Ah, OK - understood.
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.
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?
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).
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.
That aggresive efforts to correct errors and sometimes humiliate the error-giver be acceptable.
That’s not a concrete description to show how it is workable.
Okay, required post: xckd
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.
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).
Actually, I think of threads were someone posts misinformation and then strenuously argues against cites that he’s right. Like this thread, 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.
You keep using that word. I think it means what you think it means.
And yet your posts were not completely accurate either.
- 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:
Those facts do not change the fact that the statement questioned by the op was way off and that your point was mostly valid.
- 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.
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.
Er… what? This thread isn’t about whether or not people are sincere.
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.
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.
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.
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.