It looks to me, as if votings in sciences, politics and here as well are done too easily.
(Consumption attitude: "Votings light")
You like an opinion or you dislike it and immediately there is a vote on this, even when the opinion is just a weak consent "yes" or dissent "no".
But persons who take their time, to put in efforts and knowledge by explaining and communicating, they either get the same vote (if they are lucky) or less votes, as it is another effort to read it and think about it.
So in the universities, institutions, governments and here the quantity seems to become of a bigger importance than the Quality??
What do you think about this? How about this in your own field of work?
Dear Professor Heise,
"Yes, definitely!" is my short answer to your question. And the "inflation" of voraciously "voting lightly" is accelerating at an increasing pace (like yeast in brewing beer, when the conditions have become optimal ... or, perhaps, a more apt metaphor, like a pathogenic microbe spreading across a Petri dish of "social-media" which most favors its growth).
There is a general "democratization" of the "globalized" human society, wherein more-and-more persons participate, with the basic democratic tenet or philosophy that each person's opinion should be held as valid/valuable as another's. This trend has been greatly accelerated by the instantaneous communication made possible by the technology of the "Internet Age" with concomitant expansion of cellular telephone and internet services to an ever-increasing percentage of the world's population. The public forae/squares/plazas of this "new world order," this online alternate world, has become devices, like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, ResearchGate (etc. ad infinitum) that we now call collectively "social media" and are the PLACES where the new online citizen goes to have his opinion heard (some state them modestly, others shout), but they are become the new polling places, where the citizen of the "globalized" new-world-order casts-his-vote (his OPINION).
And, according to the primary tenet of democracy (upon which the new social contract seems to be based), each citizen's opinion is expected to have the same value (one person=one vote). This is completely revolutionary, and is antithetical to the traditional model of teacher/student (predicated on the time-honored model of God-the-Giver-of-Knowledge and we His creations as the [lowly / worshipping] recipients ... which is paralleled in the Parent/Child relationship [wherein the parent is presumed to have possession of valuable knowledge that the child is in need of learning or receiving] ... and which has provided the underlying rationale for our educational systems [viz: Master or Professor, or demi-god-of-the-classroom, the analog of a church or temple where an authoritarian god/dictator imparts or distributes the precious/sacred/mysterious knowledge to students] since time immemorial), and is very upsetting (and potentially destructive) to traditional educational institutions. In this new-egalitarian-world-order, where the attitude is that each person's opinion is as valuable as another's, greatly denigrates the ability of any teacher/professor to maintain the traditional authoritarian/respect relationship (analogous to that of the worshiper-toward-God and the child-toward-a-parent) NECESSARY for any student to receive instruction. Respect for the teacher/professor role (and, by extension, even causing a loss of respect for God the original giver of knowledge) is eroded within each student who holds a smartphone in his hand and can instantly Google-up an answer to any question, from a different authority, often a HIGHER (more academically qualified) AUTHORITY, who may possess a higher standing / rating / ranking in the worldwide academic community. Here, RG seeks to create a pantheon of the gods-of-science, where numerical ratings are assigned to each citizen, and that rating is affected/determined by "votes" of the members (citizens of this online democratic polity). IMO these "votes" (especially the negative or "down vote" ones) are most-often simply uninformed (or prejudicial) emotional reactions to some comment (or part of a comment) that is made, and not a qualified opinion based on the scientific (or even social) merit of answers. The RG votes are clearly (mostly) opinion, and having the device of an anonymous down-vote, places prejudiced emotions on-a-par with qualified scientific facts. This then makes RG the realm of politics and theology, and not a temple of science.
The new technology. the capability of great numbers of citizens to instantaneously communicate their opinions with one-another en-mass, and the revolution in the world-social-order this has wrought, and that social-media is now catalyzing at a dizzying pace, is a two-edged-sword, having both the potential to evolve more efficient and effective teaching institutions, but also having the potential for completely destroying our traditional educational systems (whose foundations have already been greatly undermined and weakened in many ways, but primarily in the denigration of respect for the teachers).
My regards,
Bob
Upvoting has become an emotional thing on RG.
At times, you wonder how assessment are done before contributions to issues are appreciated.
To add to this, upvoting has also become a major yardstick used by RG to raise one's RG scores.
As in any public space vastly wider than the limits of a personal human attention/memory/competence, voting here is a clumsy attempt to mark the things that seem "right" from those that seem "wrong" or neutral. An attempt that at once begins being used by different agents (personal as well as the group ones) following their own ends and interests - and looking at different aspects of this public space as a resourse. It's going on at least since Solon and Peisistratos, no?
Yes, there is an inflation of voting systems in many areas. We may see such practice here at Researchgate where some answers gets 90 upvotes in a few days, mostly from people belonging to the same institution, while some good answers stay aside.
I am against downvoting without explanations.
Regarding politics, we do have elections at all levels in Serbia in April. Election system should be changed in favour of people.
Unfortunately, quantity over-dominates quality!
Hi, I dont agree as such with generalizing statements like "quantity outshines quality" as far as the upvotes or downvotes are considered. after all votes are counted in quantity. RG is a virtual platform, so acceptance or rejection has to be taken with a pinch of salt.
I cant speak for others, but I do upvote a responses I am in agreement with or which i find interesting. rest I ignore (which is worse than down-voting). The fact is how we perceive both up and down votings. Down-voting is not expression of Hatred or unacceptance of the person but the response. There are no personal vendetta here (come on, most of us dont know each other personally(or in real), then how can some one attach political sentiments to it? (God only knows is we ever get a chance in this life to meet each other, let us be hopeful to fight it out in person rather than on the weakest credible place like on a virtual platform which is almost like a video game!!)
As far as scientific world is considered. Agreement or disagreement are acknowledgements of one's contribution (may be which helps to re-think and re-evaluate our own concepts and ideas).
Somewhere I said earlier too, I dont prefer to down-vote as of now on RG, because the member whose reply/response has been down-voted do not have the opportunity to know why his response have been down-vote and by whom.
regards
Rathish
Hi, I dont agree as such with generalizing statements like "quantity outshines quality" as far as the upvotes or downvotes are considered. after all votes are counted in quantity. RG is a virtual platform, so acceptance or rejection has to be taken with a pinch of salt.
I cant speak for others, but I do upvote a responses I am in agreement with or which i find interesting. rest I ignore (which is worse than down-voting). The fact is how we perceive both up and down votings. Down-voting is not expression of Hatred or unacceptance of the person but the response. There are no personal vendetta here (come on, most of us dont know each other personally(or in real), then how can some one attach political sentiments to it? (God only knows is we ever get a chance in this life to meet each other, let us be hopeful to fight it out in person rather than on the weakest credible place like on a virtual platform which is almost like a video game!!)
As far as scientific world is considered. Agreement or disagreement are acknowledgements of one's contribution (may be which helps to re-think and re-evaluate our own concepts and ideas).
Somewhere I said earlier too, I dont prefer to down-vote as of now on RG, because the member whose reply/response has been down-voted do not have the opportunity to know why his response have been down-voted and by whom.
regards
Rathish
Dear Professor Heise
Quantity outshine power but not the end .In RG it is a promotion of like mindedness but question is downvote ,if it is reflect a large number we will really start thinking research seriously and research question generated from differences not from similarities".Different meaning of upvote" attracting me tremendously! So definitely this forum can exercise this.So precisely if we research this topic quantity will change.
Different meaning only cleared by qualitative answer!!
Like, dislike, neutral.......(100,100,100...........)
So what is the result!!
Quality of contribution create a standard or rather platform of thinking .At least not allow one to think below!
Regards
Dear Roland Iosif Moraru,
mostly i agree with you, but this time not. "We are not politicians, are we/" you wrote.
On one side we are no politicians but on the other side we are not only homo faber but also homo politicus, meaning we are a part of our Society and should participate in forming it!!!
By voting (or not ) at your working place as well as at home or in the public you take up the responsibility for what is the consequence!
best regards, Thomas
I agree. The important is always the content, the communication, and the message that we intent to transmit. It is never the number, but the quality. However we only can give the example with the best quality that we can in our contributions, showing consideration for our interlocutors, not much more, and is necessary to be tolerant and patient. Otherwise, the results can go exactly in the opposite direction of our intents, decreasing the quality. Time solves everything and will show certainly what procedures effectively more suitable are.
I think up voting and stating what you felt was important relevant or in need of further exploration. It encourages pursuit of excellence however downvoting something g with an an academic reasoning for your decissions citing you opinion. Causes people to question analyse and research a topic further this is learning its not about what you know or think you know. It is about expanding and extending your academic knowledge if we don't question something we don't understand then we fail to learn. Our answers are merely hypothesize on a topic true learning comes from discussing analysing and breaking down answers and returning g with a better more academically innovative answer that opens the mind stirs the blood and allows creative academic juices to flow.
The option of downvoting was canceled. RG introduced the recommend instead upvote or downvote. Fine!
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Ethics