# 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:** 4
**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, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-should-be-moderated-for-factual-content/646248/61 "2013-01-07T14:21:25Z")
I think what the OP was getting at is that people should be able to report obviously false statements to the moderator if the poster does not return to the thread. Presumably they would provide clear evidence of how the post was wrong in the report. Then the poster would be notified by the moderator that someone has given a good citation that contradicts what they posted. At that point, the person who posted the falsehood could be enlightened, choose to ignore the evidence, or provide a counter-citation. Is that right? I think most people are confused about the process suggested. ---
**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, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-should-be-moderated-for-factual-content/646248/62 "2013-01-07T14:38:24Z")
> [@Mathematics](#): > > I think what the OP was getting at is that people should be able to report obviously false statements to the moderator if the poster does not return to the thread. Presumably they would provide clear evidence of how the post was wrong in the report. > > Then the poster would be notified by the moderator that someone has given a good citation that contradicts what they posted. At that point, the person who posted the falsehood could be enlightened, choose to ignore the evidence, or provide a counter-citation. > > Is that right? I think most people are confused about the process suggested. Something like that, perhaps - or maybe just a culture where a follow-up by PM/email wouldn’t be considered inappropriate. Really, all I’m asking is: given that the ethic of the board is ‘fighting ignorance’, should we not care that some examples of patently counterfactual ignorance go uncorrected. ---
**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, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-should-be-moderated-for-factual-content/646248/63 "2013-01-07T15:11:27Z")
> [@Mathematics](#): > > Then the poster would be notified by the moderator that someone has given a good citation that contradicts what they posted. At that point, the person who posted the falsehood could be enlightened, choose to ignore the evidence, or provide a counter-citation. That’s not unworkable, but it’s an awful lot of bookkeeping for IMO little reward. I think it could be warranted in extreme and habitual cases, but not as a general policy. ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2013, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-should-be-moderated-for-factual-content/646248/64 "2013-01-07T15:32:40Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > Or a community of highly-knowledgeable persons (which interestingly, is exactly the same thing) Cecil’s real name is Legion, then? ---
**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, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-should-be-moderated-for-factual-content/646248/65 "2013-01-07T15:36:45Z")
> [@NitroPress](#): > > Cecil’s real name is Legion, then? Might as well be. Ed Legion perhaps. ---
**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, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-should-be-moderated-for-factual-content/646248/66 "2013-01-07T15:45:54Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > That’s not unworkable, but it’s an awful lot of bookkeeping for IMO little reward. I think it could be warranted in extreme and habitual cases, but not as a general policy. You’re probably right. I wonder though… Suppose I was to PM someone who posted an egregiously counterfactual driveby comment in a GQ thread where the factual answer was readily apparently and the scientific consensus is not at all unclear - and I said (for example) something like: > [@](#): > > Hey, I hope you don’t mind me contacting you in this way, but I noticed that you said in this thread that the gut flora is responsible for the digestion of protein in humans. As I can’t tell if you returned to the thread, I thought you might like to know that this is factually incorrect (cite) - this function is carried out by our own digestive enzymes. > > Love and hugs > Mangetout Now, if the recipient of such a message reports me as a stalker or otherwise complains, am I going to be told to back off? ---
**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, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-should-be-moderated-for-factual-content/646248/67 "2013-01-07T15:52:44Z")
I’m not really familiar with the PM conventions here at the SDMB, but I can’t see how that could be considered in any way stalking or against the TOS. I would think that the point of having private messages on a message board is to communicate about what people post. I get the feeling that most people might initially be a bit embarrassed by it, but ultimately appreciate the correction. I personally think it’s good for people to be a bit ashamed in that sort of situation as well. Maybe it will discourage them from posting carelessly in the future. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2013, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-should-be-moderated-for-factual-content/646248/68 "2013-01-07T15:54:12Z")
I don’t think you can really be “stalking” with a single message. And if you’re contacting the same person repeatedly often enough that it would be stalking, I think you’ve probably missed getting the hint that that person doesn’t want to be corrected. On an occasional basis, though? I’ve gotten messages like that from other posters, and generally don’t mind (especially if it’s phrased politely like in your example). ---
**Author:** ![Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freddy_the_Pig)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2013, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-should-be-moderated-for-factual-content/646248/69 "2013-01-07T19:09:13Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > 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. The problem isn’t that GQ has changed, it’s that the world has changed. Questions with bona fide factual answers can be answered elsewhere, easily, by anybody. All that are left for GQ are vague opinion-ish questions like “How hard is it to go from enlisted man to officer” and “Why hasn’t air travel seen technological jumps” and “Are there any countries the US couldn’t take over?” Any one of these could plausibly be moved to IMHO. But then, nothing would be left for GQ. I’m not sure GQ still has a mission in 2013. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2013, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-should-be-moderated-for-factual-content/646248/70 "2013-01-07T23:23:48Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > 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. > [@Mangetout](#): > > 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?_ > [@Mangetout](#): > > 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. What you’re suggesting seems like the board instituting some aggressive form of calling out posters and correcting them. I don’t agree. People have the right to be wrong. People have the right to post and then stop reading a thread. People have the right to ignore being corrected. You can’t beat sense into someone. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it participate on the SDMB in a reasonable and informative manner. If someone is consistently posting incorrect information, repeatedly ignoring correction, then they can venture into territory that requires actual moderation to prevent disruption in the threads. But aggressively hunting down people for making a comment to inform them they are ignorant… that is stepping beyond politeness and the role of a message board. > [@Mangetout](#): > > Suppose I was to PM someone who posted an egregiously counterfactual driveby comment in a GQ thread… > > Now, if the recipient of such a message reports me as a stalker or otherwise complains, am I going to be told to back off? If you are repeatedly messaging the same person, then they indeed might feel you are acting like a stalker, following them around and correcting their every mistake. They have the right to remain ignorant. > [@What\_the](#): > > 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. What do you suggest? You’re taking this a step further than **Mangetout** , into the territory that the mods have addressed. What do you propose? How do you expect it to work? ---
**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 8, 2013, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-should-be-moderated-for-factual-content/646248/71 "2013-01-08T00:02:31Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > What you’re suggesting seems like the board instituting some aggressive form of calling out posters and correcting them. I don’t agree. People have the right to be wrong. People have the right to post and then stop reading a thread. People have the right to ignore being corrected. You can’t beat sense into someone. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it participate on the SDMB in a reasonable and informative manner. Well, I guess we don’t agree then. But I don’t believe your stance is as consistent with the theme of ‘Fighting Ignorance’ as mine. > [@](#): > > What do you suggest? You’re taking this a step further than **Mangetout** , into the territory that the mods have addressed. What do you propose? How do you expect it to work? What are you asking? You saw, then dismissed everything I proposed. ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2013, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-should-be-moderated-for-factual-content/646248/72 "2013-01-08T03:30:35Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > “I’m going to drill a hole in my head; spade or auger bit?” Masonry bit. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2013, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-should-be-moderated-for-factual-content/646248/73 "2013-01-08T03:38:32Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > This implies that a community of highly-knowledgeable persons all agree on what is right and wrong. And, of course, it implies this “community of highly-knowledgeable persons” _is actually_ highly-knowledgeable. (as opposed to simply believing it, and repeating it to each other for years) Oh yea, and that they can agree. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2013, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-should-be-moderated-for-factual-content/646248/74 "2013-01-08T03:40:13Z")
> [@Cheshire\_Human](#): > > Masonry bit. Bad idea. Using a masonry bit requires a hammer drill. The hammering action would give you a _vicious_ headache. ---
**Author:** ![TATG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/50afbb/32.png) [@TATG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TATG)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2013, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-should-be-moderated-for-factual-content/646248/75 "2013-01-08T03:44:03Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > Really, all I’m asking is: given that the ethic of the board is ‘fighting ignorance’, should we not care that some examples of patently counterfactual ignorance go uncorrected. > [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](#): > > The problem isn’t that GQ has changed, it’s that the world has changed. Questions with bona fide factual answers can be answered elsewhere, easily, by anybody. > > All that are left for GQ are vague opinion-ish questions like “How hard is it to go from enlisted man to officer” and “Why hasn’t air travel seen technological jumps” and “Are there any countries the US couldn’t take over?” Any one of these could plausibly be moved to IMHO. But then, nothing would be left for GQ. I’m not sure GQ still has a mission in 2013. I don’t really like the “Fighting Ignorance” motto, at least not if we take it seriously. If it was “Taking Wacky Questions Seriously”, or some such, it would reflect my interest in this place and the column more closely. Granted, it isn’t that punchy. ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2013, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-should-be-moderated-for-factual-content/646248/76 "2013-01-08T03:49:17Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > Bad idea. > > Using a masonry bit requires a hammer drill. The hammering action would give you a _vicious_ headache. Nonsense. I just drilled a couple of holes in concrete with a masonry bit in my battery powered drill. No hammer action whatsoever. And even if you do use a hammer drill, the headache will go away once you pierce the Dura Mater. Here, let me demonstrate… [grabs **raindog** ’s head] ---
**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 8, 2013, 6:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-should-be-moderated-for-factual-content/646248/77 "2013-01-08T06:58:41Z")
> [@TATG](#): > > I don’t really like the “Fighting Ignorance” motto, at least not if we take it seriously. If it was “Taking Wacky Questions Seriously”, or some such, it would reflect my interest in this place and the column more closely. Granted, it isn’t that punchy. Dunno. “The Straight Dope Message Board : A Bit Like Yahoo Answers” kinda takes the shine off it, for me. We only have one forum dedicated to factual questions. ---
**Author:** ![Kevbo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e47774/32.png) [@Kevbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kevbo)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2013, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-should-be-moderated-for-factual-content/646248/78 "2013-01-08T16:40:04Z")
When people post crap, it usually gets corrected. Sometimes the crap that was posted was something I thought was true, but didn’t post it because I wasn’t sure and couldn’t be bothered to do the research. So the fact that crap gets posted and corrected IS fighting ignorance. Sometimes the wrong information includes valid keywords or terms-of-art that put those with good research skills on the scent of the real correct answer. I am pretty sure I have posted things along the line of “I have no idea the answer, but here are some keywords that may help” before, and even if it is not spelled out, that can work. As for posters not returning after a correction: So what? If they think the correction is wrong, and say so, it turns into a pissing contest, often as not. When that is the case, it is probably best that they just let it go. Sometimes the correction is based on a misunderstanding, and correcting that just derails the thread. Sometimes the correction sows doubt, but the poster of the correct information remains unconvinced…what good does posting “Now you have me wondering…” do? ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2013, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-should-be-moderated-for-factual-content/646248/79 "2013-01-08T18:52:00Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > What are you asking? You saw, then dismissed everything I proposed. That part of the post was not addressed to you. It was addressed to **What the … !!!** ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2013, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-should-be-moderated-for-factual-content/646248/80 "2013-01-08T18:56:43Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > Well, I guess we don’t agree then. But I don’t believe your stance is as consistent with the theme of ‘Fighting Ignorance’ as mine. Well I suppose we could start going door to door, and asking people if they believe any of several things on a list, and then if they say yes we could tell them they are wrong and why. That is much more along the theme of fighting ignorance than just posting a message board where anyone can join and say whatever they want, or people can choose not to join and have their ignorance fought. But I think that crosses the bounds of good taste and polite behavior. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-should-be-moderated-for-factual-content/646248.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-should-be-moderated-for-factual-content/646248.md?page=5)