Wrong Planet article.

Post Reply New Topic

I like PsychForums too, but it's not nearly as active as this site. WrongPlanet is the most active AS forum I've been able to find online. Even AFF isn't very active.

I find it difficult to believe that the professionals at PsychForums would register with another forum for the express purpose of violating the rules of that forum.




and certainly not in the style of a panty raid.

Merle

And he seems to think this site has paid staff ... you can't "lay off" a volunteer ... they haven't really done their homework.

If they had done their homework, they would know that this site is volunteer managed, but they don't. Its hard to take seriously an article that misses that core fact.

...and, in fact, moderators have been removed for misconduct.

This discussion should be featured on our home page. This and the related article are a much better expose of that other site. We have a lot of satisfied customers, and a few dissatisfied ones.

WrongPlanet should just shut their servers down.

Oh, yeah, tha's gonna happen... shut down one of the most popular sites of its kind because an unhappy teenager thinks we should.

Would it help if it were a happy teenager?

well, it would be a change, no?

No, no, no. Decent grammar does not meant it's well written. Let's go over it, shall we? JP, since you've decided to overcome your dislike of this site in order to try and purge members, feel free to join. This, mind you, is a teaching lesson; it will not follow an essay's format.

An essay should have an introduction, main point paragraphs, and a conclusion. Most of the time, it's five paragraphs, but it can be as short as three or as many as over a dozen. Since this is an opinion piece, the rules are slightly more lax, especially concerning the use of personal pronouns. However, that doesn't mean the rest of the rules can just be thrown away.

The first paragraph should be the introduction. The first sentence starts off fairly well; it is, after all, an opinion piece. After that, it goes downhill. You just stated you couldn't label it supportive; telling us that it's anything but supportive is redundant. By this point, you should be telling us more about the site and its intended purpose (support). Contrast this by saying that unfortunately, the site does not live up to its expectations. At this point, your thesis statement should be coming in to play. This is typically the last sentence of the first paragraph, and it sound cover the main points of each of the body paragraphs. JP does not do any of this; he starts talking about the banner ads abruptly. Why are the banner ads so problematic? Why do they make the site incapable of supporting those on the spectrum? We don't know, because the author doesn't elaborate. They're bad, the site should be able to support itself without them, and that's it.

The transition to the next paragraph is exceptionally awkward. There really is no transition - he's done with the banner ads, so let's move on. Now. When your previous paragraph does not have an ending point and you're forced to add a "now" to signify a changing of points, there's an issue.

However, he's actually not going to start talking about the moderation, as he said! Instead, he's going to present a quote that has nothing to do with the support staff. This gives an almost schizophrenic feel to the piece; he's jumping around without warning, going against what he previously said, and not maintaining a steady flow. You can't say "now" we're going to do something, but first you have to do something else; it's conflicting. As for the quote, it might be appropriate elsewhere in the piece but not at that point. Better yet, only part of it should be posted, because it too is a bit choppy.

The next full paragraph is seemingly in reference to the quote, although it's actually pretty hard to tell. It's a jumbled mix between complaints about the moderators (who don't delete enough spam for the author's liking) and the quality of the posts. There's also numerous references to 4Chan, which is great for those who frequent that site, but not everyone does. You can't simply rely on one comparision, because it's likely your audience won't all know it.

Next, we get yet another attempt to transition to complaints against the moderators. Well over a full paragraph since he first said it, he says it again. Yet his following complaint is only a sentence long! Almost the entire essay is a build up to problems witht he support staff, but he can only detail one. What are the complaints against sinsboldly? Who the heck is she? How does he know no one gets laid off, since he's only browsed it for a short period of time? Is the moderation so disfunctional that it gets in the way of the site? No one knows, because he doesn't say.

The concluding paragraph is also only a sentence long. This is the paragraph where you should be restating your points and presenting a compelling case. Instead, he just leaves it hanging. He's not going to be around WrongPlanet (yet he's here anyway). Why should anyone care? It's not a convincing point. Most people aren't going to read the end and think oh, well he doesn't like the site, so I shouldn't either. Ideally, the person should be able to read your concluding paragraph and get the general gist of the rest of the essay. Of course, you'd prefer them to read the whole thing, but if they don't, they should still get all of the points.

Beyond all of that, he fails to stick to a simple format. Is he going to put each complaint in a header with italics? He did with one, but not the rest. Why is the person being quoted in bold and larger text than the other? It's distracting, and it serves no purpose.

Allow me to present a rewritten version. This was done in ten minutes, so clearly it has issues. I also don't agree with the majority of it (in fact, some of it is flat out wrong, as has been noted), but I'm simply rewriting it.



See? It's easier to understand with actual paragraphs.

How utterly asinine.

I am pleased DW_a_Mom has pointed out the completely voluntary, unpaid nature of the time and efforts donated by moderating members. I have no idea if calling these people “staff” and talking about being “laid off” is just dishonest or the result of a complete ignorance of the subject matter on the part of the author, but either is just silly really.

As to the unfortunate nature of targeting a particular member for naming as one of these “staff” (ironically a member who actually donates money as well as her time and efforts), although I do not like to comment on other members I will say that I find the notion that “there are complaints” arising from a membership of around 30,000 is meaningless.

Certainly there is evidence of complaints, but evidence of actual wrong doing, rather than misunderstandings, ventings or plain trouble-making is an entirely other matter. Human nature being what it is, it would utterly unreasonable to expect complaints not to be made fairly routinely even if nothing wrong is actually happening. People are just like that. We all sometimes get the wrong end of the stick, or get disproportionately upset about things, and that’s without even mentioning the group of people who are just plain unreasonable, have an overly large sense of entitlement, or are actually looking for trouble for its own sake.

The most probable explanation (in my view) for this huff and puff (sans actual steam) “opinion piece” is that the author ran afoul of the rather easy to abide by and mostly common sense rules of WP and has an axe to grind accordingly; it’s probably reasonable to consider that the moderator who gave their time and efforts in dealing with the person concerned is the same one specifically targeted in the opinion piece. I find that kind of behavior off putting and repugnant. Many people do get help and support from WP and trying to alienate people who might need that kind of help from the site before they’ve accessed_it, to get back at a specific member who happens to donate her time and effort to keeping WP in a functioning state is not only petty and vindictive towards that person, but really rather nasty to those who the opinion piece is intended to influence (people who might benefit from WP).

That said, I find it highly unlikely many people will read this opinion piece or take its views into serious consideration. More likely, most people reading the piece either have their own opinion already, or will respond with curiosity and access WP to see what the fuss is about. Accordingly, those who find the site useful and supportive will stay, those who do not will not, and that is as it has always been.

This thread now shows 757 views.

The opinion piece shows 352 reads.

I would suggest that this thread was created as publicity for the piece, and no one beyond those who have found this thread are actually reading the piece.

The PsychForums the article suggests one frequent instead of WP uses the same ad serive as WP - Ads by Google - rendering the complaint about ads a bit mute.

Reach your own conclusions from there, as to who the various posters supporting the piece are, and what the agenda is.

I thought so from the very beginning.

The document 'WrongPlanet - is it really a good resource for people who have Asperger's?' has been deleted from the link on the first post.