Yes, this happens all the time. I sometimes link to Wikipedia, just because in my opinion that particular article gives an accurate summary of the information on a subject. In any case, you had plenty of opportunity to verify the claims in Doug’s report. For one thing, you could have started out by looking at a dictionary.
I don’t think they are. Staff Reports, in my experience, are frequently disagreed with, as Doug’s was in the thread you linked to. I would point out that the previous discussions on all published Staff Reports are available in Comments in Staff Reports. On occasions when Staff Reports have been found to be in error, they have usually been revised or withdrawn.
I am stating is that, contrary to some speculation, SDSAB members do not write Cecil’s columns, either individually or in collaboration. When Staff members make substantial contributions to columns, they are credited by name (real name or username, as they prefer). Cecil is not a “collective individual.”
Can you state otherwise? That is, can you state that you know for a fact that multiple columns published under Cecil’s name have been composed by different people, whom you have also presumably met?
Many SD staff and previous staff have met Cecil. Big deal. The guy writes a nutty syndicated column. It’s not like he’s Mick Jagger, Barak Obama or Johnny Depp (not Johnny Depp by a long shot, in fact).
Firstly: I notice you didn’t answer my question which of course means we’d find you at the bottom of a river somewhere. I’ve heard stories about this Cecil character.
Secondly: The reason SDMBers (or at least I) am curious is because there are no pictures of The Perfect Master out there and that this mystery is actively cultivated. Also, it’s been suggested to me several times that there is no Cecil. There are in fact many smaller cecils who, not unlike Voltron, combine into one large Cecil, who writes smart ass columns.
Huh. I was always taught no comma there. I always thought it would make sense TO put a comma there, but I have been corrected many times about this. Another one that always confused me was the American rule of putting quote marks outside the end punctuation mark, like this:
We always called that guy “Dumb Shit.”
In England, it is correct to do it like this:
We always called that guy a “Bloody Dumb Shit”.
The latter makes more sense to me, but whaddayagonnado?
Well, Cecil is the author of the Straight Dope column. And if he looked a little more like Johnny Depp (or even Barak Obama), maybe he’d be more liberal about letting his photos get out. In this case, it’s probably best to leave his image up to your imagination.
So you’re saying he’s homely. Alright. We can leave it at that. I’m going to imagine he looks like Billy Mays because it’ll make his column much, much funnier.
I’ve long wondered what would happen if there was a lawsuit against the Straight Dope and Cecil Adams was subpoenaed. I, fortunately, am not in the habit of misusing the court system that way.
First, we need to define terms, since “SDStaff” has multiple meanings.
There are (I think) 18 members of SDStaff who are board moderators and administrators. There are roughly 25 “staff” who are on the SDSAB (Straight Dope Science Advisory Board) who write “Staff Reports” (previously called “Mailbag.”) In the last year, about ten of those people wrote Staff Reports, with a fairly new member,Gfactor, being the most prolific. One of my jobs is managing and administering the SDSAB, ensuring that there is a supply of new Staff Reports, etc.
People get chosen for the SDSAB in various ways, but basically they need to demonstrate their ability to write and research. All are volunteers (email me if you’re interested.) There is no pay, just a mug and the grateful thanks of the world. We have had several “guest” writers, people who write a Staff Report now and again. Some of these guests later become SDSAB members.
While each SDSAB member has qualifications, we don’t pretend that we’re doing original research. We’re usually researching and synthesizing. In the early days, we didn’t give much in the way of references or cites, but nowadays we almost always provide some sort of reference for those interested in pursuing.
Some SDSAB, like Doug or Colibri, are themselves recognized experts (as noted above) and don’t usually provides cites other than their own expertise. Other writers, like me, usually tend to provide references. Gfactor, although an expert in his own right, tends to provide many cites.
Yes it is helpful. The people who don’t cite things, such as Colibri and Doug, how did you know they were experts in their fields? Again, I am not saying they aren’t, nor am I questioning the service they provide. I believe what is written on this board for the most part and I wonder why I do. One of the reasons is because of cites. I saw this Staff Report (linked above) and I began to question who are these people? Now, I know, thanks.
The way I came to the SDSAB was by posting to a thread in Comments on Staff Reports on a column that Jill had written about the swimming ability of camels. She somehow got the idea that I knew what I was talking about ;), and began to e-mail me queries on other questions about animals. This led to me writing several guest Staff Reports as well as assisting Cecil on some columns, and the rest is history.
As I said, I never sent in a resume, and I don’t know if anyone in the admin ever checked my credentials in any other way. What matters at the Straight Dope is the quality of information provided. That information can often be cross-checked, and is open for comment by anyone in CSR or CCC. In effect, everything on the Dope is subjected to constant peer-review; there are enough people here that are knowledgeable on the subjects I write on that I would be caught out if I were really winging it. If it turned out that my information was consistently bad I wouldn’t maintain my credibility around here for very long, whether I had a Ph.D. or not.
