←back to thread

Reddit CEO admits to altering user comments that were critical of him

(www.reddit.com)
668 points wildmusings | 1 comments | 24 Nov 16 00:50 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
JorgeGT ◴[24 Nov 16 01:04 UTC] No.13027099[source]▶
And without an "edited" mark, which means that any comment of any user can be covertly modified by an admin. Very concerning since Reddit comments have provoked even Congress hearings: http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/296680-house-pan...
replies(7): >>13027119 #>>13027125 #>>13027136 #>>13027240 #>>13027734 #>>13028391 #>>13033721 #
dvt ◴[24 Nov 16 01:12 UTC] No.13027125[source]▶
It's more concerning that Congress is that stupid (one can only hope the Courts haven't been making rulings based on untraced emails and anonymous tweets). Social media is a canonical exemplar of hearsay.

There's a reason Wikipedia isn't an acceptable source in college-level courses.

replies(6): >>13027147 #>>13027170 #>>13027187 #>>13027263 #>>13027329 #>>13028742 #
Throwaway23412 ◴[24 Nov 16 01:16 UTC] No.13027147[source]▶
No, but Wikipedia's sources usually are. I feel like there's a world of difference between a well-sourced encyclopedia entry and a comment on a somewhat anonymous forum.
replies(1): >>13027185 #
dvt ◴[24 Nov 16 01:22 UTC] No.13027185[source]▶
Wikipedia's sources are usually terrible (a blog post), unverifiable (I don't have access to the actual book), or they 404.

Sometimes, Wikipedia editors don't understand the source so the Wikipedia article and the source are actually at odds with one another. I've witnessed this a few times when I investigated dubious claims.

replies(1): >>13027246 #
1. VintageCool ◴[24 Nov 16 01:30 UTC] No.13027246[source]▶
One time while studying for a final exam, I did a final review of the Wikipedia article and noticed a quote which was an exact match for a paper that I had just read, and it was followed by [citation needed].

Adding that citation is one of my proudest Wikipedia edits ever.