- #1
- 14,787
- 9,124
Kyle Hill has done a rough analysis of Youtube Science channel content and says that there is a spam problem at Youtube where folks are creating content at an astonishing rate of poor quality science videos for monetary gain.
Unlike, for example, journal publications?jedishrfu said:Folks are creating content at an astonishing rate of poor quality science videos for monetary gain.
I'm shocked. Shocked I say !jedishrfu said:there is a spam problem at Youtube where folks are creating content at an astonishing rate of poor quality science videos for monetary gain.
How would this work though? Who decides? I guess you're suggesting a Youtube equivalent of Consumer's Report magazine? (And that still doesn't stop the million low-quality "curator" copy cats that will pop up to swamp it.)BillTre said:Instead, a system that positively labelled the good videos (which should have an easy search method on youtube) would let people pull the good ones out of the heap. You can then ignore the bad ones.
It would have to involve more than self-identifying as good (meaning some outside group, which would have an expense), but the costs could be covered with earned youtube money.
I would not want a bunch of youtube employees doing it. Too much possible conflict of interest.DaveC426913 said:How would this work though? Who decides? I guess you're suggesting a Youtube equivalent of Consumer's Report magazine? (And that still doesn't stop the million low-quality "curator" copy cats that will pop up to swamp it.)
I think the problem here is that it will always be subject to corruption. Pretty quickly, organizations with vested financial interest will sponsor their own "volunteers", and we'll be right back to a vetting model driven by money. I don't know how to avoid that. (Well, Wikipedia has done it, I guess.)BillTre said:Getting good volunteers would seem to be the big hurdle to me.
Wikipedia is not that bad though? For established science?DaveC426913 said:I think the problem here is that it will always be subject to corruption. Pretty quickly, organizations with vested financial interest will sponsor their own "volunteers", and we'll be right back to a vetting model driven by money. I don't know how to avoid that. (Well, Wikipedia has done it, I guess.)
These guys could come up with something?DaveC426913 said:I think the problem here is that it will always be subject to corruption. Pretty quickly, organizations with vested financial interest will sponsor their own "volunteers", and we'll be right back to a vetting model driven by money. I don't know how to avoid that. (Well, Wikipedia has done it, I guess.)
Sure. Stupidity, debunking and debating brings far more AD views than some dry but correct content.BillTre said:I would not want a bunch of youtube employees doing it. Too much possible conflict of interest.
Oh, I don't think it would be that easy. An uphill battle CAN be won. The boat has already sailed on making the Internet a rational place.Rive said:I'm just warning you that it's an uphill battle.
The difference is that reporters want a steady paycheck and youtube content creators just hope for one. AI will fix that.Vanadium 50 said:Unlike, for example, journal publications?
Sounds like @jedishrfu just volunteered!jedishrfu said:Perhaps PF could initiate such a scheme using our membership to review...
I would say, if it is a situation that matters, do not trust anything on WP. Never use it as a primary source. Sometimes you can use it to "get up the learning curve." But basically, keep in mind that it is created by a bunch of "wander-by" volunteers. I trust it about as much as somebody I don't know that I meet in the hallway at the office.pinball1970 said:Wikipedia is not that bad though? For established science?
Trickier on other stuff but what should we expect? It's trickier!
You should see the "Holsteins are better than Guernseys" fights.DaveC426913 said:an article on dairy milk production
Actually, I would recommend the same for all content without any controversyGrelbr42 said:Anything on WP with any controversy at all, and I mean the tiniest bit, should be taken as highly suspect.
The "Youtube Science Spam Problem" refers to the issue of spam and misinformation being spread on Youtube through videos that claim to be about science or scientific topics. These videos often have misleading or false information and are designed to attract views and generate revenue for the creators.
The "Youtube Science Spam Problem" can have a negative impact on viewers by spreading false information and promoting pseudoscience. This can lead to confusion and misunderstanding about scientific topics, and can also be harmful if viewers believe and act upon the misinformation presented in these videos.
Some examples of "Youtube Science Spam" videos include those promoting miracle cures or health remedies without scientific evidence, videos claiming to have found a "secret" or "hidden" cure for a disease, and videos promoting conspiracy theories about scientific topics.
Viewers can identify and avoid "Youtube Science Spam" by being critical and skeptical of the information presented in videos, checking the credentials and sources of the creator, and fact-checking the information presented. It is also important to seek out information from reliable and reputable sources.
Youtube has implemented measures to address the "Youtube Science Spam Problem" such as removing videos that violate their policies and promoting more authoritative sources in their algorithm. Additionally, scientists and science communicators are actively debunking these videos and providing accurate information to counteract the spread of misinformation.