art critics." |
|
| |
^
"So, where's your stuff ?"
"Minimalist."
"Ah, right then... carry on." |
|
| |
[ ] wouldn't that tend to support only the artists' artist (that's possibly a conundrum) ? |
|
| |