Wired's 2019 article highlights how fan communities, specifically those on Archive of Our Own (AO3), a fan-created and run platform for fanfiction, excel at organizing vast amounts of information online, often surpassing commercially driven efforts. AO3's robust tagging system, built by and for fans, allows for incredibly granular and flexible categorization of creative works, enabling users to find specific niches and explore content in ways that traditional search engines and commercially designed tagging systems struggle to replicate. This success stems from the fans' deep understanding of their own community's needs and their willingness to maintain and refine the system collaboratively, demonstrating the power of passionate communities to build highly effective and specialized organizational tools.
MapTCHA is an open-source CAPTCHA that leverages user interaction to improve OpenStreetMap data. Instead of deciphering distorted text or identifying images, users solve challenges related to map features, like identifying missing house numbers or classifying road types. This process simultaneously verifies the user and contributes valuable data back to OpenStreetMap, making it a mutually beneficial system. The project aims to be a privacy-respecting alternative to commercial CAPTCHA services, keeping user contributions within the open-source ecosystem.
HN commenters generally express enthusiasm for MapTCHA, praising its dual purpose of verifying users and improving OpenStreetMap data. Several suggest potential improvements, such as adding house number verification and integrating with other OSM editing tools like iD and JOSM. Some raise concerns about the potential for automated attacks or manipulation of the CAPTCHA, and question whether the tasks are genuinely useful contributions to OSM. Others discuss alternative CAPTCHA methods and the general challenges of balancing usability and security. A few commenters share their experiences with existing OSM editing tools and processes, highlighting the existing challenges related to vandalism and data quality. One commenter points out the potential privacy implications of using street-level imagery.
Community Notes, X's (formerly Twitter's) crowdsourced fact-checking system, aims to combat misinformation by allowing users to add contextual notes to potentially misleading tweets. The system relies on contributor ratings of note helpfulness and strives for consensus across viewpoints. It utilizes a complex algorithm incorporating various factors like rater agreement, writing quality, and potential bias, prioritizing notes with broad agreement. While still under development, Community Notes emphasizes transparency and aims to build trust through its open-source nature and data accessibility, allowing researchers to analyze and improve the system. The system's success hinges on attracting diverse contributors and maintaining neutrality to avoid being manipulated by specific viewpoints.
Hacker News users generally praised Community Notes, highlighting its surprisingly effective crowdsourced approach to fact-checking. Several commenters discussed the system's clever design, particularly its focus on finding points of agreement even among those with differing viewpoints. Some pointed out the potential for manipulation or bias, but acknowledged that the current implementation seems to mitigate these risks reasonably well. A few users expressed interest in seeing similar systems implemented on other platforms, while others discussed the philosophical implications of decentralized truth-seeking. One highly upvoted comment suggested that Community Notes' success stems from tapping into a genuine desire among users to contribute positively and improve information quality. The overall sentiment was one of cautious optimism, with many viewing Community Notes as a promising, albeit imperfect, step towards combating misinformation.
The National Archives is seeking public assistance in transcribing historical documents written in cursive through its "By the People" crowdsourcing platform. Millions of pages of 18th and 19th-century records, including military pension files and Freedmen's Bureau records, need to be digitized and made searchable. By transcribing these handwritten documents, volunteers can help make these invaluable historical resources more accessible to researchers and the general public. The project aims to improve search functionality, enable data analysis, and shed light on crucial aspects of American history.
HN commenters were largely enthusiastic about the transcription project, viewing it as a valuable contribution to historical preservation and a fun challenge. Several users shared their personal experiences with cursive, lamenting its decline in education and expressing nostalgia for its use. Some questioned the choice of Zooniverse as the platform, citing usability issues and suggesting alternatives like FromThePage. A few technical points were raised about the difficulty of deciphering 18th and 19th-century handwriting, especially with variations in style and ink, and the potential benefits of using AI/ML for pre-processing or assisting with transcription. There was also a discussion about the legal and historical context of the documents, including the implications of slavery and property ownership.
Researchers have demonstrated a method for using smartphones' GPS receivers to map disturbances in the Earth's ionosphere. By analyzing data from a dense network of GPS-equipped phones during a solar storm, they successfully imaged ionospheric variations and travelling ionospheric disturbances (TIDs), particularly over San Francisco. This crowdsourced approach, leveraging the ubiquitous nature of smartphones, offers a cost-effective and globally distributed sensor network for monitoring space weather events and improving the accuracy of ionospheric models, which are crucial for technologies like navigation and communication.
HN users discuss the potential impact and feasibility of using smartphones to map the ionosphere. Some express skepticism about the accuracy and coverage achievable with consumer-grade hardware, particularly regarding the ability to measure electron density effectively. Others are more optimistic, highlighting the potential for a vast, distributed sensor network, particularly for studying transient ionospheric phenomena and improving GPS accuracy. Concerns about battery drain and data usage are raised, along with questions about the calibration and validation of the smartphone measurements. The discussion also touches on the technical challenges of separating ionospheric effects from other signal variations and the need for robust signal processing techniques. Several commenters express interest in participating in such a project, while others point to existing research in this area, including the use of software-defined radios.
Summary of Comments ( 35 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43137627
Hacker News commenters generally agree with the article's premise, praising AO3's tagging system and its user-driven nature. Several highlight the importance of understanding user needs and empowering them with flexible tools, contrasting this with top-down information architecture imposed by tech companies. Some point out the value of "folksonomies" (user-generated tagging systems) and how they can be more effective than rigid, pre-defined categories. A few commenters mention the potential downsides, like the need for moderation and the possibility of tag inconsistencies, but overall the sentiment is positive, viewing AO3 as a successful example of community-driven organization. Some express skepticism about the scalability of this approach for larger, more general-purpose platforms.
The Hacker News post linking to the Wired article "Fans Are Better Than Tech at Organizing Information Online" has generated a moderate number of comments, many of which delve into the nuances of fan-driven organization versus technology-driven solutions. No single overwhelmingly compelling comment stands out, but several contribute interesting perspectives.
Several commenters agree with the premise of the article, highlighting the passion and dedication of fan communities. They point to the meticulous tagging, categorization, and cross-referencing efforts within fandoms as evidence of their superior organizational skills. One commenter specifically mentions the detailed documentation often found in fan wikis, surpassing even official sources in depth and accuracy. Another notes how fans often tackle complex organizational challenges out of sheer love for the source material, a motivation often lacking in purely technical projects.
However, other commenters offer counterpoints, arguing that comparing fan organization to general-purpose tech solutions is a false equivalence. They suggest that fans operate within a specific, self-defined scope, with a shared understanding of relevant information and criteria. This makes their task fundamentally different from organizing the vast, chaotic expanse of the internet. One commenter points out that fans often organize around a limited and well-defined corpus, making the task more manageable compared to organizing information on the open web.
A recurring theme in the comments is the trade-off between human curation and algorithmic organization. While acknowledging the strengths of fan-driven systems, some commenters emphasize the scalability issues inherent in manual processes. They argue that while fans excel at detailed curation within niche areas, algorithms are better suited for handling massive datasets and evolving information landscapes. One comment suggests that ideal solutions might lie in combining human expertise with technological tools, leveraging the strengths of both approaches.
The discussion also touches upon the social aspects of fan organization. Several comments note the sense of community and shared purpose that drives these efforts, contrasting it with the often impersonal nature of technology-driven platforms. One commenter points out the collaborative nature of fan projects, allowing for collective intelligence and distributed effort.
Finally, some commenters raise concerns about the sustainability and longevity of fan-driven archives. They question the reliance on volunteer labor and the potential for projects to become dormant or disappear entirely. They suggest that more robust infrastructure and institutional support might be necessary to ensure the long-term preservation of these valuable resources.
In summary, the comments offer a balanced perspective on the article's central argument, acknowledging the impressive organizational capabilities of fan communities while also recognizing the limitations and challenges of scaling such efforts. The discussion highlights the need for nuanced understanding of the different strengths and weaknesses of human and technological approaches to information organization.