I think Snopes has a fine forum.
njtt correctly anticipates a problem that will arise: posters will question the moderator’s editorial judgment. I say that aspect should be embraced: call the moderator in question an editor and name the forum after him or her. The editor will be given scope for editorialization. For example, she could list various computer forums, and state the strengths and weaknesses in each one. How does blinkingcomputer compare with Tom’s Hardware? Invariably she would have to outsource some of the annotated list making to other users. That’s ok: she’s the editor.
+1
Also, Snopes generally stays away from spending its breath on truly serious (?) ones. For that, a start would Rationalwiki.
See? Someone already thought of it.
I agree with njtt. Also, if you allow me to play the Devil’s advocate to illustrate another point: what happens if a study appears that shows the connection between vaccination and autism (or whatever), would that be dismissed on principle because we have our canon law here. Perhaps not a good example, but SDMB should be a place for debate, in my humble opinion. Remember, though we all know that George W Bush didn’t bring down the twin towers, most of our knowledge today will be proven wrong tomorrow. Best to have a lively debate instead and link to good sources for arguments’ sake.
But the proposal as I understand it was not to provide a definitive guide to woo. The proposal was to provide annotated link/reference lists. If new information arises, the editor could append it, along with commentary.
That implies that the editor would need to exercise discretion and levelheadedness, as he will be at the center of much drama. Which is why I would include his name in the title of the subforum.
Yes, it would be similar to a blog in some ways. But I think such an exercise would fit in adequately both with the mission of this board and vBulletin software. It would even be worthy of a small stipend during the rollout phase, not that the board has the bucks for that. Hm. Maybe Rational Wiki could provide the grant.
The problem is finding a suitable candidate. Qualifications include the cool head and hand of a moderator, the inclusiveness and organizational ability of a librarian, along with more than a dash of Skeptical perspective. Also a boatload of time. I nominate Brainglutton and recommend that he be allocated assistants. But I doubt whether he would want to take the project on.
Or maybe the time issue is managable. I dunno.
While the repository would be nice and convenient for cites, the main attraction for myself would be a typical sub-forum where such things could be discussed as well.
No need to turn it into an untenable monster.
I have participated in virtually all discussions debunking the issues in your list in post #14 and I would be interested, but dare I ask why Yellow Dye PCB-11 is there?
Ha, just a [del]flavor[/del] color of the week I picked out of the BBQ Pit. Not necessarily bunk though.
Coming from the pit, I would also add to the list the item of “Mercury fillings will kill you” and the related “conspiracy” from the evil doctors and dentists.
At the base of most conspiracy theories is the idea that some mighty power (e.g., the federal government, pharmaceutical companies, major corporations with a vested interest) is behind the propagating of misinformation. I imagine that showing a conspiracy theorist a list of scientific studies would merely prompt discussions questioning the legitimacy of the source.
We do, however have a sub-forum only for people in the Chicago area, and another for selling your schlock… So, there’s that.
:dubious:
Oh sure: definitely. The list would be for the debunkers, not the Doe-eyed, committed or fanatic. In fact, it would be advisable to have such disclaimers in the first Readme sticky in the subforum. I agree that this proposal would require a fair amount of fine tuning.
I’ll also repeat my proposal to include an annotated guide to ignorance fighting links, sort of an expanded version of what we have in GQ. Other projects could include a guide to SDMB threads and columns on various recurring topics. The overall idea would be to add some structure to this corner of the fight against ignorance.
Let’s not forget Ed’s barnyard woodworking! Oh, I see that one’s gone now.
My 0.02 – Let’s try this. As others have said, it’s central to the SD’s “mission statement.” It would likely work mainly as a quick way for us everyday debunkers to access the most relevant facts, for use in our real life interactions as well as in the SDMB or other online fora. Yes, this would overlap the functions of RationalWiki and Snopes, but I personally prefer to stick to roaming within the SD umbrella whenever possible.
Come to think of it, it might end up looking rather like a series of Cecil Adams articles, just longer and with more “footnotes,” and with links to cited sources. And without Cecil’s (sometimes scathing) humor and personal, entertaining, conversational approach.
I guess that’s it for me too. While sure, there’s those other forums elsewhere on the net, I’d rather discuss these kinds of topics with the people here. I’m used to this board’s “culture” and know many users over my 13 years here.
My opinion is that anything at all religious should be kept out of this. (Let the editor decide what’s “religious.”) Sure, there’s tons of bunk there as easily, usefully, and factually refutable as the CT/antivax/etc. stuff, but for practical reasons it would be better to stick to the latter sorts of topics (I like the list proposed in an earlier post, for example).
That’s one option. I can understand the reasoning.
Along the lines of non-debunking though, a set of links to religious websites would be interesting. eg www.religioustolerance.org
I still see it…it’s forum #18.
Well, shucks. I never scroll down that far. When I was twelve, it was six months before I flipped over Zep IV and listened to side B!
So, it’s decided then: A new “debunking” forum!
Hell no! :mad: