What would be the consequences of prefacing a false statement with “This is WRONG, and here’s the proof…” followed by a valid cite. Not much nicer than a red pen correction, but saves other readers time.
Yeah - I can think of one handy notable example where that happened.
I was thinking something more along the lines of a team of non-mods - a bit like the SDSAB - acting in an official recognised capacity, but not punitively.
Agreed - I mean, if 24 hours pass without an answer, then maybe it’s time for a WAG, but otherwise, it’s just not terribly helpful (there are categories of non-answer posts that can help at this stage, however). If you’ve got a WAG, then you should research that WAG, and post your factual findings, if they’re relevant.
Self-regulation seems to be working fine so far.
The first objection to the OP is simply that it’s impractical. I and the other GQ moderators read only a fraction of threads and posts as it is. Even if I could read more posts, I have expertise mainly in biology, other sciences, and a few other topics. There’s no way I can evaluate the correctness of information in threads on general relativity, mathematics, automotive repair, or Central Asian history. Effectively moderating for content would probably take a moderation staff of 20 or more, and even then more esoteric subjects wouldn’t be covered.
But the OP misunderstands the fundamental role of moderation in GQ. General Questions is a forum, intended to facilitate the exchange of information. Our role is primarily to provide a place where that exchange can take place without being derailed by insults, personal arguments, or hijacks. We rely on our posters to provide information; it is not our role as moderators to evaluate it. Of course, if misinformation is posted in my field of expertise, I will correct it. But that’s in my role as a poster, not as a moderator.
This said, on rare occasions I will intervene in a thread if a poster is persisting in posting misinformation that has already been refuted without providing evidence, and that’s causing other posters to become frustrated. In such cases I will usually instruct the poster to provide cites or factual information in their next post or refrain from participating further in the thread.
Speaking of counterfactual information, this is a good example. 
Of course we all know that when the board started it was a true Golden Age. Only informative and useful information was posted in GQ. There has been a precipitous and uniform decline in the board since then. Who knows where we will be a few years hence?
To my perception, the general quality of posts in GQ is much the same as it was when I joined 12 years ago. Of course, we have a much higher membership and posting rate than back then, so the absolute number of both informative and garbage posts has increased.
How exactly do you suggest that this lost Golden Age that you recall was produced? Was the average intelligence of our posters that much higher a decade ago? Did idiots show self restraint and simply refrain from posting? General Questions certainly wasn’t significantly moderated for content back then - neither manhattan nor Chronos, who were the GQ moderators when I joined, did that as a matter of policy, and neither have subsequent ones. If anything, GQ is more tightly moderated against insults, political jabs, hijacks, and other distractions than it was when I joined.
If you don’t believe this, take a look at some of the zombies that periodically surface from that era. You’ll find the same mix of valuable information, lame jokes, and dumbassery that appears today. And you’ll find few if any examples of moderators moderating for content.
Yeah, if only I’d said something like:
[QUOTE=Me, in post #2]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, if only I’d said something like:
[QUOTE=Me, in post #1]
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.
[/quote]
Yeah, if only I’d said something like:
[QUOTE=Me, in post #1]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Corollary question:
I won’t link to the specific example I remember unless necessary (don’t feel like looking for it), so I’ll paraphrase it:
*My doctor says that I should avoid calcerin quintinate since it contributes to hypertension, so can someone show me a list of soft drinks that do not contain calcerin quintinate?
If the OP had just left it at “What soft drinks do not contain calcerin quintinate?” the proper GQ response (in my opinion) would just have been a list of such drinks.
However, with the first qualification, and a little searching around on the subject showing that only woo sites have that warning about calcerin quintinate and hypertension, and that the US FDA, and it’s Canadian and European counterparts show no correlation, in my opinion, that opens up the thread to poke holes in the faulty premise being presented as fact.
Any other opinions???
*Actual chemical disguised to protect the innocent (and the guilty).
I agree; If the GQ is “I’m going to drill a hole in my head; spade or auger bit?”, it’s absolutely right, IMO, to divert the thread in the direction of the more important aspect of the topic.
Yes, I read your posts. I was confirming that the objections you yourself raise are the exact reasons why we don’t do it. Should I not have offered my perspective because you’ve already figured out why we don’t?
It might have helped to have said so in the first place. Your post was indistinguishable from a response someone might have made if they only read the thread title.
It’s very safe to assume that if I or another moderator is responding to a thread in ATMB they’ve at least read the OP. I read through the entire thread before responding.
If you think that I only read thread titles before I respond, how do you expect me to moderate GQ for content?
I don’t. I made that really clear, which is quite ironic now.
I’ve seen a couple of cases where incorrect answers have bumped the thread back up and someone then responded with the correct answer.
This would still happen in exactly the same way if there was also a remedial response to incorrect driveby posts.
This part of your post implies it wasn’t clear to you (otherwise, how would it have “helped” for me to say explicitly that I had read the OP?):
This is getting weird. You said:
I replied “I don’t” - that is - I don’t expect you to moderate GQ for content. I said in post #2 that I didn’t want this to be thought of as creation of extra work for the existing mods - then in post #22, I clarified this idea further.
What’s ironic is that in a post telling me how you did read what I said, you clearly had missed what I said.
But never mind. This thread was a mistake. I honestly regret having wasted everyone’s time.
I’ve lost count of the threads that dragged on for days, only to be nailed shut by one (1) answer with a verifiable cite that was within all the participant’s reach.
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.*
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!”
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.
*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.
Actually this thread is a great argument that the system is working fine as it is. Anybody reading this thread would note the strong numbers of posters stating meat is digested and the quality of their arguments, and conclude the OP was wrong. How many threads is the clearly wrong argument get the majority of responses?
Once again, the idea wasn’t about the integrity of the thread. I have already spoken about the self correcting nature of threads.