• pivot_root@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    7 months ago

    And then a wealthy slumlord does the math and finds out it’s cheaper to pay people to sabotage the website than to lose tenants due to reviews.

      • pivot_root@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        Wikipedia has two significant advantages:

        1. The content is objective, and sources should be cited.
        2. Individual editors are volunteers with a vested interest in their pages.

        The former makes for a clear and low-effort bar for determining if a contribution is bad. If it’s not cited, or it’s biased, revert and move on. Figuring out if a user-written review is paid for, factually false, or exaggerated is a lot harder.

        As for the latter… aside from doing it out of spite or as a favor to landlord friends, I have a hard time imagining that many people would volunteer their time moderating the review page about the apartment they rented 14 years ago.

        • whoreticulture@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Well, I don’t think the content is objective. There are many politically contentious articles and they have systems, disclaimers, and discussions to try to deal with it.

          I think the moderators would be locals looking over an entire neighborhood, sort of like our Lemmy mods.