# 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:** 5
**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, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-should-be-moderated-for-factual-content/646248/81 "2013-01-08T20:09:30Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > That part of the post was not addressed to you. It was addressed to **What the … !!!** Ah, OK - understood. ---
**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, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-should-be-moderated-for-factual-content/646248/82 "2013-01-08T20:15:36Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > 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. We could, but that would be stepping outside a clear boundary. People have the right to privacy, the right to be idiotically wrong and (as you said) the right to be ignorant, however, if (for example) they post details of their sexual exploits in MPSIMS, they waive their right to privacy; if they post a flawed argument in GD, they waive their right to having their idiocy remain unchallenged - and IMO, if they post something egregiously counterfactual in GQ, they waive their right to continue being ignorant about it. People’s doorsteps are not intrinsically part of an environment dedicated to fighting ignorance. GQ is. ---
**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 8, 2013, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-should-be-moderated-for-factual-content/646248/83 "2013-01-08T21:39:05Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > and IMO, if they post something egregiously counterfactual in GQ, they waive their right to continue being ignorant about it. I guess we’ll agree to disagree on that. Without someone to definitively rule on “counterfactual” you can’t make this work. And even if you do I don’t think it will have the desired effect. Are you prepared for people who disagree with you to be constantly correcting you? ---
**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, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-should-be-moderated-for-factual-content/646248/84 "2013-01-08T23:01:45Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > I guess we’ll agree to disagree on that. Without someone to definitively rule on “counterfactual” you can’t make this work. Not all facts are obscure though - there are plenty of topics where _reality_ provides a ruling - or where the facts are not in any doubt by all but a few people who just have it wrong. (the meat digestion thread is a perfect example). > [@](#): > > And even if you do I don’t think it will have the desired effect. Are you prepared for people who disagree with you to be constantly correcting you? I’d like to think it wouldn’t need to be constant, but do I want people to correct me when I am verifiably wrong? Yes I do. I said so right at the start of this thread. ---
**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 9, 2013, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-should-be-moderated-for-factual-content/646248/85 "2013-01-09T15:30:53Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > Quote: > Originally Posted by What the … !!! View Post > 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? That aggresive efforts to correct errors **and** sometimes humiliate the error-giver be acceptable. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2013, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-should-be-moderated-for-factual-content/646248/86 "2013-01-09T16:27:25Z")
That’s not a concrete description to show how it is workable. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2013, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-should-be-moderated-for-factual-content/646248/87 "2013-01-09T17:16:04Z")
Okay, required post: [xckd](http://xkcd.com/386/) ---
**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 9, 2013, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-should-be-moderated-for-factual-content/646248/88 "2013-01-09T17:56:26Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > Okay, required post: [xckd](http://xkcd.com/386/) I had that in mind when I started this thread. I never for a moment wished to propose that we fix the whole internet. In any case, I’m pretty much convinced now that there’s no practical way to implement this idea, even if it does contain any shred of merit. ---
**Author:** ![njtt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecd19e/32.png) [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2013, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-should-be-moderated-for-factual-content/646248/89 "2013-01-09T18:13:20Z")
> [@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. If the plan is to PM them (I must admit that, despite having now re-read **Mangetout** ’s OP and first few follow ups, I still have very little idea what the plan actually is) they almost certainly won’t read PMs either. Personally, I think I had already been active here for several years (and lurking for longer) before I even realized PMs existed, and even when you know they do, the notification that you have received one hardly leaps out at you. These messaged will almost certainly never be received. In the unlikely event that they are received, they will almost certainly be contemptuously dismissed as the diktats of a bunch of arrogant know-it-alls (and I am not convinced they won’t deserve to be). ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2013, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-should-be-moderated-for-factual-content/646248/90 "2013-01-09T21:04:38Z")
> [@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. Actually, I think of threads were someone posts misinformation and then strenuously argues against cites that he’s right. [Like this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=673706), where **coremelt** argued in many posts that the FAA does not regulate small drones/remote controlled aircraft used for commercial purposes. He was unambiguously wrong, it was pointed out by many people, and persisted to argue that the law isn’t actually the law. Anyone who reads that thread should walk away with the correct answer despite the argument, however, I seem to recall that years ago that moderators were more assertive in cautioning people against contributing their own WAGs, speculation, or flogging their own dead horses. I think that atmosphere of moderator oversight was a sort of deterrent to people answering questions that they actually don’t have any expertise in. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2013, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-should-be-moderated-for-factual-content/646248/91 "2013-01-10T04:13:38Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > A moderator, then, must either be able knowledgeable about an \*inconceivable \*amount of topics… You keep using that word. I think it means what you think it means. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2013, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-should-be-moderated-for-factual-content/646248/92 "2013-01-10T13:13:42Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > 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?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=677792) > > 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. And yet your posts were not completely accurate either. 1. Our gut flora actually ARE involved to some significant degree, in addition to our own enzymes, facilitated diffusion and active transport mechanisms. A fair amount of the ammonia from protein that the urea cycle has to deal with comes from that process. Some information about that protein fermentation occurs can be found [here](http://jn.nutrition.org/content/137/3/751S.full): > [@](#): > > … the fermentation of proteins occurs mainly in the distal colon (4). Some of the products resulting from amino acid fermentation have some relevance to health. Oxidative or reductive deamination of amino acids leads to the formation of ammonia, whereas decarboxylation results in the production of amines … anaerobic fermentation of the aromatic amino acids tyrosine and tryptophan by colonic bacteria gives rise to phenols and indoles, respectively … Those facts do not change the fact that the statement questioned by the op was way off and that your point was _mostly_ valid. 1. Your explanation of “rabbit starvation” was a way off WAG. One person making a statement, even with a cite, does not make it true. Crowd sourcing for correction of stated facts is more likely to come closer to truth than having it be moderated. None of us individually are qualified to do that and that which is obviously counterfactual is, well, obviously so. Agreed that too many post WAGs and jokes in GQ before any serious answers are offered up. Moderation _could_ be useful in limiting those until some serious answer has been attempted or it is clear there is none to be had. ---
**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 10, 2013, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-should-be-moderated-for-factual-content/646248/93 "2013-01-10T14:10:00Z")
I appreciate the clarification. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2013, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-should-be-moderated-for-factual-content/646248/94 "2013-01-10T18:09:05Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > I appreciate the clarification. But how can we be sure? You might just be saying that and once again ignorance is not fought. We need something more concrete and accurate, maybe a blood oath or community service or something. ---
**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 10, 2013, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-should-be-moderated-for-factual-content/646248/95 "2013-01-10T19:36:07Z")
Er… what? This thread isn’t about whether or not people are sincere. ---
**Author:** ![gnoitall](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bb73d2/32.png) [@gnoitall](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gnoitall)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2013, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-should-be-moderated-for-factual-content/646248/96 "2013-01-10T20:25:18Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > But how can we be sure? You might just be saying that and once again ignorance is not fought. Ignorance is fought. It’s not always vanquished. That’s the way of the world. You’re not obligated to win at all costs. You’re just obligated to fight the best fight you can without sacrificing your soul, or the dignity of everyone involved. As pointed out earlier, you can’t make someone learn against their will. If they’re wrong but wrongheaded. shake the dust off your feet and let them wallow in their ignorance. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2013, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-should-be-moderated-for-factual-content/646248/97 "2013-01-10T23:08:27Z")
> [@What\_the](#): > > That aggresive efforts to correct errors **and** sometimes humiliate the error-giver be acceptable. To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women. ---
**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 11, 2013, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-should-be-moderated-for-factual-content/646248/98 "2013-01-11T13:42:53Z")
> [@mlees](#): > > To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women. Just to be clear… I wouldn’t propose a level of discourse any nastier than those involving Debates, Politics and Opinions. Seems like addressing factual content is more important than any of those other areas. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2013, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-should-be-moderated-for-factual-content/646248/99 "2013-01-11T14:30:04Z")
> [@What\_the](#): > > Just to be clear… I wouldn’t propose a level of discourse any nastier than those involving Debates, Politics and Opinions. Seems like addressing factual content is more important than any of those other areas. No nastier?? The vitriol in Great Debates has been disappointing to me, and has been (for me) a disincentive to get involved in the dicussions there. Obviously YMMV. ---
**Author:** ![Drunky\_Smurf](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drunky_smurf/32/449_2.png) [@Drunky\_Smurf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drunky_Smurf)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2013, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-should-be-moderated-for-factual-content/646248/100 "2013-01-11T16:53:18Z")
> [@What\_the](#): > > That aggresive efforts to correct errors **and** sometimes humiliate the error-giver be acceptable. Exactly. And IMHO the OP doesn’t go far enough. The motto of this entire website is, “Fighting Ignorance”. No one should be allowed to post non-factual information anywhere including this forum. So say if someone says, “All humans have three arms.” they should be insta-banned. EDIT: Shit, upon reviewing my post after posting I realized I posted a non-factual sentence with, “All humans have three arms.” Well goodbye everybody. It’s been fun. I’ll see you around the internuts. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-should-be-moderated-for-factual-content/646248.md?page=4)