Editing 2159: Comments

Jump to: navigation, search

Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision Your text
Line 10: Line 10:
 
This comic represents a news article that bemoans how sometimes lazy journalists will, instead of taking time to research the genuine public opinion on a certain issue, simply cherry pick comments as evidence to support their thesis. The irony is that the article is likely basing its own narrative of outrage among Internet users on random comments as well. For example, an [https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1129773341894688769 anonymous Twitter account from Northern Ireland with 159 followers] got used as [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/17/opinion/biden-2020-millennials.html an example in the first paragraph of a NY Times article] about how U.S. Millennials think.
 
This comic represents a news article that bemoans how sometimes lazy journalists will, instead of taking time to research the genuine public opinion on a certain issue, simply cherry pick comments as evidence to support their thesis. The irony is that the article is likely basing its own narrative of outrage among Internet users on random comments as well. For example, an [https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1129773341894688769 anonymous Twitter account from Northern Ireland with 159 followers] got used as [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/17/opinion/biden-2020-millennials.html an example in the first paragraph of a NY Times article] about how U.S. Millennials think.
  
βˆ’
The commenters create the narrative here, by pointing out how easy it is for commenters to push a point of view, and how little editorial control or fact checking there is in such a process.  The final commenter reveals that the article itself is cherry picking from a handful of random comments to support its arbitrary narrative of internet outrage, proving the real joke.
+
The commenters create the narrative here, by pointing out how easy it is for commenters to push a point of view, and how little editorial control there is in such a process.  The final commenter reveals that the article itself is cherry picking from a handful of random comments to support its arbitrary narrative of internet outrage, proving the real joke.
  
 
The link in one of the comments is to [[1019: First Post]], which also refers to manipulating comments to change public opinion of a topic. It specifically mentions "creating an impression of peer consensus", a line which is near-quoted in the first comment included in this comic.
 
The link in one of the comments is to [[1019: First Post]], which also refers to manipulating comments to change public opinion of a topic. It specifically mentions "creating an impression of peer consensus", a line which is near-quoted in the first comment included in this comic.

Please note that all contributions to explain xkcd may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see explain xkcd:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

To protect the wiki against automated edit spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following CAPTCHA:

Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window)