Incentivizing online skeptical activism

[krelnik]

I started writing a gigantic OP for this thread, and realized that I might as well make it a blog post. And so I did, you can read it here:

Skeptools blog: Incentivizing online activism – a proposal.

The executive summary:

There are tons of interesting online activities that help advance skepticism, such as editing Wikipedia, rating sites in Web of Trust, reporting quacks using Fishbarrel and so on. But unlike blogging or podcasting or giving the keynote speech at TAM, these crowdsourced activities often go largely unrecognized. Wouldn't it be nice to change that?

In the blog post linked above, I explain how we might build a sort of Skeptic Foursquare game, in which skeptics could be rewarded in a fun way for engaging in these small activiites. It would gamify skepticism and thus incentivize doing the hard work of being a regular skeptic-next-door. And it would be silly and fun.

In this thread:

DO: Discuss whether you would be interested in participating in such a service.

DO: Discuss what activities and services should be encouraged and thus included in the game.

DO: Discuss what activities possibly should be excluded from the game because we already have plenty of them or for other logical reasons.

DO: Discuss the relative scoring of different activities. Should a Wikipedia edit be scored based on its size? How much is a Fishbarrel report worth?

DO: Discuss what clever and interesting badges we could offer.

DO NOT: Complain about how stupid services like Foursquare are, especially if you do not use them.

DO NOT: Complain about how gamification is totally over-hyped right now. Yes, we stipulate to that.

DO NOT: Complain that the whole thing would be an invasion of your privacy. It uses an opt-in model, so if you don't want to play, you just don't play.

[zeno2712]

Some very interesting ideas there, Tim!

I've not looked at Foursquare, but I'll take a look later...

[krelnik]

I guess unsurprisingly, there's tons of interest in this over on the social media sites, meanwhile I'm hearing crickets here.

[Cuddles]

Originally Posted by krelnik

I guess unsurprisingly, there's tons of interest in this over on the social media sites, meanwhile I'm hearing crickets here.

Possibly because of this:

Quote:

It sounds silly and superficial, and it is.

Yes, it sounds silly and superficial. No, it doesn't sound at all fun. Why would I have any interest in boasting to people that I've made lots of edits to Wikipedia in order to be able to boast about having made lots of edits to Wikipedia? Or constantly making inane statements about where I am? You seem to want to take all the bad and most pointless parts of social networks and somehow try to glue them onto skepticism. I just don't see the point.

[krelnik]

I want to give people a way to take credit for the work they are doing for skepticism, when that work occurs in tiny little pieces spread across many different websites.

I'm willing to bet money you don't use Foursquare or Gowalla or any other location-based-service, do you? If not, this game is probably not targeted at you. That's fine, carry on.

Originally Posted by Cuddles

Possibly because of this:

Yes, it sounds silly and superficial.

Frankly, I think Skepticism NEEDS a little bit of silliness and fun once in a while. It's all so deadly serious and pedantic so much of the time.

[krelnik]

The Climate Reality Project (an educational NGO created by Al Gore) has done pretty much exactly what I describe here, but specifically targeted at skeptics who go out and answer climate denial where they see it. Here's the introductory video:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Text for those who can't watch the video:

Quote:

Our challenge is to fight denial where it's happening and spread the truth about man-made climate change. Reality Drop finds climate news from around the web and connects it with the most relevant science.

You can drop reality by sharing stories on your social networks or get into the fray on comment threads beneath hot news articles. The more reality you drop, the more doubt you destroy, and the more points and prestige you earn.

A red article means it's a news story promoting climate myths and supporting deniers. Drop reality in the comment threads where you can and earn bonus points whenever your comment gets a hit--when someone clicks on a link that brings them back to the science on Reality Drop.

Green means it's news worth sharing. Spread truth on your social networks, or check out the comment threads in the article and drop reality on denial commenters.

Gray articles are neutral and need your attention. Check them out and vote on whether they're pro or anti science, then drop reality.

Click on a news card and start playing. Together, we'll stand up for reality and destroy the denial. And then we can stop arguing, and start working on solutions.

Just launched last week. It's called Reality Drop.

Comments? How well do you think this will work?

[dlorde]

Sounds awful...[/eeyore]

[krelnik]

People, if you are fundamentally against the idea of gamification - PLEASE FIND ANOTHER THREAD to post in. I asked in the OP that if you don't like gamified sites, please don't comment.


Honestly, when I re-read this thread last night prior to bumping it, the negativity of the comments made me want to quit skepticism.

[Minarvia]

I'm sorry, krelnik. When I read this thread I was taken aback at how negative the responses have been. Please don't give up on skepticism. I've done more than my share of starting awful threads, killing off perfectly good ones, and being in totally over my head here most of the time.

I'm not saying you've done ANY of those things! I just hope that my experiences make you feel better, even if just a little. So, please take my "cheer up" hug.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Wouldn't this promote quantity over quality?

[krelnik]

Well, we need more quantity, frankly.

[marplots]

I read the stuff, but I'm skeptical.

[Acleron]

As someone who only makes small nagging debunkings and not the awesome complete articles which we follow, may I make the following comments.

1) I'm happy with the present system but that may because of my conservative (small c) outlook.

2) I have no wish to rack up any score for what I do, the occasional praise for some, unusually lucid, point gives me greater pleasure by far. Criticism for a poor point, although not welcome, is also very useful.

3) Some people who only make infrequent but valuable points may be put off by such a scheme.

4) Ideas like this are useful and should lead to greater debate. I want skepticism and science based education to become more widespread, that this idea is not acclaimed as much as you like is not a good reason to leave skepticism.

5) Asking people who don't like the idea to go elsewhere is not skepticism.

[marplots]

I miss Hitchens. I would rather have a paladin to stir the masses up and spark conversation than hear the chorus in a closed, but comforting church.

[Allecher]

Acleron, I think I see what you are saying, but the proposal is a way to motivate folks who are not motivated by the current system.

While asking people to go somewhere else is not skepticism, gathering data and attempting to analyze it is skepticism. I interpret Krelnik's post as imploring posters to limit themselves to providing meaningful feedback instead of navel-gazing posts that are common in the Community forum.

I notice that the forum software does display a post count so I assume somewhere along the line that metric was considered important info to calculate, for example. I'm sure there are some posters who really value a high post count.

[dlorde]

Originally Posted by Acleron

As someone who only makes small nagging debunkings and not the awesome complete articles which we follow, may I make the following comments.

1) I'm happy with the present system but that may because of my conservative (small c) outlook.

2) I have no wish to rack up any score for what I do, the occasional praise for some, unusually lucid, point gives me greater pleasure by far. Criticism for a poor point, although not welcome, is also very useful.

3) Some people who only make infrequent but valuable points may be put off by such a scheme.

4) Ideas like this are useful and should lead to greater debate. I want skepticism and science based education to become more widespread, that this idea is not acclaimed as much as you like is not a good reason to leave skepticism.

5) Asking people who don't like the idea to go elsewhere is not skepticism.

+1

[Jasper Packlemerton]

Do we really need credit for not being idiots?

[Brainache]

How many Skepti-Points do I need for a ticket to TAM?

Can I hire a Russian teenager to do some debunking for me until I have enough points at least for Skepticon?

Would I lose points for trying to hit on a Skepchick in an elevator?

[dafydd]

The old whalers in their whaling ships liked a good gamification. Gam has another meaning in Wales, but we won't go into that.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by krelnik

Well, we need more quantity, frankly.

But not at the expense of quality. A large number of poor sceptical contributions is far less valuable than 1 excellent sceptical contribution.

[torifrog]

I'm having difficulty getting beyond the use of the supposed word "incentivizing"...

[dlorde]

Looks like most of us are skeptical of the suggestion - do we get some points?

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by krelnik

Well, we need more quantity, frankly.

But we also need quality. Franky, I am not impressed by a lot of "on line Activism" I have seen by certain elements of the skeptical community...and I am looking at you, "New Athiests", They are often as obnoxious in their conduct as the Religious Fundies they are fighting.
Phil Pratt's first rule for skeptics talking with non skeptics is "Don't Be A Dick". A lot of the more militant Athiests break that rule .

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by dudalb

Phil Pratt's first rule for skeptics talking with non skeptics is "Don't Be A Dick".

That's known as "Wheaton's Law".