>[!abstract] >**Warnock's dilemma** (named after its inventor Bryan Warnock) is the ambiguity created by the lack of response to an online contribution, which can be interpreted in any of several ways (which I have rephrased and expanded with items 5–6): > >1. No one had anything to add because the post is correct and exhaustive enough, while being a "reply guy" is seen dimly in some communities. >2. No one cared enough about the topic of the post, even if they understood it in the first place. >3. No one understood the post, nor asked for clarification because they don't care or don't want to admit ignorance (e.g., of a community's "private joke"). >4. No one bothered to rectify the post given how grossly [[Not even wrong|incorrect]] or trolling it is, as it would be thought of as futile to engage. >5. No one who agreed with the post was willing to publicly support it, perhaps because it is controversial ("saying the quiet part out loud"). >6. No one who disagreed with the post wanted to engage in an argument with the author, perhaps to avoid conflict or because of their or the author's standing. >7. No one read the post because of its depth in a thread, poor algorithmic visibility, a [[shadowban]], time zones, too few users in the community, etc. >[!note] >Upvotes and downvotes are alternative mechanisms to indicate that a post has been seen and reacted to by users, even in the absence of a reply; although they also carry some ambiguity as well. Upvotes may either mean "This was a useful or well-written comment" or "I agree with the opinion in this post". Likewise, a downvote may mean "This post is lazy, pointless, or poorly written" just as much as "I disagree with its opinion". This is a dilemma in itself not linked to the absence of reaction but rather its semantic uncertainty. >[!related] >- **North** (upstream): — >- **West** (similar): — >- **East** (different): — >- **South** (downstream): — ![[related.base|no-toolbar]]