Wikipedia on "DU this poll" - Undue Influence or Voter Awareness

[philosophie_en_rose]

Someone posted a link to Wikipedia's "Democratic Underground" entry. I've looked at the history and there is some controversy over DU influencing polls.

It's my understanding that "DU this poll" means "Hey, come vote once in this poll." It does not mean "Hey, clear your cache and keep voting to skew the results." Before I change anything on Wikipedia, I want to see if my understanding is correct.

Someone in the history section changed a post from someone stating that it was against DU rules to freep polls. So is it against the rules? What is the consensus about influencing polls?

Although I'd like to change the post, there seem to be a lot of freepers that are eager to make DU look as bad as Free Republic.

I'd appreciate your thoughts and especially invite an administrator to comment.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Underground

[henslee]

1. To me, DUing poll means a bunch of folks responding to a poll.

If it is a particularly intense political moment, like after a presidential debate and the results are going to be echoed in MSM, you can bet folks will vote often. But it really equal out because you can bet both sides are voting often. Therefore, whichever side of the question has more votes -- probably represents a more widely held opinion. Polls are a joke.

[upi402]

2. if i vote in a poll, it's once, of course

never heard of voting more than once and clearing cache etc...?

[RufusEarl]

3. I only vote once, in ever poll i vote in.

Hell I can't complain about voter fraud in this country, then turn around and commit voter fraud even if it is just a meaningless poll.

[philosophie_en_rose]

5. That's my feeling too.

I don't even think about voting more than once.

[Junkdrawer]

4. "Freeping" software was debated, but rejected by DU in favor...

of noting the "early returns" (Prior to "Freeping") as being more representative of the real results.

Note: "Freeping" is a reference to certain members of Free Republic's proud use of software to skew polls.

[graywarrior]

6. I'm too lazy to clean out my cache for a single vote.

Fair is fair in my book. One vote and I'm done.

[txindy]

42. Yep. My thoughts, exactly.

:toast:

[TygrBright]

7. I'm neither sufficiently motivated nor technically savvy enough...

...to manipulate online poll results from my 'pute.

Nor do I think that the administrators of DU intend this site to instigate anything unethical, since they're highly ethical folks (and I've met 'em, that's an 'informed opinion.')

So far as I can tell "DU this poll" simply means "participate appropriately in this poll to advance the goals and ideas we at Democratic Underground share."

We have, so far as I can tell, the predictable percentage of DU members who will ignore rules in the belief that the end justifies the means. Every site has those. Some sites have more than others, but I think that the hard work of the site owners, admin, and mods here produce a culture that tends to minimize DU's appeal to that type of member, so our percentage remains fairly small.

I can't speak for other sites, of course.

limpidly,
Bright

[Lars39]

8. I have never once seen a poll thread or anyone in the thread

encourage cheating in this way.
And if someone does, their post needs to be alerted to the mods.

Skinner has come out in favor of DUing polls, with "DUing" polls meaning "hey, everybody, vote",
not by cheating.

[alcibiades_mystery]

9. At the very least, it is a debate within the community

In other words, any absolute statements that "DU this poll" means one thing or the other is false (or at least biased to one end of a debate), and therefore should not be left to stand alone on Wikipedia (which ostensibly aims for the most "unbiased" account, no account be truly free of all bias). The minimum correction should thus be: "DU this poll is taken by some members to mean clearing out their cache and voting more than once, while other members take it to mean voting only once." That would be the most unbiased account, since the issue is not settled, or so some would argue. As I see it, it means vote only once, and I think you could make that change if there was some kind of community consensus on that (which I think there is, but you'd need a link). As it stands, the definition of "DU this poll" is at best negatively slanted, and at worst an outright falsehood, so it should be changed.

But this goes to the question of wikis being perhaps poor social machines for adjudicating arguments of value (as the LA Times wikitorial experiment seemed to demonstrate). Perhaps we need to rethink not the structure of the social machine that is a wiki, but rather the structure and circulation of arguments of value.

[calmblueocean]

10. I don't know any member of DU who thinks that.

I understand your point, but it creates a controversy where there isn't one. No poster to this thread so far has said, "Yes, I've always taken 'DU this poll' to mean 'vote as many times as possible'. I'm still waiting to hear someone say that. So until or unless we do, there is no controversy. Du does not Freep polls. Period.

[philosophie_en_rose]

11. "DU does not freep polls, period."

I think that this is an accurate assessment. Some individuals might take it upon themselves to cheat, but it doesn't mean a thing about the community.

[alcibiades_mystery]

14. Nor do I...perhaps the best way to phrase it without bias would be:

"There are often calls to 'DU this poll.' This phrase is a matter of dispute. Most in the DU community express that it means to simply vote once in an online poll on a relevant issue. Where these polls are national, there could be little concern about such an activity. If a poll is found on the site of a local newspaper or news show, such a call could be seen to skew the poll. For example, if a local Arkansas station puts a poll on their online site, they would ostensibly be seeking local opinion. National participation might be read as interfering with this intention. However, there are counterbalances, as other national sites, such as the Conservative Free Republic site also puts out calls to vote in such polls. Political opponents of DU (such as those on Free Republic) have charged that 'DUing' polls means that members should vote multiple times, clearing out their computer cache's in order to 'fool' the polling technology. Such charges conflict with the overt statements of DU members about what 'DU this poll' means, and are usually presented without evidence. Similar charges are made against Free Republic's call to 'Freep' polls. It would generally be up to the accuser to provide concrete evidence of such manipulation."

This statement seeks to give the reader a full assessment of the term and the way it circulates. I think it is fair.

[MadisonProgressive]

12. The freepers do that. They have bots too.

[philosophie_en_rose]

13. What are bots?

:shrug:

[alcibiades_mystery]

15. Short for "robots"

In this context, the charge is that Free Republic members have created computer programs that vote multiple times (even thousands of time).

[philosophie_en_rose]

16. Wow.

They can create computer programs to tamper with polls, yet can't run a spellchecker. :)

[stepnw1f]

20. Bots are Used to Download Software

on servers that share info as well. I used to administer a forum, so I've seen it first hand. The people who creat them know programming. The people that use them, aren't necessarily as crafty or smart.

[TahitiNut]

30. sCrIpT kIdDies

They use canned tools and scripts with little or no skills whatsoever.

[MadisonProgressive]

21. Good one!

[zbdent]

17. So, does Wikipedia explain Freeptopia and freeping polls

where the whole shit started?

[philosophie_en_rose]

19. Sort of.

Influencing polls

Some forum posts are aimed at influencing polls on other websites. Media websites (including newspapers, television networks, and America Online) run occasional "polls" that do not use the sampling methods of formal opinion polls, but instead invite everyone to respond. Known as "freeping" a poll, it involves posting a message thread directing members to vote en masse in an online poll and including a link to the poll with the intended goal of significantly affecting the final outcome. The practice is not unique to Free Republic and is employed by many other activist websites of all political stripes.

It is widely believed that Free Republic was the first online message board to try to influence online polls in this manner.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freerepublic#Influencing_polls

[zbdent]

35. I do recall, back in the 80s, radio stations vying for "top whatever"

status . . . in Cleveland, WMMS had on a person who was participating in a USA Today "poll" (as a "Best" whatever).

I recall WMMS promising her that they would vote for her if she would send in 100 votes for WMMS to be best whatever . . . and she agreed. I think you had to buy an issue each of Rolling Stone to get the form to vote . . .

[I Have A Dream]

18. I don't know if it's against the rules or not, but I have seen a few...

people encourage this. However, it has been EXTREMELY rare, and it was mostly because the person thought that the Freepers were doing it. (For example, a poll which had been up for a while was 80% to 20% in our favor and 10 minutes later it was reversed.)

Most people here find it unethical to clear their cache to vote more than once.

When I see something that says "DU this poll", it means "go vote in it".

[johnaries]

22. Yes, agreed.

I have been here since the 2004 Selection, and in all that time I have only since multiple voting encouraged ONCE. And it was exactly under the circumsatnces that you describe: in a very short period of time the results were suddenly reversed, indicating that the poll was being heavily "Freeped".

In fact, it is very common to see "DU this poll" followed by "it's being freeped!". This indicates to me that many DUer's are not trying to unduly influence these "unscientific", just-for-fun polls, but the primary purpose is to attempt un-do the influence that freepers have already done.

So, not only is it my opinion that the vast majority of DUer's only vote once, but also most or at least many of us only do it to "balance" the effects of freeping.

[RufusEarl]

24. Agreed, simply go vote in this poll.

And again i've never seen someone even suggest witch way to vote in a particular poll.

[roseBudd]

23. Clearing cookies is for fanatics AKA freepers

[lynne]

25. Before the election - especially after the debates -

- I saw several threads on DU with numerous online poll links. In more than one case there was one or more individuals who suggested that everyone "dump cache" and vote several times.

I never saw anyone comment that doing such was inappropriate. Of course, DU was really loaded with people after the debates and it would have been almost impossible for a mod to keep up with the quantity of posts coming in. It might have taken a bit of time to catch something that was not allowed.

[I Have A Dream]

33. I personally have seen responses where people have said that...

it makes us as bad as them if we do this. However, when I've seen someone encourage clearing the cache, it was always when someone felt that the poll results were being freeped because of how quickly results changed. The logic the person used was that the only way that we could combat their bots was by using the "clear the cache" approach. Even then, I saw people complain though.

You're probably right about the mods being flooded when you saw it. Maybe it happens more often that what we see because it's being cleaned up. If so, it at least shows that DU doesn't encourage it.

[Blue_In_AK]

26. Speaking for myself only...

I only vote once.

[FatDave]

27. I always assumed

that most online polls would only take one vote per IP address. I suppose that would lock out legitimate votes from people with dynamic IP's (mostly dialup users) though.

At any rate, I've only ever voted once. It's not worth the effort to do otherwise. Especially if they're so easily hacked, what's the point? The results will always be suspect.

[EarlG]

28. Here's the thing about online polls:

As an accurate measure of public opinion, they're utterly worthless.

Most of the time, online polls are intended to act as nothing more than a way of providing a bit of interactive content for a website. Anyone who thinks online polls should be taken seriously is, to be frank, kidding themslves.

In the past we've occasionally received outraged emails from webmasters of local newspapers asking us to remove links to their online polls because "they're supposed to be measuring the opinion of the residents of (insert town here)." That's ridiculous. If you want an accurate polling sample of the residents of your area or of the readers of your newspaper, you hire a professional polling company to do it properly, using scientific standards and reliable methodology. You don't slap an unsecure poll on your website which can be accessed by anyone in the world, or which can be manipulated by scripts. Online polls are nothing more than a bit of fun, and should NEVER be taken seriously.

However, there's the rub. While online polls are inaccurate, unsecure, and can be easily manipulated, they are often used to sway public opinion. The cable news channels tout the results of their online polls on a daily basis; they do it all the time, even though they know that the results are just garbage. That's unprofessional and potentially dangerous.

When Lou Dobbs tells people that the results of his online poll show that 65% of Americans think that we should start deporting Mexicans, what does that tell us? Who has been voting in the poll? How many people voted multiple times? How many people ran the numbers up or down using a script? How many of the people who voted in the poll are actually American? You and I have no way of knowing. Yet there sits the number, as reported by Lou Dobbs on "America's most trusted news network" - 65% of peole think we should start deporting Mexicans. Sure, he will throw in his "this is an unscientific poll" disclaimer, but if that's the case, what was the point of running the poll - or broadcasting the results on national television?

Voting in an online poll is not the same as voting in real life. If someone votes multiple times in real life, that's reprehensible - and it's against the law. But online polls have been bestowed with an air of legitimacy - mostly by the cable networks that use them as part of their "news" programs - which is thoroughly undeserved. Sure, it would be nice if people played fair, and only voted once, and didn't use scripts, and the results were accurate. But one might just as easily expect the moon to be made of green cheese. And in my opinion the more people that understand that, the better.

I have a feeling that this is not exactly the answer most people expected from a DU admin, so let me add this - what I do find gratifying is that more people on DU clearly feel that they should only vote once in these polls, as opposed to the Freepers who frequently advocate for voting multiple times or using scripts. I think that speaks to the real-life honor and integrity of DU members. I guess I just want people to understand that these online polls should always be taken with a grain of salt no matter who is participating.

[philosophie_en_rose]

29. Thanks.

I appreciate your response. Online polls are generally worthless and are used inappropriately. I agree that the best part of this thread is that DUers believe in voting ethics. - even online.

Someone changed the Wikipedia link before I could, so I'll stay out of it.

[TahitiNut]

32. At best, they're marketing tools.

They arguably reflect the attitudes and opinions of a cross-section of the readership or viewership of the site's media sponsor. It's absolutely no accident that Faux Nuze polls skew far to the right of MSRNC's polls and CNN's polls. I look at them as feedback to the marketers and editors - it's what those who've answered think, and those are the members of their 'market.'

[Wordie]

31. I've got some mixed feelings on this issue...

It bothers me that the polls themselves are so meaningless, really, as they are completely unscientific. And yet, they may have the power to influence voters perceptions of issues.

My personal preference would be for the networks (and other media outlets) to recognize the disservice they do to the viewing public by running these polls and simply cease to offer them. Although they frequently offer the disclaimer, "this isn't a scientific poll," when they air the results, I'm not certain that everyone understands just how meaningless and questionable the results really are.

Although I sometimes feel uncomfortable with the idea of "DUing" a poll, if the alternative is to have a poll "freeped," then it almost seems to me that DUers are doing a service by attempting to balance things out a bit. What choice do we have?

[stewert]

34. DU This Poll Means Vote One Time

When I see DU this poll I go to the poll and vote one time, and as far as I know that is what most if not all DUers do.

[SoCalDem]

36. There used to be a post saved (I lost it) where a freep

went into tedious detail of his "program", that voted hundreds of times.. THAT's what should be posed as "DU this poll means vote in the poll-Freep this poll means CHEAT and vote many times:)

[sakabatou]

37. Some other crap I found on the article

http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=5

Icky. Be prepared to disinfect your computer after this.

[philosophie_en_rose]

38. UPDATE : DU Stalkers obsess over Wiki article

Wikipedia appears to be useless and the wikipedia article is proof of the themes of this thread. We care about accuracy, but not about sitting around and skewing online articles/ polls. :eyes:

The-worse-than-freepers at the unmentionable DU-stalking website have apparently decided to squat at the site and revise it. {{Way to prove us right, losers.}}

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Underground

[Maddy McCall]

40. Let them squat there.

Keeps them busy and from undertaking anything that truly benefits their party.

:D

[philosophie_en_rose]

41. True, but their stalking is their benefit to their party.

Remember, they don't have to think to be cannon fodder for the conservatives. :)

I don't really care about the article, anymore. However, it's sad that an allegedly "neutral point of view" is tainted by people that have nothing better to do with their lives than stalk people they allegedly hate.

[Maddy McCall]

39. DUers just encourage others to vote. Freeps do it dishonestly.

Therefore, you are correct. Thanks for fixing that entry.