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

81 to 100 of 105rss feed

First Previous 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
Still no sign of a philosophy section?
no problem with that, prof maisie. Even editors get their ideas from somewhere, as they're entitled to.
The vast majority of people responding to the changes don't like them, so you're very much of the minority opinion, juno.
The editorial staff shouldn't be so hard-nosed when they've made such an obvious mistake - they seem to be more concerned with saving face than running the site in the interests of the majority of subscribers (that would be good business sense, if nothing else).
...sorry - jno.
I don't see why introducing a modicum of quality control for the Science category is an "obvious mistake"...
/// The AnswerBank also reserves the right to remove any false or misleading information ///

Does that mean we all have to revert to our real names, not false ones ?
Even Ellipsis thought that deleting the two posts was OTT, and believed the error had been rectified by the posts being reinstated. That they were not simply reinstated is 'the obvious mistake'.
//...... but I hope and expect that the "facts only" rule is applied across the board, and not just in one section//

It’s not really a “facts only”rule and its focusing it in Law, body & soul and science sections mostly

//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 also reserves the right to remove any false or misleading information, especially in the Law, Body & Soul and Science categories."//
It seems to me that this molehill has been given a snowcap and a base camp by some folk here.

All well and good, but the statements that were removed do not appear to fall into those categories - they were removed on a whim and now we've got extra 'laws' to disguise the fact.
The sun will still rise in the morning...
Storm in a teacup if you ask me.
How can it be quality control when the people controlling it don’t understand what they’re controlling?
This is nothing but arrogant pedantic nonsense. AB isn’t CERN. It isn’t NASA. It’s a little chat site that’s been jogging along, in the main, quite happily for years. This is entirely unnecessary.
This kind of censorship is insidious and it's becoming more and more a problem in the real world. It should be nipped in the bud.
I'm sure AB will get used to the new guidance quickly enough.
your Not forced to use the site, if you don’t like it you can always go somewhere else
Naomi, an excellent, short and to the point response; especially the "arrogant pedantic nonsense." part.
I don't need you, steg (or jno) telling me I can leave the site. I'm quite capable of managing that myself, should I choose to. But failing that, you might try to introduce another new law to kick out the more disgruntled members.
\\ your Not forced to use the site, if you don’t like it you can always go somewhere else//
I'm not sure that's a view shared by the owners of this site.
I still don't see the problem.

This isn't oppression, it's a request to have some basic knowledge to backup what you claim, or link to something that does. Not to post unfounded BS.

It really doesn't seem so hard.

81 to 100 of 105rss feed

First Previous 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.