
Cunningham's Law - Garbage
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cunningham%27s_Law
======
tootie
I use this on my kids.

"What happened at school?"

"Nothing."

"Did you race motorcycles in the hallways?"

"No, we had music!"

~~~
a3n
Man I had that conversation so many times (like, five days a week). I wish I'd
had that in my toolbox.

------
nemesisj
This is also a great way to solve a problem. If everyone in the room is
stumped, throw out a stupid solution. If nobody can improve on it, then the
last solution wins. Works surprisingly well as most people can critique while
finding it hard to create from scratch.

~~~
marcosdumay
Gone there, did there, and it's dangerous. Somebody might like your first
solution, and be vocal enough to make everybody on the room shut-up.

~~~
jonahx
That seems more like a hiring problem.

~~~
judk
The problem was they hired the first candidate, figuring they could get a
replacement when a better one came along , but the first one got entrenched.

------
vanschelven
In similar vein, the best way to get help in Linux is by trolling:
[http://bash.org/?152037](http://bash.org/?152037)

~~~
danielweber
Yeah, I've found ESR's old "how to ask smart questions" is very wrong. The
more details you provide, the less likely you are to find an answer. (It's
more accurately titled "how I wish people would have asked the question
because I would have less work to do but it doesn't actually get their
question answered, which is of course less work.)

It seems that every detail gives people another reason not to answer. If I say
I'm trying to search for a word somewhere in a directory of files on OpenBSD,
people who only know Linux will think that "well, grep must not work the same
way on OpenBSD" and not respond.

Partially this is because of prior experience with assholes. If someone says
"well, on Linux you use _grep -lr_ " then an asshole will shout back at them
"HE WAS ASKING ABOUT OPENBSD NOT LINUX YOU MORON LEARN TO READ."

(Spoiler: the answer is the same on both Linux and OpenBSD.)

People get the Internet they deserve.

~~~
jerf
It works on focused technical forums. The less focused and the less technical,
the less well it works... though I'd consider that a criticism of the forum
rather than the technique. I've been on plenty of focused technical forums,
and it is dead accurate for those.

If it doesn't work for you, I'd consider that evidence the forum in question
is less technical than it may initially appear; there's a surprising number of
forums that have the appearance of being technical, but aren't populated by
very technically-skilled people. I've seen that on Ubuntu forums, for
instance; someone asks a perfectly sensible question, and 5 people chime in
with very convincing-sounding but ultimately completely wrong suggestions.
OSes seem to attract that.

~~~
cookiecaper
If someone posts a brief description to a simple problem without sufficient
detail, they're more likely to get engagement because the initial question
will be easier to process and read, and people will follow-up asking for
additional detail. When the original poster replies with the additional
detail, the participants in the thread will feel a stronger sense of social
obligation to answer. This iterative approach that requires mutual investment
and the establishment of a social expectation before the whole question is
posted may be beneficial even in highly focused, highly technical forums.

------
pyduan
The best part is that now that it's been posted it has now become impossible
to disagree, because attempting to disprove it would actually validate the
law.

~~~
darkmighty
Although funny, your logic is flawed. If you disproved this law globally, it
wouldn't be necessary that this particular instance doesn't hold.

~~~
visakanv
How would you disprove the law, though?

~~~
shawnz
Find at least one example where it doesn't hold.

~~~
somethingnew
Yes, I believe that is the answer.

~~~
visakanv
Sounds legit. Can you think of any such example?

------
habosa
This is how I used to get help on Ubuntu forums. If your sound card isn't
working and you say "Ubuntu can't play MP3s but XP can!" you'll get help in a
minute.

~~~
15DCFA8F
This is trolling, and not posting the wrong answer. But for what I saw,
trolling in Linux forums with mention of Windows can sometimes extract the
best knowledges from people...

~~~
manicdee
It's very bad trolling if all you get is an informational answer. The distance
between Cunningham's Law and Trolling is measured in tears per fact.

As the fact drops to zero the ratio asymptotically approaches infinity, at
which point you have entered trolling nirvana.

As the tears approach zero you have entered zen, the world where all facts are
made plain and understandable, and problems no longer exist.

------
chaz
Relevant here: "I use a trick with co-workers when we’re trying to decide
where to eat for lunch and no one has any ideas. I recommend McDonald’s." By
throwing out a "wrong answer," better suggestions are made.

[https://medium.com/what-i-learned-
building/9216e1c9da7d](https://medium.com/what-i-learned-
building/9216e1c9da7d)

~~~
lostlogin
When patients are having MRI scans I ask them what they would like to listen
to. Everyone says they don't mind. I usually reply "Excellent, Meat Loaf it
is!" And surprisingly often get a positive response. That or a specific
request.

------
andrewcooke
I've made a conscious effort recently to make more mistakes (my apologies to
the people on julia-users). I feel it's improved the rate at which I learn
things. And I feel validated by "Antifragile" which I've just started reading.

(By chance I am also currently being tested for brain damage. It's bitterly
amusing that I end up being unsure if I am actually making more mistakes on
purpose or not...)

~~~
danielweber
It's absolutely the best way to learn. I remember my mistakes better than by
successes.

But then you encounter an employer who says that they want to see your
StackOverflow account which is full of wrong answers and silly questions.

------
selmnoo
So, uh, what exactly is 'wikimedia'? How is it different from the straight-up
'Wikipedia'? This article seems like it should have been on Wikipedia, but
it's on Wikimedia. I've never seen an article of this nature being hosted on
wikimedia. What's going on here?

~~~
lambda
Wikimedia is the parent project of Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikiquote, Wikinews,
and so on.

The wikimedia wiki is used for documentation and discussion on the topic of
running a wiki, and on specifically running MediaWiki (the underlying software
that powers these sites).

Since this is an article about a topic relevant to running wikis, it's on the
meta wiki. It is unlikely to be notable enough to meet the criteria for being
included in Wikipedia; in order to avoid everyone creating their own personal
Wikipedia page or a Wikipedia page for their high school band or the like,
which can be very hard to ensure is high quality and accurate, Wikipedia has
notability and verifiability requirements. Something must be notable enough to
have been published by several existing reputable sources in order to meet
this guideline.

It's fairly likely that Cunningham's Law does not meet those criteria. But the
Wikimedia meta-wiki has less formal requirements, and its topic is explicitly
discussion about running wikis, so this winds up there.

If you click on the logo, you can see this described straight from the source:
[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page](https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page)

"Welcome to Meta-Wiki, the global community site for the Wikimedia projects
and the Wikimedia movement in general. Meta-Wiki's discussions range from
coordination and documentation to planning and analysis of future Wikimedia
activities."

~~~
frik
> It is unlikely to be notable enough to meet the criteria for being included
> in Wikipedia

Why? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia [1], there is no need to keep the amount of
pages low, storage is cheap and no one prints out Wikipedia on real paper.

The "not notable enough" is a real threat to Wikipedia and the future of the
project. The German Wikipedia already lost a lot of former authors
(volunteers) because of admins gone crazy. They don't want anyone to edit
"their" pages, and revert and ban almost every new edit/user. You can read
about this serious situation on Heise.de [2]. Read also the 650+ comments of
the related discussion [3]. The English version is still better in shape, but
it moves in the same direction, unfortunately.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia)

[2] [http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Blutet-Wikipedia-
aus-...](http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Blutet-Wikipedia-
aus-2123766.html) ; Translation:
[http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&pre...](http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.heise.de%2Fnewsticker%2Fmeldung%2FBlutet-
Wikipedia-aus-2123766.html&act=url)

[3] [http://www.heise.de/newsticker/foren/S-Blutet-Wikipedia-
aus/...](http://www.heise.de/newsticker/foren/S-Blutet-Wikipedia-
aus/forum-275514/list/)

Edit: I am not against "notability requirement", with a better balance it's
fine. Wikimedia Foundation should have a closer look at the German branch...
maybe resetting all "admin" privileges would help?

~~~
emddudley
Various people have been claiming for years that the "notability" requirement
is a threat to Wikipedia. Yet the project is still around and is still _the_
go-to source for encyclopedic information.

~~~
sp332
I go to Google for information. Sometimes it puts a Wikipedia page high in the
results, and many times it doesn't.

------
pdevr
Related: In IRC channels, ask a question and state that a competing product
seems to work better. You will get multiple answers within minutes. Works
especially well if it is Linux vs Windows.

------
spinchange
This, and not simply invective, used to be what "trolling" was about. At least
in my romanticized memory of it.

~~~
lotharbot
When a comment is simply invective, we call it "flaming". Trolling is about
triggering a disproportionate response -- particularly, causing the other
person to invest either much more time or much more emotion than the troll
did. Common forms include:

\- using subtle digs make people angry enough that they lash out (thereby
making them appear to be the instigator)

\- introducing a tangential or irrelevant point, often in a short and snark-
laded comment, to get people to waste a lot of time trying to respond

\- copying and pasting large blocks of text, especially lists of problems with
a particular viewpoint, and criticizing responses for being incomplete
(thereby provoking people into writing very long and thorough responses)

\- as a followup to the above, making vague criticisms like "you're missing
the point" or "you keep dodging my question", so that people will spend time
trying to figure out what you're talking about and maybe reworking their
entire argument

\- implying details, facts, or answers that don't actually exist (or that you
don't know if they exist), trying to get people to spend time investigating
something you haven't bothered figuring out. The "law" referenced in the
article is an example of this type of trolling.

------
dredmorbius
This is also an interrogation technique: "We know you did X." "No, I was doing
Y or was at Z."

Where Y and Z are what the interrogator was after. More reasons not to talk to
the cops.

------
gexla
I think people are often more motivated to point out that someone is wrong
than by answering a question.

[http://xkcd.com/386/](http://xkcd.com/386/)

------
sudonim
More discussion from when this was posted on reddit.

[http://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/1zv60v/til_of...](http://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/1zv60v/til_of_cunninghams_law_the_best_way_to_get_the/)

------
nostrademons
I've heard this attributed to Alan Kay instead of Ward Cunningham...

...which probably makes this comment a good example of the law.

------
devx
This actually used to be a joke about the Linux community.

------
yoha
That's basically how I go with links posted on Hacker News or Reddit. Often I
can save the burden of reading a terse article by reading the comments. There
is always someone who has only read the title, who says something dumb; he is
then quickly corrected by someone who did read the article and explain it
thoroughly.

On the one hand, getting first to the comments is also good when the source is
dubious. On the other hand, some article are definitely worth reading (which
is usually easy to guess from the title or first comments), and it feels good
to give back when you know what the article is about and can contribute to the
discussion.

------
mjs
Sometimes you can get a solution to a problem by saying saying that after
spending a bunch of time attempting to solve it, you've decided that a
solution is impossible. The desire to prove you wrong is too much for some to
withstand, and they go out of their way to provide you with a solution. (A
consequence of [http://xkcd.com/386/](http://xkcd.com/386/) "someone is
_wrong_ on the internet".)

------
Tloewald
So the newsweek story should cause the real inventor of bitcoin to be revealed
presently?

~~~
xj
Exactly what I was guessed after reading the law.

------
aDevilInMe
Best is subjective. Who is it best for, the lazy individual posing the
question(incorrect statement) or for people who will reply? In addition how
many more questions can the person ask like this before everyone ignores them?

------
keeran
This is how many get help in #rubyonrails on Freenode. Join the channel and
state that x is impossible with ActiveRecord/ActionView/ActionController -
solution posted in seconds.

------
simondedalus
the best way to get an answer on the internet, as everywhere else, is to ask a
very clear question to the right interlocutor.

in other words, you need to do enough work on your own to figure out what you
need to know, after which you'll find that (as long as you have a decent
command of the language you're expressing yourself in and the general terms in
the field of inquiry) it's not difficult to get good answers.

------
niteshreddy
This is general human tendency, that is "to correct".

------
justplay
Exactly.

------
danieth
(with no legit wiki sources)

~~~
danieth
(sorry if I just spoilt the joke)

------
paul_f
There are no interesting examples of this law.

------
AnthonBerg
YES THE BEST WAY TO GRT CLEAN WATER IS TO PEE INTHE WELL BECOS THEN EVERYONE
WANTS TO CLEAN THE WATER YOU SEE

------
benihana
Why do mods constantly micromanage submission titles? The original title was
the actual law, not the name of the law.

------
HNisForLosers
This is very true of Hacker News. Everyone here has to be the smartest fucker
on the planet, longing for the great PG approval.

~~~
visakanv
It's true. Not just PG, but everybody else in the room, too. It's the classic
courtier situation. See: 48 Laws of Power

------
Heliosmaster
I don't agree...

------
infruset
Finally, someone has unmasked Newsweek's intentions.

------
nissehulth
I'm confused. Is the right answer or the wrong answer?

