Data Dumps yes or no?

[jgoodguy]

A data dump is a very large cut and paste post or multiple posts in thread with inaccurate information, bad links, inaccurate or no references etc designed to overwhelm members by volume/bulk and incite them. There may be a better term than data dump. IMHO it is a form of trolling.

I personally feel it is an abuse of posting privileges. It may nominally be in the rules, but the sheer volume is intended to overwhelm the members. Therefore this rule may apply:

Community Guidelines

DON'T ABUSE YOUR PRIVILEGES - When you use our Forums and Chat Room, you are guest. Your ability to use this message board and web site is a privilege. Any users abusing the privileges given to them, or violating the rules stated above may be censored and/or banned permanently. The site administrator reserves the right to revoke or restore any and all user privileges on the web site for any reason.

examples:
http://civilwartalk.com/threads/life-as-a-southern-slave.128385/
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?733496-The-Origins-of-the-Lincoln-Myth

Then we had these 2 posts in secession.
http://civilwartalk.com/threads/oh-...confederate-thread.128420/page-2#post-1415854
http://civilwartalk.com/threads/oh-...confederate-thread.128420/page-2#post-1415857

Comments?

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

When I see a tendency to do that, I reach for the "Ignore" button. It's a sign of someone who's here for a harangue rather than conversation.

 

[Yankeedave]

Winnowing our responses as per requested by the man who owns the place.

 

[jgoodguy]

When I see a tendency to do that, I reach for the "Ignore" button. It's a sign of someone who's here for a harangue rather than conversation.

Good advice.

 

[thomas aagaard]

Since I experienced this exact behavior on another forum a few month ago my opinion should be rather clear...
-----

I think "data dump" is not the perfect name.

I would argue a data dump is... well a topic where you post a lot of data.
And that should not be wrong in it self.

you can argue that this topic is a data dump:
http://civilwartalk.com/threads/bla...my-what-the-newspapers-said-1861-1865.127333/

But it is a great topic since the poster do a good work at just presenting sources with no attempt to only share the one that back up one stand point.

The problems is when the data is cherry picked, misleading and not properly referenced.

But I don't have a good suggestion for a better name for it.
----

The issue with the ignore option is that it only help me and if we all just did that, then a problematic topic would not be challenged.
And then we have some random person who like to know a bit about the civil war up here.
It look like a serious place for debate about the war, and then read the problematic topic and take that as correct.

Sure we are not all professional historians. But some I would call experts and I do think we as citizens in a democracy do have a duty to challenge the misuse of history... no matter who do it.

 

[jgoodguy]

I am concerned about individual posts, not threads. A post that exceeds in volume whole threads seems questionable especially if it has problems with references and links.

 

[diane]

They are indeed trolls, although once in a while a good person does it - you can usually tell the difference! To me, there are rules regulating certain items posted so as to keep the forum from bogging down and I would think these same rules could be applied to the data dumps. They are just there to be tar babies or thread killers - either way the objective to disrupt is achieved. Almost invariably the person dumping declares something along the lines of I'm leaving but before I go let me put this orangutan in your dining room.

I think Thomas up above has a good point, though - sometimes a person isn't aware of doing this but thinks they have the right stuff and the misfortune is some people will take it at face value. How to clean up such messes and avoid the unsavory and misused label of 'censorship', I don't know.

 

[Schwallanscher]

Since I experienced this exact behavior on another forum a few month ago my opinion should be rather clear...
-----

I think "data dump" is not the perfect name.

I would argue a data dump is... well a topic where you post a lot of data.
And that should not be wrong in it self.

you can argue that this topic is a data dump:
http://civilwartalk.com/threads/bla...my-what-the-newspapers-said-1861-1865.127333/

But it is a great topic since the poster do a good work at just presenting sources with no attempt to only share the one that back up one stand point.

The problems is when the data is cherry picked, misleading and not properly referenced.

But I don't have a good suggestion for a better name for it.
----

The issue with the ignore option is that it only help me and if we all just did that, then a problematic topic would not be challenged.
And then we have some random person who like to know a bit about the civil war up here.
It look like a serious place for debate about the war, and then read the problematic topic and take that as correct.

Sure we are not all professional historians. But some I would call experts and I do think we as citizens in a democracy do have a duty to challenge the misuse of history... no matter who do it.

how about data-badgering?

user: the user [insert troll of the week] is (data-) badgering the forums
jgoodguy: i advise other users to not take this posts under consideration

 

[Yankeedave]

Data badgering!

 

[John Hartwell]

We've seen some egregious examples, indeed.

But, (I'm perhaps going a little off-topic here), leaving aside the "inaccurate information, bad links, inaccurate or no references etc," but, I have to wonder which is preferable: one fairly long, all-inclusive post to make a point; or, a half dozen or more short one-paragraph posts which together only make a single point (as if each is a "chapter" of the whole story)? The latter is certainly one way to build up one's number of posts, and rise in "rank", but, I find it rather annoying. I'd much rather read one well-constructed argument of several paragraphs, telling "the whole story" in one sitting.

 

[jgoodguy]

We've seen some egregious examples, indeed.

But, (I'm perhaps going a little off-topic here), leaving aside the "inaccurate information, bad links, inaccurate or no references etc," but, I have to wonder which is preferable: one fairly long, all-inclusive post to make a point; or, a half dozen or more short one-paragraph posts which together only make a single point (as if each is a "chapter" of the whole story)? The latter is certainly one way to build up one's number of posts, and rise in "rank", but, I find it rather annoying. I'd much rather read one well-constructed argument of several paragraphs, telling "the whole story" in one sitting.

That is why the staff has the discretion to apply rules. A very long post of "well-constructed argument of several paragraphs" would pass muster while one of "inaccurate information, bad links, inaccurate or no references etc," would be reviewed. It would be a judgement call subject to review.

 

[jgoodguy]

Data badgering!

I like it.

 

[CivilWarTalk]

Okay, I'll weigh in, this isn't an official ruling, just my opinion....

I'm not sure single rule can be written to prevent this type of problem...

First, nothing is stopping the offender from breaking his data up and making multiple posts, and there are quite a few legitimate large posts with good info, so that metric is a no go.

Second, I know of quite a few threads being used as "data dumps", my very own ancestry thread could be categorized as a large data dump, so that's not a good way to categorize the problem either...

Third, I'm not keen to stop people from expressing their opinions on topics, even if they are controversial or even if they are factually wrong or misleading. I want everyone to be able to discuss what they want in a civilized way.

However, I have seen plenty of topics abused by people. Beating a dead horse is never fun, but some users make a career out of it!

And furthermore, as a Civil War forum, we do need to keep a certain level of historical accuracy. When a user is perpetuating something that is blatantly false, we should have a way to appropriately respond as a site, and maybe that's more the problem than anything else....

I'm open to additional suggestions...

 

[jgoodguy]

Okay, I'll weigh in, this isn't an official ruling, just my opinion....

I'm not sure single rule can be written to prevent this type of problem...

First, nothing is stopping the offender from breaking his data up and making multiple posts, and there are quite a few legitimate large posts with good info, so that metric is a no go.

Second, I know of quite a few threads being used as "data dumps", my very own ancestry thread could be categorized as a large data dump, so that's not a good way to categorize the problem either...

Third, I'm not keen to stop people from expressing their opinions on topics, even if they are controversial or even if they are factually wrong or misleading. I want everyone to be able to discuss what they want in a civilized way.

However, I have seen plenty of topics abused by people. Beating a dead horse is never fun, but some users make a career out of it!

And furthermore, as a Civil War forum, we do need to keep a certain level of historical accuracy. When a user is perpetuating something that is blatantly false, we should have a way to appropriately respond as a site, and maybe that's more the problem than anything else....

I'm open to additional suggestions...

"When a user is perpetuating something that is blatantly false, we should have a way to appropriately respond as a site, and maybe that's more the problem than anything else...."

That is the underlying problem IMHO.

 

[diane]

I do have one wobbly suggestion - what about removing clearly repetitious troll bait? We've all seen the oh-no-he's-got-that-stuff-again posts where the disrupter is deliberately regurgitating information that has already been credibly refuted, shown to be what it is so many times nobody can count. For example, the same long winded information on the black Confederate threads about the same black 'Confederate' who has to be proven over and over again to be a servant who accompanied a master.

In my section, trolls on both sides of the question of Forrest abound - there's always a post or thread about Forrest founding the KKK, for instance. No matter how many times it's refuted there is always the same misinformation AND deliberate thread thumping. Telling the difference between someone who is doing it deliberately and someone who thinks for real that's true is what the really gnarly problem is. Presenting previous thread discussions helps - those who are genuine are happy to see the previous discussions. Those who are not genuine ignore the helpful links and barge on.

 

[James B White]

On another forum I post at, it's called a "gish gallop." Google it, or here's part of a typical definition:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

The Gish Gallop (also known as proof by verbosity) is the fallacious debating tactic of simply drowning your opponent in a torrent of small, interlocking arguments intended to prevent your opponent from being able to rebut your conclusions in real time. The Gish Gallop is thus essentially a belt-fed cousin of the on the spot fallacy, as it's unreasonable for anyone to have an answer immediately available to every single argument presented in the gallop.

Although it takes a trivial amount of effort on the galloper's part to make each individual point before skipping on to the next (particularly if they cite from a pre-concocted list of gallop arguments), a refutation of the same gallop may likely take much longer and require significantly more effort (per the basic principle that it's always easier to make a mess than to clean it back up again).

Not sure what the solution is, which is why I'm a better poster than a moderator or administrator. I just don't have the mindset or brainpower to figure out how to prevent such things.

 

[lelliott19]

Third, I'm not keen to stop people from expressing their opinions on topics, even if they are controversial or even if they are factually wrong or misleading. I want everyone to be able to discuss what they want in a civilized way. Bravo to you sir. I couldnt agree more!

And furthermore, as a Civil War forum, we do need to keep a certain level of historical accuracy. When a user is perpetuating something that is blatantly false, we should have a way to appropriately respond as a site, and maybe that's more the problem than anything else.... What if there was an agreed upon symbol? and we all posted the symbol? designated as an indication that we disagree with the content, the reliability of the data, the method used in documenting the sources, etc. If everyone knew what it meant and everyone agreed to use it, sure would save people who feel a need to object lots of time.

I'm open to additional suggestions...

 

[jgoodguy]

On another forum I post at, it's called a "gish gallop." Google it, or here's part of a typical definition:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

The Gish Gallop (also known as proof by verbosity) is the fallacious debating tactic of simply drowning your opponent in a torrent of small, interlocking arguments intended to prevent your opponent from being able to rebut your conclusions in real time. The Gish Gallop is thus essentially a belt-fed cousin of the on the spot fallacy, as it's unreasonable for anyone to have an answer immediately available to every single argument presented in the gallop.

Although it takes a trivial amount of effort on the galloper's part to make each individual point before skipping on to the next (particularly if they cite from a pre-concocted list of gallop arguments), a refutation of the same gallop may likely take much longer and require significantly more effort (per the basic principle that it's always easier to make a mess than to clean it back up again).

Not sure what the solution is, which is why I'm a better poster than a moderator or administrator. I just don't have the mindset or brainpower to figure out how to prevent such things.

In a previous interest, I got to see the original Gish Gallop in action many years ago. It is also a good summary of the problem I see. "it's unreasonable for anyone to have an answer immediately available to every single argument presented in the gallop."

It is also a way of wearing down any opposition as by the time one Gish Gallop is answered another is posted.

 

[KeyserSoze]

A data dump is a very large cut and paste post or multiple posts in thread with inaccurate information, bad links, inaccurate or no references etc designed to overwhelm members by volume/bulk and incite them. There may be a better term than data dump. IMHO it is a form of trolling.

I personally feel it is an abuse of posting privileges. It may nominally be in the rules, but the sheer volume is intended to overwhelm the members. Therefore this rule may apply:

Community Guidelines


examples:
http://civilwartalk.com/threads/life-as-a-southern-slave.128385/
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?733496-The-Origins-of-the-Lincoln-Myth

Then we had these 2 posts in secession.
http://civilwartalk.com/threads/oh-...confederate-thread.128420/page-2#post-1415854
http://civilwartalk.com/threads/oh-...confederate-thread.128420/page-2#post-1415857

Comments?

What is one person "inaccurate information" is another persons "gospel truth". I'm sure he did not post knowing that he was wrong but believing he was right. So I think some tolerance on our part is warranted.

And I admit I was waiting for him to start up his "Lincoln was an evil racist" thread just to watch the storm that it would generate and then to watch him flounder.

 

[jgoodguy]

What is one person "inaccurate information" is another persons "gospel truth". I'm sure 1stvermont did not post knowing that he was wrong but believing he was right. So I think some tolerance on our part is warranted.

And I admit I was waiting for him to start up his "Lincoln was an evil racist" thread just to watch the storm that it would generate and then to watch him flounder.

The issue is not much the information, but the volume. Check out
Urban Dictionary: Gish Gallop

In action
Duane Gish - Wikipedia

His debating opponents said that Gish used a rapid-fire approach during a debate, presenting arguments and changing topics quickly. Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, dubbed this approach the Gish Gallop, describing it as "where the creationist is allowed to run on for 45 minutes or an hour, spewing forth torrents of error that the evolutionist hasn't a prayer of refuting in the format of a debate."[11] She also criticized Gish for failing to answer objections raised by his opponents.[12] The phrase has also come to be used as a pejorative to describe similar debate styles employed by proponents of other, usually fringe beliefs, such as homeopathy or the moon landing hoax.[13][14]