# GQ should be moderated for factual content **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [January 6, 2013, 9:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-should-be-moderated-for-factual-content/646248 "2013-01-06T09:52:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2013, 8:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-should-be-moderated-for-factual-content/646248/41 "2013-01-07T08:26:51Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > From the numerous posts you’ve made castigating Colibri for stating the obvious, you must have had some point in starting this thread but I can’t imagine what it was.\* The to and fro with Colibri was pretty much the same as it was with some of the others - my futile attempt to deal with what I perceive to be misdirected criticism - people are responding to some other idea than the one I actually proposed. > [@](#): > > Apparently you wanted everyone to say, “ooh, this is impossible and can never happen but wasn’t Mangetout brilliant and candid in his exposure of this hideous crime against humanity!” No. I was completely in earnest, as always. That motive exists only in your imagination. > [@](#): > > Yes, that would have been a waste of our time. So you must have meant something else. But what you actually said was both impossible to implement and a really bad idea at heart. > > The real waste of everyone’s time was the multitude of posts made after the OP. There you knew what you were doing and did it anyway. It was a bad idea to try to keep the thread on topic? OK. > [@](#): > > \*Unless you were trying to do something you thought was clever after posting ““Will the SDMB embrace any kind of change?” is the question, really - do we really think it’s the perfect incarnation of a message board for all time? It’s quite incredible how many ideas for change/improvement die on the vine.” in another thread. But that’s just cynicism on my part. That or your imagination again. This thread has nothing to do with the other one - in case you’re interested, this thread arose in my mind when I observed that sometimes, in a GQ thread, people post something counterfactual, then _never return to the thread_ - this being the case, it’s likely that at least some of those people continue in their error - the question I was posing here is: _Given that the prevailing ethic of this board could be interpreted as wishing to correct that predicament, is there a way to do it?_ ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2013, 8:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-should-be-moderated-for-factual-content/646248/42 "2013-01-07T08:31:23Z")
Point of clarity: My later resolution that this thread was a waste of time \*is \*influenced by this and other ATMB threads. ---
**Author:** ![the\_diego](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7bcc69/32.png) [@the\_diego](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/the_diego)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2013, 8:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-should-be-moderated-for-factual-content/646248/43 "2013-01-07T08:33:41Z")
As a middling guest who has committed several booboos with regard to facts, I think GQ is moderated enough. Rules on jokes and off-topic posts are clear enough to people. Putting in asides and light humor often broadens the discussion so people end up getting more than they asked. I’m not too hot with a one-question-one-correct-answer environment. If you’re going to post a question you should have researched yourself, people might as well have fun. ---
**Author:** ![Mathematics](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@Mathematics](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mathematics)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2013, 8:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-should-be-moderated-for-factual-content/646248/44 "2013-01-07T08:38:10Z")
Maybe the community itself could fulfill this task. If a certain person is educated in, say, biology and notices that one specific person often drops a biological falsehood and abandons the thread, maybe they could send that person a private message akin to what you’re saying. If the person truly was mistaken and joined the board to have their ignorance fought, then I’m sure they’d be receptive to being corrected. If they are the sort of person who tends to ignore evidence contrary to what they already believe, then I doubt any moderator action would be able to correct that. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2013, 9:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-should-be-moderated-for-factual-content/646248/45 "2013-01-07T09:02:15Z")
> [@Mathematics](#): > > Maybe the community itself could fulfill this task. > > If a certain person is educated in, say, biology and notices that one specific person often drops a biological falsehood and abandons the thread, maybe they could send that person a private message akin to what you’re saying. If the person truly was mistaken and joined the board to have their ignorance fought, then I’m sure they’d be receptive to being corrected. If they are the sort of person who tends to ignore evidence contrary to what they already believe, then I doubt any moderator action would be able to correct that. That would actually work - I’m just wary of doing it unless it had some sort of recognition as the right and proper thing - that is - if someone complained that another member chased them down by PM, just to correct a fact, the official response would be “Yeah, that’s what we do” or some such. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2013, 9:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-should-be-moderated-for-factual-content/646248/46 "2013-01-07T09:03:18Z")
> [@the\_diego](#): > > As a middling guest who has committed several booboos with regard to facts, I think GQ is moderated enough. Rules on jokes and off-topic posts are clear enough to people. Putting in asides and light humor often broadens the discussion so people end up getting more than they asked. I’m not too hot with a one-question-one-correct-answer environment. If you’re going to post a question you should have researched yourself, people might as well have fun. None of that would change. ---
**Author:** ![njtt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecd19e/32.png) [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2013, 9:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-should-be-moderated-for-factual-content/646248/47 "2013-01-07T09:13:10Z")
This would require a moderator who could make a definitive, unarguable judgement as to which claims in a thread are true and which are false. The only person who is conceivably competent to do that is Cecil himself. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2013, 9:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-should-be-moderated-for-factual-content/646248/48 "2013-01-07T09:22:07Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > Once again, the idea wasn’t about the integrity of the thread. I have already spoken about the self correcting nature of threads. As I understand it, your proposal would (in theory) be of most potential use to people who parachute egregiously incorrect answers into GQ and don’t come back to the thread to have their misconception corrected. I would be very sceptical about whether the type of person who does this is the type of person who is capable of absorbing correction. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2013, 9:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-should-be-moderated-for-factual-content/646248/49 "2013-01-07T09:32:25Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > As I understand it, your proposal would (in theory) be of most potential use to people who parachute egregiously incorrect answers into GQ and don’t come back to the thread to have their misconception corrected. I would be very sceptical about whether the type of person who does this is the type of person who is capable of absorbing correction. That’s actually a very fair point. Some might though. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2013, 9:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-should-be-moderated-for-factual-content/646248/50 "2013-01-07T09:33:32Z")
> [@njtt](#): > > This would require a moderator who could make a definitive, unarguable judgement as to which claims in a thread are true and which are false. > > The only person who is conceivably competent to do that is Cecil himself. 😉 Or a community of highly-knowledgeable persons (which interestingly, is exactly the same thing) ---
**Author:** ![Meurglys](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/258eb7/32.png) [@Meurglys](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meurglys)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2013, 11:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-should-be-moderated-for-factual-content/646248/51 "2013-01-07T11:30:23Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > I observed that sometimes, in a GQ thread, people post something counterfactual, then _never return to the thread_ You say this, but I expect a lot of them _do_ return to read subsequent answers, or read them as advisory e-mails, see they’re wrong and quietly slope off to another thread. They don’t reply because it’s easier than having to admit they were wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2013, 11:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-should-be-moderated-for-factual-content/646248/52 "2013-01-07T11:55:30Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > Or a community of highly-knowledgeable persons (which interestingly, is exactly the same thing) This implies that a community of highly-knowledgeable persons all agree on what is right and wrong. ---
**Author:** ![What\_the](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f4b2a3/32.png) [@What\_the](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_the)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2013, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-should-be-moderated-for-factual-content/646248/53 "2013-01-07T13:12:28Z")
> [@Sevencl](#): > > Self-regulation seems to be working fine so far. Could be better though. One of the assumptions is that every reader reads the entire thread … **and then** monitors the thread for further information. Certainly there are cases where a reader stops at an answer that happens to be wrong and then goes on his merry way more ignorant than when he started. That’s not good. Isn’t there any official interest in making that situation better? If there were some kind of consequence (I’m not suggesting banning or even immediate suspension) the wrong answers in GQ would be reduced. Wrong answer givers would be deterred. Threads with wrong answers would get more activity during the correcting process and the reader I mentioned above would be more likely to come back to see what was going on. Moderators need not get involved until or unless a wrong answer giver failed to acknowledge a mistake or explain himself… and then only if someone else thought the whole thing was egregious enough to ask for mod action. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2013, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-should-be-moderated-for-factual-content/646248/54 "2013-01-07T13:13:47Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > This implies that a community of highly-knowledgeable persons all agree on what is right and wrong. Addressed in para 4 of the OP of this thread. In many cases, they _do_ agree (for example, the matter of whether or not proteins are digested by gut flora or our own digestive enzymes, is not at all controversial) So yes, there would be cases where agreement could not be reached (and this would be apparent by means of an ongoing debate or disagreement in the GQ thread), but there would be cases where facts are not in dispute, except for those who are simply ignorant of them. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2013, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-should-be-moderated-for-factual-content/646248/55 "2013-01-07T13:15:10Z")
> [@Meurglys](#): > > You say this, but I expect a lot of them _do_ return to read subsequent answers, or read them as advisory e-mails, see they’re wrong and quietly slope off to another thread. They don’t reply because it’s easier than having to admit they were wrong. Very possibly I suppose - although I’m pretty sure I’ve seen cases where the same unfact was repeatedly posted by the same person in serial threads on the same topic. ---
**Author:** ![harmonicamoon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/65b543/32.png) [@harmonicamoon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/harmonicamoon)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2013, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-should-be-moderated-for-factual-content/646248/56 "2013-01-07T13:43:02Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > we can hardly expect the moderators to do better than the experts. Exactly! Moderators aren’t really gods. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2013, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-should-be-moderated-for-factual-content/646248/57 "2013-01-07T13:45:36Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > 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. I can’t imagine a team of moderators willing to fact check every statement in GQ. Isn’t that what the members are for? ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2013, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-should-be-moderated-for-factual-content/646248/58 "2013-01-07T13:55:57Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > So yes, there would be cases where agreement could not be reached (and this would be apparent by means of an ongoing debate or disagreement in the GQ thread), but there would be cases where facts are not in dispute, except for those who are simply ignorant of them. But since there’s no definitive authority to appeal to that can determine which case we are in the whole thing falls apart. Your basic assumption is that there really is a right answer to questions that people on an anonymous message board can agree on, and I think that is too high a standard. The best we can hope for is consensus or preponderance of evidence, and that takes place by discussion not by decree. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2013, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-should-be-moderated-for-factual-content/646248/59 "2013-01-07T14:03:24Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > But since there’s no definitive authority to appeal to that can determine which case we are in the whole thing falls apart. Your basic assumption is that there really is a right answer to questions that people on an anonymous message board can agree on, and I think that is too high a standard. We might as well close the GQ forum, if that were true. There are such things as hard facts - and they are not always beyond our grasp - the example thread I linked on the previous page is in fact a great example - the thread arrived at the absolutely 100% right answer, but several contributors posted counterfactual claims. > [@](#): > > The best we can hope for is consensus or preponderance of evidence, and that takes place by discussion not by decree. That would be fine. I’m not suggesting the assignment of a team of boffins who know all the answers - just exploring if there could ever be a mechanism by which the right answer, in cases where it clearly _is_ reached, could be distributed remedially to those who got it wrong, and maybe still don’t know. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2013, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-should-be-moderated-for-factual-content/646248/60 "2013-01-07T14:05:28Z")
> [@harmonicamoon](#): > > Exactly! Moderators aren’t really gods. > [@Morgenstern](#): > > I can’t imagine a team of moderators willing to fact check every statement in GQ. Isn’t that what the members are for? The people applying the remedy don’t need to know all the answers - the GQ thread often supplies this, but only to those who remain engaged in the discussion until such time. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-should-be-moderated-for-factual-content/646248.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-should-be-moderated-for-factual-content/646248.md?page=4)