Responsibility to be right? - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: HP-ILnerd
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 09, 2017, 11:40:44 am
content: I have noticed on some technically-based YouTube channels, that a YouTuber (despite any expertise they may have) occasionally doesn't understand an aspect of a complicated subject to the point of making extremely erroneous remarks. Of course, I would only notice if I personallydidunderstand that aspect of the subject better than they. I've no idea how much BS I've absorbed when I didn't understand and was there to learn. Off the top of my head, I recall one of the Moon Landing Hoax debunking channels failing to have a complete grasp of the Rocket Equation to the point of saying something really wrong. Worse, he was informed of this in the comments, more than once, which then vanished later. I'm not going to accuse him of deleting posts (which I don't know for sure, cuz YouTube), but he never did correct his broken analysis, even years later. I unsubbed just on principle. It struck me as intellectually disingenuous at the very least. More recently, Thunderf00t laid down some super-thick BS by conflating deltaV requirements and orbital velocity in his debunking of floating skyscrapers. Far as I can tell, he has yet to correct this. No skin off my shirt, but he has fans, right? Does he owe it to them to fess up when he makes a boo boo?One of the reasons I like Dave, is not only does he have corrective annotations in his videos, he keeps any mistakes he makes in the body as well as knowing those are very useful to someone learning.BTW, a lot of these cases are lovely examples of the "Fallacy Fallacy," where the arguments are wrong, but that doesn't imply the conclusion is wrong. Could be right for another reason.Thoughts?

author: rsjsouza
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 09, 2017, 12:08:14 pm
content: Quote from: HP-ILnerd on April 09, 2017, 11:40:44 amAs a content creator I can relate with not getting everything right on the first run. That is why I tend to spend a lot of time on the editing phase just double-checking my statements and correcting with subtitles on the actual video source. This is particularly important given that annotations do not work on many mobile platforms or when the video is embedded on a page.Given that Youtube is removing annotations in favour of links to other videos, the work of making corrections after the video is posted becomes more troublesome for Dave (and all of us, really). Either he shoots another video explaining the issue or keep adding comments to no end, but these will never be "on the person's face" as annotations were.The removal of annotations is a mistake in my opinion.

author: Rbastler
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 09, 2017, 12:39:03 pm
content: I think they have no responsbility at all. If a viewer is to stupid to check facts, it's his own fault.

author: MarkS
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 09, 2017, 01:34:48 pm
content: There is a difference between willful ignorance and just plain ignorance. The question has to be whether there was an intent to spread misinformation, or whether the content creator does not realize their grasp on the subject matter. The whole Ben Heck fiasco from a few weeks back is a perfect illustration of someone that, at the very least, *claims* to know better, and yet did something monumentally stupid with potentially lethal consequences. At least the comments criticizing him were not taken down, though the backlash from his fanboys was harsh.If you see someone making a claim that you know to be false, definitely do comment. The character of the content creator will be shown in his/her response to you. Deleting posts or turning off comments is a clear indication of someone that is too proud to admit when they're wrong.

author: Richard Crowley
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 09, 2017, 02:03:14 pm
content: A perfect example of deliberate and malicious mis-information is "ThioJoe" This fool has several "joke" videos on YouTube (for example: "How to Get Free Cable (All Channels") with pseudo-technical explanations of how things work, etc. which are completely fallacious from end to end.After being called out thousands of times, he even posted a "disclaimer" in the description. But he won't take them down because the "free cable" video has over 5.5M views and he probably makes some money off it. So making a few bucks is more important to him than the slightest whiff of integrity.He even pleads that he is now "switched to only making REAL tech videos". But until he takes down the intentional bogus videos, his integrity and intentions are too questionable to patronize ANY of his content. But the is the Wild West of YouTube.

author: steve30
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 09, 2017, 03:03:11 pm
content: I would like to think that someone would at least try and correct errors, but they are not obliged to.Web pages and forums etc have had incorrect information on them for years, and I treat YouTube like any other website/forum.Don't take anything you see on the internet too seriously.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 09, 2017, 04:45:59 pm
content: Look for some guidance on this in the print media. There are several sets of rules depending on the type of media.Some examples:Books. When Einstein came out with his theory of relativity, no one expected all prior textbooks to be recalled and burned. Subsequent books are expected to acknowledge and implement appropriate changes, but still no one complains when elementary texts don't even acknowledge the limits of Newtonian mechanics. Simple errors in texts are often dealt with with errata sheets issued with subsequent printings.Scholarly journals. Attempts at correctness are made before publication. If errors are discovered after publication a correction is often published, but it is the reader responsibility to read all subsequent issues to learn of the error. There is no mechanism to go back a correct the original.Yellow journalism news sheets. What rules? Say what you want and move on. Just ignore any criticism. They have a market, but serious people read them only for entertainment, if ever.YouTube has no mechanism to separate the serious from the sensational, so you need to treat it all as if it were the Daily Inquirer at first. You may find authors/channels that let you relax this rule.

author: joeqsmith
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 09, 2017, 04:48:02 pm
content: Pigs will fly before I make a mistake free video. First, making videos is not my thing. I don't ask for money and have no ads running. No one is paying me on the side or sending me free products. I assume that anyone willing to suffer through them are able to see through the mistakes or they would move on to a more polished channel.Some mistakes I make are out and out funny. Once I was measuring a 10K ohm resistor and kept calling it 20K throughout the video. It was not intentional and you could clearing see it was a 10K I was looking at. The video I was measuring 11mV and say that equates to 1uV where it's obvious that I am measuring current and it's 1uA.I am amazed at the number of emails and comments I get where people completely misunderstand what was shown in the video. I wonder if the OP feels that the viewers have a responsibility as well to the content creator or if it is a one way street?

author: W9GFO
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 09, 2017, 08:49:39 pm
content: Somebody trying to share their knowledge should get more leeway than a channel desperate for clicks like NatGeo Times, which many people will trust because of the name.Check out this video for an example of a channel blatantly making stuff up.

author: sleemanj
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 09, 2017, 11:10:40 pm
content: If I see a video which has errors, and those errors do not get corrected, be it by an annotation or a followup, I almost always unsub. Because if I saw errors in something I knew about, how many errors are there in the things I didn't know about. There are a lot of YT channels who skim an article on Wikipedia, have a poor understanding, slap up a video and sound like they are talking from real knowledge.Latest casualty from my subs was "Wendover Productions", they had a fairly recent video on aviation which had a number of glaring errors in it pointed out, but not retracted/corrected afaik. The only dubious redemption was that after that I noticed the person behind that channel advertised to "employ" fact checkers for his videos, which just goes back to the "I have no idea what I'm talking about, I just read a wikipedia page and had some basic idea"

author: moz
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 09, 2017, 11:31:01 pm
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on April 09, 2017, 04:45:59 pmThe Einsteins came out with their theory, if you want to be accurate about it...https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/the-forgotten-life-of-einsteins-first-wife/Which is possibly a different category of error, depending on how you want to look at it. What about when the subject is evolving and your earlier work falls on the wrong side of history?With online writing I expect authors to go back and correct things, either with strikeout or adding a callout box with a correction. I have completely redone articles before, and left a link at the bottom to the old content, when the mistakes get ugly enough. But I mostly write either longer essays where significant edits detract from readability, or photo essays where there's not much text so it's easy to add corrections.YouTube is harder, because you can't easily edit an old video, but the intro text and annotations are where I'd expect to see serious errors called out. Uncle Bumblefunk is fairly good about this, Dave seems good, but in both cases we shall have to see how that goes now that annotations are on the outs.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2017, 12:47:47 am
content: Quote from: HP-ILnerd on April 09, 2017, 11:40:44 amNot always, Dave has chopped out chunks of videos that were plain out wrong (including a long rant on the Tesla roof tiles).

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 10, 2017, 01:19:51 am
content: Ultimately content creators have no trueresponsibilityto produce 100% accurate technical material.Their content and success may succeed or fail based on their ability to do that though of course.Don't confuse youwantingandexpectingthem to produce 100% accurate content, and an absoluteresponsibilityto do that.That being said, of course we content creators feel a public responsibility to get things right, but it's almost never possible to do that 100% due to various factors.Bare in mind that Youtube videoscannotbe edited after they uploaded. The only option is the add a comment in the description (annotations are now GONE!).Or there is the "nuclear" option of deleting the video (and all comments and views etc) and re-uploading.If anyone think it's possible to 100% check your content for technical accuracy before upload, I invite you to actually try producing your own technical content and see how that works out for you.Itcanbe done, but it requires so much time and effort as to render a Youtube channel unviable.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 10, 2017, 01:34:38 am
content: Quote from: Richard Crowley on April 09, 2017, 02:03:14 pmAre you serious?What part of the word JOKE don't you understand?

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 10, 2017, 01:38:38 am
content: Quote from: blueskull on April 10, 2017, 01:28:32 amThe problem is that everything like that adds to time, and time if the enemy of the content creator.In reality only a few percent of videos would have something so bad that would warrant a fix and re-render.And sure you can faff about fixing small things like Joe mentioned before, but where does it end? It would end up a micro-management nightmare.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 10, 2017, 01:45:04 am
content: Quote from: MarkS on April 09, 2017, 01:34:48 pmMost often it's not that, the error will most often be a mis-speak or whatever.After doing 1100+ videos for living I can assure you that's it'simpossibleto eliminate all errors, as it's next to impossible to check your own work reliably.Even crowd sourcing is not 100% reliable. I have videos that I discovered errors in and not a single person has picked them up.Or maybe one person out of 100,000 views will find the error.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 10, 2017, 01:48:34 am
content: Quote from: rsjsouza on April 09, 2017, 12:08:14 pmI will of course annotate corrections at the video edit phase if I happen to find them, but errors will always slip though, it's inevitable.And I have learned that watching the whole video after the edit/render is a complete waste of time, especially so if you create long format videos and upload frequently.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 10, 2017, 01:55:28 am
content: Quote from: Someone on April 10, 2017, 12:47:47 amOf course.If there is zero value in keeping a wrong statement, why would I keep that in?Some things like whiteboard tutorials that are shot in sequence are sometimes impossible to chop stuff out of as it ruins the sequence and you can't go back and just re-shoot because the board has changed.Other mistakes like repairs for example are very beneficial to leave in to show the steps taken.

author: rsjsouza
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2017, 03:27:56 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on April 10, 2017, 01:48:34 amI agree with that. That is why I think removing annotations is a mistake on Youtube's part.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 10, 2017, 04:38:38 am
content: Quote from: rsjsouza on April 10, 2017, 03:27:56 amI found that many people didn't see the annotations anyway.Lost count of the number of times I've had to reply "read the annotation" to some comment.Cards would be fine if they allowed free text fields etc.But really, I can't see why they couldn't do a baked-in permanent annotation option.i.e. Have a "re-process" button which manually reprocesses and re-renders a video with the added annotations, so you don't lose your views, URL, or comments.They have other post-processing video option after all.Problem is that hardly anyone uses it seriously, so it's basically off their radar.

author: MarkS
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 10, 2017, 05:07:39 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on April 10, 2017, 04:38:38 amI would be one of those. The first thing I did, after opening the video, was to turn off annotations. Too many content creators abused them and the little 'X' to close them was far too small. I got tired of fighting what are not much better than pop up ads.

author: rs20
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2017, 05:08:28 am
content: Just to call it out, I think this whole thread is talking about three subtly but importantly different situations:A. Content creator makes a concerted effort to correct mistakes with comments / description edits.I think we can all agree that this is the most we can hope from a YouTube creator, since the only other option is the "nuclear" option as mentioned by Dave. I also think that it's obviously impossible to catch every single error this way, it'd just take too long. I think we can also agree the Dave goes above+beyond in this regard. Finally, I don't think this category is what the OP was meaning to talk about, perhaps.B. Content creator is making a more-or-less cogent argument, but refuses to acknowledge even the loudest and most obvious critiques.I'd consider this unacceptable; this is shouting at a crowd instead of having a conversation. Whether, e.g., Thunderf00t drifts too far into this zone too often isperhapsan interesting question to discuss, but whether an internet forum offers the required nuance to discuss this is another matter.C. Content creator is a complete nutjobSome replies in this thread seem to be pointing out that flat-earthers and moon conspirancy theorists have videos on YouTube. Yes, these peoples are obviously very well insulated from logic and criticism, so it should hardly be surprising that they display little interest in engaging in criticisms on their videos. However, these people are deluded and wrong through and through, just because they behave the way they do doesn't make itacceptablefor anyone else to do the same. So mentioning that these people exist seems entirely irrelevant.Side note:interesting that "Wendover Productions" was mentioned on this thread; I had a similar experience watching his video on Time which had five errors in it that I just knew (and confirmed) were errors right as I was watching the video. But that doesn't mean that I'd make five different mistakes that he'd easily spot. It's a tough gig, for sure.Having said that, if we are going to use this thread as a dumping ground forawfulvideos, here's my submission:

author: MarkS
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 10, 2017, 05:39:23 am
content: Quote from: blueskull on April 10, 2017, 03:09:19 amAt worst, he is guilty of click bait. At least he posted a follow up.

author: MarkS
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 10, 2017, 05:40:45 am
content: Also, something to keep in mind is that a great many content creators ignore their comment section, and for good reason. Many may not even know that they have been corrected.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 10, 2017, 05:57:27 am
content: Quote from: MarkS on April 10, 2017, 05:39:23 amMy take is that he's embarrassed as hell and is trying to justify that he got duped into thinking that might be a thing.

author: MarkS
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 10, 2017, 06:03:22 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on April 10, 2017, 05:57:27 amI can see that, but I think that has more to do with the 24 hour delay between videos. Since he didn't explain in the first video and waited so long for a follow up, who will believe him? Regardless of his motivations in posting the original video, doing so without context was a very dumb move.

author: Jeroen3
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2017, 06:19:26 am
content: Quote from: blueskull on April 09, 2017, 09:37:32 pmIn one of their video's they explain that they use the internet itself as source for TechQuicky. They are not tech people, they enthusiasts, so it is to expect that video's made by them will simply read the wiki page with some animations.For a lot of people this is already too complicated, but most importantly, most people watch it. And that generates revenue.

author: Bud
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2017, 06:21:30 am
content: Quote from: blueskull on April 10, 2017, 03:09:19 amThere is a Mythbusters episode on the idea. They did it in a controlled manner with live plants, and busted it.

author: W9GFO
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2017, 07:16:00 am
content: Quote from: rs20 on April 10, 2017, 05:08:28 amBasically their point is that the tides are actually pushed instead of pulled. Kind of like the difference between centrifugal and centripetal force. What did you find so awful about it?

author: rs20
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2017, 08:04:08 am
content: Quote from: W9GFO on April 10, 2017, 07:16:00 amI don't want to subject myself to the video again, but from memory:1. The implication that the "standard" explanation implies that solid objects would levitate, which is just rubbish. Obviously Earth's own gravity massively swamps the tidal force. The reason that water in a lake doesn't levitate is because you must integrate the tidal force from one end of the body of water to the other; only in large bodies of water does this become non-negligible. Indeed,here's a straightforward calculationshowing what the "obviously negligible" 1 micron per square second integrates to over half the earth's diameter. It simply finds the water column height difference that produces the same pressure at the core of the Earth, and it works out to 32cm, a massively visible and detectable difference. Sure, resonances in the ocean amplify this effect, but the complication of resonances does not make the 1 micron per square second explanationwrong.2. The replacement, "better" explanation is very dynamic and time-centric in nature, talking about things sloshing around. If taken to its limit, this would imply that if the earth didn't rotate with respect to the moon (i.e., the two weremutuallytidally locked), then there would be no tidal bulge at the near and far sides of the Earth. Again, this is false.3. The repeated use of the term "THE right explanation" (or similar) and implication that any other explanation must be wrong, when any half-brained person knows that there can be many very different but perfectly acceptable and mutually compatible explanations for a given thing (your example of centrifugal and centripetal force being a classic example, a video explaining why one or the other was "the right explanation" would be bullshit for this reason).4. Given points 1, 2 and 3, the repeated denigration of hard-working and underpaid science teachers is disgusting. And yeah yeah, maybe I'm overreacting here, but imagine watching this video if you were actually a science teacher and you'd just had a bad day.In short, it's a demonstration of mean-spirited, marketable pseudoscience replacing actual correct science.

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2017, 09:09:18 am
content: My take on this is that content creators create content for whatever reason. WIth the internet it has become more easy, there are no limits or hurdles about what you can publish, besides some illegal stuff. It's up to the consumer to decide if he likes the content or not. Use your little grey cells (aka brain)!

author: MarkS
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 10, 2017, 09:53:53 am
content: Quote from: blueskull on April 10, 2017, 06:56:35 amI find them highly entertaining, but anyone that uses the advice of a YouTube channel, no matter how informed they appear - including EEVBLOG! - without any further research to complete a project deserves whatever problems that arise.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2017, 10:07:44 am
content: Quote from: MarkS on April 10, 2017, 09:53:53 amIt rolls the other way too, if Dave finds an overseen bug andexpresslymentions it, this can do short term damage to a brand even though the bug may have already been identified and about to be remedied in soon to be released firmware.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 10, 2017, 12:07:46 pm
content: Quote from: madires on April 10, 2017, 09:09:18 amThe Errata section of the electronics magazines back in the day was a must-read.Even complete admissions the likes of "Basically the project does not work as published, you have to change xxxxxxx".No one batted an eyelid at errors like that.As a magazine project content producer back in the day, I can that say that checking was more rigorous than it is today. You knew the article would be seen by the whole world (pre-internet) and it was permanent in print. Not only would I double check stuff, but then it had to get through the editor, and the technical editor. And you had a few months to send corrections after you sent the project or article in before it went to print.Mistakes still made it through,hugemistakes.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2017, 12:15:53 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on April 10, 2017, 12:07:46 pmWell at some point in the 90's everyone I knew/know didn't built the more complex circuits from Elektor due to the many mistakes in their circuits. Elektor had become infamous for their 'Elektor's leak' section as it was called in the Dutch edition.Nowadays the biggest problem is to sift through the enormous amount of nonsense on internet.

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2017, 12:21:06 pm
content: Quote from: MarkS on April 10, 2017, 09:53:53 amMaybe they've taken the wrong pill:

author: donotdespisethesnake
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2017, 04:59:27 pm
content: Never believe anything you read, see or hear, especially on the Internet.That doesn't apply to this post of course.

author: rsjsouza
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2017, 08:22:41 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on April 10, 2017, 04:38:38 amYou are correct. The annotations couldn't be seen at all in videos embedded to external pages.I guess "cards" force the content creator to createmorecontent and therefore increase traffic and revenue stream.Quote from: EEVblog on April 10, 2017, 04:38:38 amI can see why they refuse to do it: it may be a CYA issue: "The content of the videos are sole responsibility of their content creators and we (Youtube/Google/Alphabet) have absolutely nothing to do with it". Doing a "re-rendering" would, at the eyes of a shyster, be an open door for a profit.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2017, 06:19:23 am
content: Quote from: wilfred on April 11, 2017, 06:06:56 amBy all means bugs should be mentioned, even better demonstrate them especially in a fresh to market product but then mention whether or not the manufacturer has a record (or not) of addressing such issues (or not).Viewers make purchasing decisions on the vids they find online so emphasizing a problem without some qualification of it likely being a long term problem or not is leaving the viewer not fully informed other than for the day the vid was made.

author: CJay
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2017, 06:54:38 am
content: I think we're missing an option on the survey.Always check your own math should apply to youtubers as well, they're only human and make mistakes, what makes videos from Dave, Alan Wolke, Shahriar, Big Clive, Julian ilett etc. etc. good is that they are made by humans who admit their mistakes when they realise they've made an error and often go to some lengths to explain what, why and how which can be as educational and entertaining as the original video.I would think there's some sort of obligation to acknowledge mistakes, even if it's only for the credibility of the 'channel', it's part of being a grownup after all, but 'responsibility', dunno, I'd soon stop watching anyone who was convinced of their own infallibility.

author: HP-ILnerd
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2017, 10:44:33 am
content: Quote from: CJay on April 11, 2017, 06:54:38 amWhile I do believe you should always check your own math even if you are an expert, the reason I have it separate is because that last option is about personal responsibility. Wikipedia, for instance can be horrifically bad at times, and if what information you glean was important (either existentially or just to you), it's always good advice to make sure your info is good. My introduction to an authoritative source being wrong was finding an error in the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics long ago (corrected in the next edition), so even the best sources can have errors.As far as I'm concerned, how "important" it is does matter. If what they show on a YouTube video is intrinsically dangerousandit's very possible to "try this at home", then accuracy is important, and the presenter understanding the source material is important because someone could be hurt. Electronics guys like Dave, Mike and Shariar, or machinist guys like Tom Lipton have a great deal of expertise due to their training and day job, and can indeed demonstrate stuff that's dangerous. They also tend to leave missteps in their videos because they are instructional. I've adopted Tom Lipton's "bozo check" concept because it's a constant reminder that no matter your expertise, you can always be wrong.That said, absolutely no one is going to try (or not try) to move an asteroid due to anything Thunderf00t says in a video.Thatsaid, any of his viewers who are untutored in orbital dynamics may have a really wrong idea of how that works and have no idea they have a brand new misapprehension. I find that...bothersome? Weirdly unjust? Hard to find a word, but knowing that bad information was relayed without it being corrected does not sit well with me. I shouldn't single him out though, because YouTube. Perhaps it bothers me because I value good sources of information among all the bad sources of information on YouTube?For instance, there's this guy (vid below), a flat-earther who finds global conspiracies in professional wrestling. He's absolute proof of the existence of Free Speech. He'd have to use the "nuclear option" on pretty much all his videos. I defy anyone to get 10 minutes into this without their eyes glazing over. He may not know anything else, but the dude knows his wrasslin':

author: HP-ILnerd
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2017, 11:05:58 am
content: I should probably add that the way the poll is turning out mirrors the dispute in my head remarkably well.So I feel a little better.