Signal To Noise

One group of people's "noise" may be another group's "signal". Quote from StopHarassingTheGnomes

Just a snapshot view - at lunchtime (in the UK) on 22nd December, 55% of changes made so far that day were what I would consider to be noise (i.e. nothing whatever to do with software , patterns, technology or the people associated with them. I don't have similar figures for this time last year or the year before, but I have a strong feeling that the quality of contribution (w.r.t. software and technology) has deteriorated in recent months. -- AnonymousOnPurpose

Strong feeling? I'd say it's bloody obvious. It is also kind of obvious that it is yet another instance of TragedyOfTheCommons. Hey, wait a second, TragedyOfTheCommonsCantHappenHere. Oh too bad, it's in the making.

As one of the contributors to the 'noise' I might remark that, if I felt Wiki could/would not be repaired and restored - revived? - by those of us (including me) who care that the net signal will prevail and is worth enduring some noise now and then, I would be very timid indeed in my contributions. I believe, however, that there are enough of us who intend survival for Wiki to ensure that it will persist and continue to be useful. On the day that I feel I can no longer be of value in Wiki, I will simply - and without comment - discontinue contribution.

From the JargonFile [http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/S/signal-to-noise-ratio.html]:

: signal-to-noise ratio: [from analog electronics] n. Used by hackers in a generalization of its technical meaning. `Signal' refers to useful information conveyed by some communications medium, and `noise' to anything else on that medium. Hence a low ratio implies that it is not worth paying attention to the medium in question. Figures for such metaphorical ratios are never given. The term is most often applied to Usenet newsgroups during flame wars. Compare bandwidth. See also coefficient of X, lost in the noise.

Also these books:

Is it possible to distinguish noise from "related information"? Many of the discussions are philosophical or political. A discussion of Microsoft business techniques, the DMCA, what makes life worth living(when answered by other programmers), the war on terror(especially for those of us in military or civil engineering), even good music - are all related to software development, not directly, but related nonetheless. On the other hand I'm a little tired of reading MyWikiVsYourWiki? flame wars...

[See InformationTheory for other uses of this term.]

Merge with ImminentDeathOfWikiPredicted

Have you ever stopped to think how valuable 'noise' might be? In sensing systems, white noise has been shown to significantly improve the ability of a sensor in detecting tiny signals at the limit of sensitivity. The human ear is a perfect example of this.

In the Wiki context, noise could fall across three categories. The first case is that of pure noise - i.e., random strings of ASCII characters (this form, of course, never occurs, although it can be approached in some illiterate tirades or through the manic use of TLA's). The second case is comment perceived by individuals to be 'off topic' and the third is vandalism from those whose only enjoyment comes from shi**ing in someone else's sandpit (possibly the only value that can be drawn form this form of noise is the perception of how sad some life forms can become).

From the Wiki standpoint of noise possibly being of value, consider the second category of noise. Stuff which 'I/you' consider to be off-topic. The first potential value is that 'noise' should make you stop and realize that just about everyone else has a different perspective from yours, and that their perspective led them to comment on the topic in the way they did. The topic somehow linked and triggered an association for them that was not visible to you. The second value then is that it offers the opportunity for us to exercise our 'perspective' muscle. When something jars us, instead of rejecting it, try to flex your perspective to achieve the insight held by whoever wrote it. These first two values are about improving ourselves, the next two are about developing the topic.

Value three, consider, someone has half an idea, can't quite formulate it, yet adds it to the Wiki anyway. 99% of us see it as 'noise' but one person sees it as the missing part to their half formed ideas and manages to create a brand new approach to the main topic. Value four, by jogging someone off topic, noise can stimulate a position of perception not visible from the stasis of the accepted norm. Least energy surface mapping techniques cry out for 'noise' to help the models see over a surrounding ring of hills to greater valleys beyond, the same is true for our dynamic problem solving thought processes. We can easily become entrenched and blind to better solutions 'just over the ridge', but noise can jog perception to new perspectives. -- DerekSmith

Note: This term is not jargon, nor is it the sole source for some book, nor is it debatable as to its usefulness. Please, folks, let's have a little understanding in place before picking a term apart, eh?