GQ should be moderated for factual content

About This Message Board
1

As the motto of this site is ‘Fighting Ignorance’, GQ should be moderated for egregious factual error.

I’m not necessarily suggesting the ban hammer - and on the face of it, it could be argued that the discussion format corrects factual error all by itself - and it does, for the thread - just not necessarily for all of the individuals who have participated.

So you could have a thread that begins with someone querying a sciency-sounding factoid they heard on TV or read on a blog - and in general, the thread as a whole will provide a good, factual, reasoned response.
However, there will sometimes be individual posts that are very clearly and obviously counter-factual. These nearly always get corrected in-thread - so the ignorance-fighting value of the thread-as-a-whole is preserved.
But if, as is sometimes the case, the member who posted that counter-factual comment does not return to the thread, there remains a little pocket of unfought ignorance- and (don’t ask for an example, but I’m damn sure I’ve witnessed it) they will repeat the same behaviour again in subsequent threads on the same topic.

Obviously, not all facts are cut-and-dried yet, and some areas of knowledge are highly technical - so in many cases, moderation of the content might not be possible, but so what? Not everything looks like a nail, but I still keep a hammer in my toolbox.

And intervention in an argument might be unfair or plain impossible for someone not experienced in that field - but again, this doesn’t really matter if the parties involved remain in active discussion - we have to hope that sanity and fact would eventually prevail.

As I said, I don’t think this would need to necessarily be the same format of moderation as currently exists for bad behaviour - (although if someone habitually posts unfacts with great frequency, it could be argued they’re being a jerk) - it could be a good deal milder and more supportive - a remedial, rather than punitive activity.

Finally, I’m reasonably sure I will have been guilty of committing a counter-factual driveby post at some point in the past - in this case, I think I would welcome a follow-up visit from the fact doctor.

2

Also: let’s not bog this down with worries about how it would heap additional work on the existing moderators - if this is a good idea in principle (and it may not be), the implementation is another question altogether.

3

I’m not convinced that it’s needed. Can you give an example of a thread that would have been impoved with such a policy?

4

GQ is a mess. It used to be the shining becaon of this forum, now it’s almost unreadable. It’s all wild ass guesses, political jabs, lame jokes - anything but the great content is used to be known for. It’s what attracted me to this board originally, but now I don’t even bother to read it. Every once in a while, someone submits an answer that’s worthy of the old GQ - and it only reflects on what a garbage dump it’s become.

GQ needs to be heavily moderated to weed out the 90% of useless garbage it’s become. They wouldn’t necesarily need to do any fact checking - they could just cut out all of the obviously garbage responses.

5

Threads aren’t improved by it (as stated in paragraph 3 of my OP) - individual cases of ignorance are fought.

6

I mostly agree.

There is a legitimate place for speculation and conjecture in GQ - for example in a “what is this ancient tool” thread, responses of the type “that bit looks like it fits in the hand” or “that bit can’t be load-bearing” are probably useful - even posts that ask further questions of the readers; “could it be made from two different materials for a reason?”, but yes - in general “I have no idea, but felt compelled to post something” should be stamped out.

7

I don’t really like picking on individual cases, but here’s one:
“Your body does not really digest meat. It only uses the fat & the meat rots in your system” T or F?

In post #5, I pointed out that it’s false, (because our own digestive processes can and do break down proteins).
In post #10, I clarified that it is indeed our own digestive enzymes that do the job - the process is not delegated to our gut flora. This is completely factual and not even a little controversial.

Then in posts 25 and 34, two different people make the complete opposite (and absolutely false and counterfactual) assertion.

The thread itself didn’t suffer - as many were quick to correct the error, but the folks responsible for these posts didn’t acknowledge the correction - possibly they’ll never return the the thread - quite possibly they’ll remain in error and spread the same nonsense again in future, here or elsewhere.

8

Here’s why it won’t work, and why it doesn’t matter.

A MB, even the SDMB, isn’t Wikipedia and the amount of vetting couldn’t be accomplished. The sheer breadth of questions that are posed here are so large that no moderation could possibly achieve policing all the incorrect posts.

The problem, as I see it, is that too many people have gulped down the “We’re special” kool aid. It’s a message board ferpetessake. It’s no smarter, on the whole, than the neighborhood tap, or barber shop.

What we do have, is the diversity that large numbers give us. I couldn’t walk into my barber shop and ask any question I want and likely have someone there who would be knowledgeable about that question. But here we do. No matter what question you ask, there’s likely someone who knows something about it.

The problem is that there will be tons of people who don’t, but will feel compelled to answer.

For example, I do HVAC for a living. I’m of the “under promise, over deliver” persuasion so I’m loathe to call myself an expert, but IMO of the HVAC questions that are posted here, the vast majority of answers are incorrect, or partially correct, or little better than well intentioned guesses. That said, I’ve come to learn that some of the people who answer will know the correct answer. (Like Joey P)

But I’ve come to learn that there are 3 or 4 people who are really knowledgeable about cars, (Rick, et al) a few more about IT and so forth. So, as a regular I’ve come to rely on the answers from those people who are clearly experts, and accepting the answers of well intentioned people that are quite possibly wrong.

And that’s ok. It’s a message board. The moment I think it rivals Wikipedia I’m in for trouble.

9

If the problem is individuals not returning to the thread, I don’t see how your proposed solution would help. Any moderation subsequent to a bad post would be unseen by someone who doesn’t return.

10

That’s really too much to ask of moderators. They have to know or research the answer to all GQs, and at that point they might as well be the only ones answering questions.

11

It might not work perfectly but it does matter.

I have no problem with any response that starts out with “I’m not sure”, “It might be” or any other qualifier. However, answers that are clearly wrong should be identified and those involved should acknowledge their error. Moderators could get involved in some cases. Suspension of privileges is not going to far.

That kind of effort is much more valuable than blowing the whistle on a little name calling.

12

A moderator, then, must either be able knowledgeable about an *inconceivable *amount of topics, or spend untold time researching posts for their accuracy. It’s not possible.

GQ is already somewhat self policing on the quality of content. SDMB just isn’t Wikipedia.

13

What would this give us that we don’t already have? If something wrong is posted in a thread, generally, one of the resident experts on that topic will come in and correct it. In the situations where this doesn’t happen, we can hardly expect the moderators to do better than the experts. When it does happen, everyone in the thread will be made just as aware of the error as the moderators are. If the poster of the error doesn’t come back to the thread, it might be desirable to make them aware of it separately, but the only way a moderator has of doing that is to PM or e-mail the poster, same as anyone else. If you see a drive-by false fact and it bugs you that much, you can contact that poster yourself.

14

Deterence for one thing.

Also an even greater effort to correct and acknowledge mistakes by the rabble. A moderator need not get involved at all in most cases.

15

No one would post in GQ if they risked suspension for a wrong answer and if the loophole was to start every sentence by saying that you’re not sure if what you’re about to say is correct, well, then, GQ would turn into IMHO.
Personally, I think GQ is just fine. I don’t think it’s unreadable, there’s very few political jabs (and less that go unnoticed) and we do at least try to answer the question before the jokes start.
As far as wrong answers, they’re somewhat self policing, a bad answer usually gets corrected in the next few posts as long as the OP generated some interest and there’s some discussion going on.

If you absolutely have to have a 100% correct answer to each and every question posted in GQ, you’re gonna have to do your own homework. Ask the question here, then run around and do some fact checking. Look it up on wiki were cites are required and check their work. Go to the library or university and do some actual research. Threatening people with suspension for provided an answer that’s incorrect…that would be the beginning of the end for the board, or at least GQ.

16

The point isn’t the integrity of the thread - that’s usually OK (although occasionally, promising threads do get ruined by premature WAGs, jokes, and incorrect answers) - the point is fighting ignorance as a fundamental ethic.

That’s exactly what I had in mind, however, I strongly suspect if I or anyone were to make a habit of this, they’d eventually find themself the subject of a complaint for stalking, junior modding, or something like that. I think it would need official backing.

17

Post #2. I’m not even necessarily proposing this as a function of the existing moderators.

18

Not necessarily the existing mods. Not necessarily all topics, Really, this objection is already addressed in the first two posts of this very thread.

Also addressed already.

19

At one time I might have agree with it; even advocated it. I can’t any longer. It’s contrary to reality.

I’ve read about a million posts here. (I’ve made 20,000: a 50 to 1 ratio seems reasonable.) That’s a good sample size. For the past few years I’ve been reading as much to analyze how posts are made and how how arguments are made, grow, and develop as to simply reply to posts.

A surprisingly huge number of people appear to have a learning style that consists of throwing out something contrary to fact or science or agreed-upon knowledge with an implied - sometimes overt - “prove me wrong”. The easiest place to see this is in threads that assert that 0.9999~ is not equal to one, or that you can so reach the speed of light. Sure, sometimes these people never admit they are wrong, but their failed arguments show that they know it without admitting it. A few come right out and say that the light bulb has turned on.

These people aren’t just threadstarters. Many come into a thread later on. They have different areas of wrongness, perhaps, and need a new set of counterarguments.

Others sincerely believe what they post, having “heard” it as received wisdom at some point. All those threads on what their English teacher told them that must always be right in all situations without nuance forever more are the best example. There’s a whole taxonomy of wrongness, just as there is a whole taxonomy of stupid questions.

Fighting ignorance is a process. Every post needs to add a new wrinkle. Moderating posts for correctness is worse than impossible - and it is totally, absolutely, ridiculously impossible. It goes against the best path toward getting good information out, which is a wonderfully Feynman-like all paths simultaneously since ignorance storms toward us like the microwave background radiation.

Next thing you know, someone will start asking for the ability to post pictures. And that way civilization ends.

20

I’ve seen plenty of moderator interventions in GQ with serial counterfactual posters. I don’t think it’s realistic, though, for every single instance to have some moderator get involved.

What might help is if there was a standard for moderator action whenever a poster is the first to post in a GQ thread and begins with “Just a WAG, but…”. If you just have a WAG, then STFU until someone who actually knows the answer chimes in.