网站能够驯服在线评论吗

    然而，把评论跟Google+个人资料信息捆绑在一起也许不一定起到多大作用。Google+个人资料信息仍然有可能是匿名的，而且在任何情况下，根除匿名者并不一定能够显著改善评论质量：一些网站要求用户使用Facebook账户名发表评论，但它们发现，许多人非常乐意使用真实姓名发表低劣或破坏性评论。据YouTube透露，变化措施还将包括推升更多人愿意阅读的评论。在接下来的几个月中，这套系统将在评论列表顶部突出“来自视频创建者、名人、针对视频本身的不俗见解，以及Google+朋友圈的跟帖。”视频频道的管理者（一些管理者大声地抱怨评论问题）将拥有更多的评论管理工具。毫无疑问，这样做至少会有些用处。

    许多网站的问题可归结为：何为评论的功用？这种效用充其量只是边缘性的。

    这正是《大众科学》（Popular Science）总结出的结论。本周，这份杂志的官网决定彻底取消评论功能。在一片抗议声中——尽管所有证据皆指向相反方向，许多人依然认为，每一位拥有互联网账户的人都会发出一种纯粹意义上的“好声音”——《大众科学》宣布，尽管该网站吸引了不少深思熟虑的评论，但这些评论总是被“钓鱼贴”淹没。大众科学网在线内容主管苏珊•拉巴尔援引了一项研究成果。这项研究发现，互联网评论会歪曲读者的看法（当然是这样！），往往导致他们得出与文章作者根据研究和报道而陈述的内容完全相反的结论。一些科学类网站似乎成为了反智人士尤其喜欢攻击的目标。比如，否认气候变化的人往往会在这些网站发表一些毫无依据的意见，援引错误的研究，或者挑选一些能够支撑其观点的研究成果。在这种情况下，一些读者会认为，评论与作为评论对象的文章本身具有同等程度的正当性（倘若这些读者一开始就倾向于评论表述的观点，他们甚至会认为评论比文章本身更靠谱）。

    拉巴尔以令人振作的言论直面这个问题：“受政治倾向驱动，针对专业知识的长达数十年的战争已经削弱了各界对于各种各样经科学验证的主题所取得的广泛共识，”她写道。她的结论是“评论对科学有害”。事实上，随机人物的随机见解恰恰处于科学（以及新闻）事业的对立面。

    尽管许多网站为了让在线评论发挥作用已经付出了艰辛的努力，但最终的责任或许应该由我们这些普罗大众来承担。让每个人参与似乎是一个过于庞大的任务，但决定对评论说不的人越多，评论对于网络出版商的价值就越小。或许我们都应该接受一条以“不要读评论”为主题的Twitter消息给出的建议：“不要看评论！不要破罐破摔。你还是有人爱的。不要浪费生命去看什么网络评论。”

    译者：任文科 

    Maybe, though tying comments to Google+ profiles won't necessarily help much. Google+ profiles can still be anonymous, and in any case, the lack of anonymity doesn't necessarily improve comments much: As sites that have required people to comment using their Facebook profiles have learned, lots of people are glad to be mean or disruptive under their real names. The changes, according to YouTube, will also include pushing up comments that more people will care to read. As it rolls out over the next few months, the system will emphasize "posts at the top of the list from the video's creator, popular personalities, engaged discussions about the video, and people in your Google+ Circles." People who manage video channels (some of whom have loudly complained about the problem) will get more tools for moderating comments. That will no doubt help at least a little.

    The question for many sites might come down to: What is the utility of comments? Usually, that utility is marginal at best.

    That's the conclusion Popular Science came to this week, when it decided to do away with comments altogether. Over the protestations of people who -- despite all evidence to the contrary -- still believe that giving everyone with an Internet account "a voice" is somehow an unalloyed good, the magazine declared that, even though the site attracts a good number of thoughtful comments, those are overwhelmed by the trolls. Suzanne LaBarre, the online content director of PopularScience.com, cited research (of course!) finding that Internet comments tend to skew the perceptions of readers, often leading them to conclusions that are precisely the opposite of what an article author has argued based on research and reportage. Science-oriented sites seem to be particularly popular targets for anti-intellectual types, such as climate-change deniers, who often don't have anything to back up their declarations, or who cite faulty or cherry-picked research. In cases like that, some readers come away believing that the comments are just as valid as the article under which they were posted (or even more so if they were inclined in that direction to begin with.)

    LaBarre confronted this problem with refreshing directness: The "politically motivated, decades-long war on expertise has eroded the popular consensus on a wide variety of scientifically validated topics," she wrote. "Comments can be bad for science," was her conclusion. Indeed, the random utterances of random people are pretty much the antithesis of the scientific (and the journalistic) enterprise.

    For all the strained efforts to make comments work online, the onus might ultimately be on the rest of us. Getting everybody on board might seem like a gargantuan task, but the more people who decide to just say no to comments, the less valuable they'll be to web publishers. Maybe we should all take the advice of the Don't Read Comments Twitter feed: "Don't do it! Don't give in. There are people who love you. Don't throw your life away by reading internet comments."