SIGN UP

Amended Site Rules And Science Category Introduction

Avatar Image
ABSpareEditor | 17:42 Tue 28th Jan 2020 | Editor's Blog
105 Answers
There was some commotion over the weekend in the "Science" category regarding misinformation and fact checking.

To cover any issues that may arise in the future, we have amended the Site Rules. We have also amended the introduction for the "Science" category.

We have added the following text to the "Science" category introduction:

"Whilst discussions and debates are encouraged, The AnswerBank reserves the right to remove answers that are misleading, e.g. by implying that a statement is a scientific theory or law when it is not, especially when such answers may impact personal health choices.

The AnswerBank makes no claim regarding the scientific accuracy of any post (question or answer) made by a member."

We have added the following text to the Site Rules:

"The AnswerBank also reserves the right to remove any false or misleading information, especially in the Law, Body & Soul and Science categories."

Answers

41 to 60 of 105rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Last

Avatar Image
//surely, more useful than silencing someone with a different view?// Having a different view is not what it’s about tho, i think its the use of blatant false information stated as fact that seems to be the concern
19:18 Tue 28th Jan 2020
Well, I've checked the thread again and the two posts have not been reinstated. I wish I could see them to decide if their removal was OTT or not.
Judging by 10ClarionSt's thread (where he paraphrased them) I'd say they were pretty innocuous, so why haven't they been reinstated?
Ellipsis. //a mod did something, the Ed undid it.//

As I understand it that isn’t so. Reports go directly to the Editor. The complainant says he 'spoke' to the Editor about posts airing views contrary to those of 'science' - and this is the ridiculous result.
Maisie, //why haven't they been reinstated? //

Because, I guess, they contradict current scientific thinking - which is what this is all about. Anyone got any more grease for the slope?
I haven't seen any threads, as I have been away for a bit. I can only assume it was Jim? But he is exceptionally unscientific at times. I think I will wait for the answers from the Ed.
I welcome this for the Law category especially and would ask that it be extended to any 'legal' pronouncement in any category made by someone who has misunderstood/misinterpreted the law and is promulgating their misunderstanding as fact.
Should someone Google (or whatever) that particular query and read the answer of the person who has made the misunderstanding and take it as fact they could well find themselves in bother with my ex-colleagues.
I foresee intersting times
And you'd be right.
For God's sakes....make a philosophy cat.
Things that are 'questinable' can have a home. Life isnt black and white!
If removing the posts in question was OTT, then they should have been reinstated by now - we've been assured that there's a mechanism for this - unless the editor deems their removal justified (and, if so, why not say so?).
//If removing the posts in question was OTT, then they should have been reinstated by now - we've been assured that there's a mechanism for this - unless the editor deems their removal justified (and, if so, why not say so?).//

i would imagine they haven’t been reinstated because the Ed team recon the removals weren’t OTT and were justified.
I don't want to 'imagine' I'd like to know.
email the Ed team then and ask
What's wrong with asking here? It was posted by the Ed team.
pixie374

//And also, any threads about transsexuals or transgender, where somebody claims that someone has changed sex... //

I think I can guess which side of that argument will be verboten after the Oracle is consulted.
// But he is exceptionally unscientific at times.//

At least he tries not to be.

It's so lovely to see how a policy that is clearly up to the Editorial team for designing, adopting and implementing hasn't been used as an excuse to hold a survey on people's opinions of one specific member of the site.
Ed's house, Ed's rules. If it's to be a bank of answers, there's no point in leaving it as a bank of misinformation and lies; how would that attract new users?
//What's wrong with asking here? It was posted by the Ed team.//
nothing wrong, but this may be helpful

//The Answerbank reserves the right to remove any post that does not relate to the topic being discussed or that we feel violate our Site Rules and Terms of Use. The AnswerBank also reserves the right to remove any false or misleading information, especially in the Law, Body & Soul and Science categories. //

//Due to the high volume of posts, all editorial decisions are final, and discussion relating to the removal or editing of posts will not be entered into by the AB Editor. //
Just for you ;)
Well, that's upped the stakes a bit - from 'innocuous' to 'misinformation and lies'!
Can we have some official adjudiation, please?
...please insert the missing 'c'.
The whole thread breaks Site Rules - what do you think the 'commotion' is about?

41 to 60 of 105rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Last

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.