# What if there was a test for posting in GD? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 13, 2013, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-there-was-a-test-for-posting-in-gd/673766 "2013-11-13T01:09:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2013, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-there-was-a-test-for-posting-in-gd/673766/21 "2013-11-13T17:47:28Z")
Posting in GD is how people learn to pass tests like that. As **Bricker** might put it, the poster’s understanding of logic and reasoning goes to the _weight_ of his arguments, not their admissibility. Besides, some “logical fallacies” are administrative rules for debating, not indicators of validity. I don’t have a problem with people pointing out that Source X is a paid shill for Big Whatever. Do you? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2013, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-there-was-a-test-for-posting-in-gd/673766/22 "2013-11-13T18:13:44Z")
I scored a 70 on the test, so I’m okay with it. Had I failed, it would prove the test was meaningless. ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2013, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-there-was-a-test-for-posting-in-gd/673766/23 "2013-11-13T18:38:53Z")
Eh, I don’t think an intellectual understanding of logical fallacies really keeps people from engaging in the same. Plenty of people who know what a “strawman” is, for example, still use them. > [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > I think I’d settle for basic reading comprehension. Why would we want people that can compress reading? ---
**Author:** ![HoneyBadgerDC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/honeybadgerdc/32/1033_2.png) [@HoneyBadgerDC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HoneyBadgerDC)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2013, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-there-was-a-test-for-posting-in-gd/673766/24 "2013-11-13T19:00:04Z")
I scored 32% because I don’t have a good understanding of how the terms are used. I feel I do however recognize when an arguement is being presented on some kind of wrong premise. ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Quatro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/bc8723/32.png) [@Mr\_Quatro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Quatro)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2013, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-there-was-a-test-for-posting-in-gd/673766/25 "2013-11-13T19:30:57Z")
> [@Critical1](#): > > I was thinking along the lines of a test you can have certain posters take who are struggling with the whole concept of logical/argumentative fallacy. > > To Crazy? will it detract from the whole concept of fighting ignorance by making sure ignorance doesnt show up? Make Great Debates read only for guest with members putting up a CC or cash card deposit and then charge for each post. Requesting a cite would be free. A simple fee of 25 cents per post, but make it double every time you answer with a quote. Money saved is money earned have it go to SD board or Cecil’s favorite charity. All the other forums would still be free ---
**Author:** ![Lanzy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/74df32/32.png) [@Lanzy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lanzy)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2013, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-there-was-a-test-for-posting-in-gd/673766/26 "2013-11-13T20:10:43Z")
Do we have a user named Crazy? ---
**Author:** ![Critical1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3e96dc/32.png) [@Critical1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Critical1)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2013, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-there-was-a-test-for-posting-in-gd/673766/27 "2013-11-13T21:21:04Z")
> [@Shakes](#): > > You know, I’ve heard tell on more than on occasion, that some folks stay out of GD because of the intellectual snobbery that “supposedly” goes on here. > > Gee, I wonder were one would get such a crazy idea like that? Take a look in the pit, there are a couple threads right now naming posters from GD ranting about their inability to pick up the clue phone, including the one that started here and moved to the pit about pit bulls. Not one of these posters seems even remotely capable of getting the concept at all. I don’t think its totally out of line to ask these guys to take a break. In the pit its kinda fun because you can actually stop being polite with them but here it gets tedious sometimes. > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > The point being that anyone who treats Wikipedia as a reliable source is deemed unfit to post in GD? Every single thing on wiki is unreliable? Most of it? Some of it? The wiki article on frog sperm counts in some remote village in Afghanistan may or may not be on target but it is still a sound starting point the vast majority of the time. ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2013, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-there-was-a-test-for-posting-in-gd/673766/28 "2013-11-18T23:03:57Z")
Prior restraint is a really bad idea when it comes to the exchange of ideas. If someone is abusive, the solution is to ignore them and ban them thereafter. The worst effect (though maybe not the most noticeable) of restricting posting privileges to people who can effectively argue is that people who have an earnest desire to learn and debate—but do not yet have the skills they need to properly participate—are shut out of the discussion and will never acquire those skills. It’s not like it’s hard to figure out who the blowhards are and hit the ignore button. And it’s worth putting up with doing so if it means that a few newbies will learn something and become contributing members. ---
**Author:** ![dba\_Fred](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c37758/32.png) [@dba\_Fred](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dba_Fred)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2013, 9:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-there-was-a-test-for-posting-in-gd/673766/29 "2013-11-19T09:08:35Z")
Will it require registration? What if I can’t produce a government-issued photo ID? ---
**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:** [November 19, 2013, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-there-was-a-test-for-posting-in-gd/673766/30 "2013-11-19T13:10:42Z")
What if I don’t want to be a member of any club that would have me as a member? ---
**Author:** ![gracer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/8e7dd6/32.png) [@gracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gracer)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2013, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-there-was-a-test-for-posting-in-gd/673766/31 "2013-11-19T14:13:06Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > I think I’d settle for basic reading comprehension. My test is: can the OP properly use the subjunctive in the title? [;):D:p] ---
**Author:** ![Claverhouse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/13edae/32.png) [@Claverhouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Claverhouse)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2013, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-there-was-a-test-for-posting-in-gd/673766/32 "2013-11-19T14:37:05Z")
Or all thread-titles with misspellings or grammatical errors are automatically discarded by the system ? I don’t care about posting mistakes, but geez, if you can’t get the _title_ right… ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2013, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-there-was-a-test-for-posting-in-gd/673766/33 "2013-11-19T16:04:51Z")
> [@Critical1](#): > > Every single thing on wiki is unreliable? > Most of it? Some of it? The wiki article on frog sperm counts in some remote village in Afghanistan may or may not be on target but it is still a sound starting point the vast majority of the time. It sure isn’t in my experience. Posters shouldn’t treat Wikipedia the same as a real encyclopedia or some other widely acknowledged reliable source because it fails to meet the criteria for being a reliable source in two obvious ways. First of all, there’s the issue of trustworthiness. Articles in Britannica, Columbia, the Jewish Encyclopedia, this month’s issue of The Journal of Topology, or the Economist are guaranteed to be written by a knowledgable person and then reviewed by at least one other knowledgable person. Wikipedia articles come with no such guarantee, even if some articles are written by knowledgable people. A citation to a real encyclopedia guarantees that the statement is true to the best available expert opinion. A citation to Wikipedia only proves that there’s one person with internet access who wants us to think it’s true. The other problem is that Wikipedia can change from day to day, while the 2000 edition of Britannica or last week’s Economist cannot. ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2013, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-there-was-a-test-for-posting-in-gd/673766/34 "2013-11-19T22:03:03Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > It sure isn’t in my experience. > > Posters shouldn’t treat Wikipedia the same as a real encyclopedia or some other widely acknowledged reliable source because it fails to meet the criteria for being a reliable source in two obvious ways. First of all, there’s the issue of trustworthiness. Articles in Britannica, Columbia, the Jewish Encyclopedia, this month’s issue of The Journal of Topology, or the Economist are guaranteed to be written by a knowledgable person and then reviewed by at least one other knowledgable person. Wikipedia articles come with no such guarantee, even if some articles are written by knowledgable people. A citation to a real encyclopedia guarantees that the statement is true to the best available expert opinion. A citation to Wikipedia only proves that there’s one person with internet access who wants us to think it’s true. There have been numerous studies that compare the accuracy of Wikipedia with traditional encyclopedias. Generally, Wikipedia comes out on par (better or worse in certain areas). I think it’s a mistake to claim that the process of creating Wikipedia makes it a substandard resource and ignore that fact that it is not substandard when you measure the results. It indicates that you’re clinging to an a priori understanding of how to produce a quality encyclopedia rather than adjusting to experimental reality. If you’d told me, 20 years ago, that an open sourced anonymously edited website would produce an encyclopedia of comparable quality to the standard peer-reviewed process, I would have laughed at the thought. _Clearly_ that idea is nonsense. But reality proved differently. Pointing to the previous hypothesis, that such an approach is useless, when the result is obviously otherwise in order to claim that Wikipedia is substandard is just circular reasoning. > [@](#): > > The other problem is that Wikipedia can change from day to day, while the 2000 edition of Britannica or last week’s Economist cannot. This has both good sides and bad sides. Wikipedia is _way_ more up to date than those other publications, at the cost of stability. You can always cite the time you accessed Wikipedia if you want to which provides the version you saw. I bet there’s a place for a “long term stable” release of wikipedia that allows fewer edits and captures a more stable image of Wikipedia for citation purposes. ---
**Author:** ![AncientHumanoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ancienthumanoid/32/278_2.png) [@AncientHumanoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AncientHumanoid)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2013, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-there-was-a-test-for-posting-in-gd/673766/35 "2013-11-19T22:09:18Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > And tutu. I hear he’s ill. ---
**Author:** ![HoneyBadgerDC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/honeybadgerdc/32/1033_2.png) [@HoneyBadgerDC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HoneyBadgerDC)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2013, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-there-was-a-test-for-posting-in-gd/673766/36 "2013-11-19T22:09:34Z")
> [@iamthewalrus\_3](#): > > Prior restraint is a really bad idea when it comes to the exchange of ideas. If someone is abusive, the solution is to ignore them and ban them thereafter. > > The worst effect (though maybe not the most noticeable) of restricting posting privileges to people who can effectively argue is that people who have an earnest desire to learn and debate—but do not yet have the skills they need to properly participate—are shut out of the discussion and will never acquire those skills. > > It’s not like it’s hard to figure out who the blowhards are and hit the ignore button. And it’s worth putting up with doing so if it means that a few newbies will learn something and become contributing members. I really liked your answer here. I would fall into that category. I have made a fool of myself a few times but try to learn from it. I have become a little better about researching things and usually after I do I see no need to post. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2013, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-there-was-a-test-for-posting-in-gd/673766/37 "2013-11-19T23:28:22Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > It sure isn’t in my experience. > > Posters shouldn’t treat Wikipedia the same as a real encyclopedia or some other widely acknowledged reliable source because it fails to meet the criteria for being a reliable source in two obvious ways. First of all, there’s the issue of trustworthiness. Articles in Britannica, Columbia, the Jewish Encyclopedia, this month’s issue of The Journal of Topology, or the Economist are guaranteed to be written by a knowledgable person and then reviewed by at least one other knowledgable person. Wikipedia articles come with no such guarantee, even if some articles are written by knowledgable people. A citation to a real encyclopedia guarantees that the statement is true to the best available expert opinion. A citation to Wikipedia only proves that there’s one person with internet access who wants us to think it’s true. Have you used wiki in the last decade? Because this is simply untrue; really, go look something up on wiki. You’ll find wiki entries have far more extensive notes, citations, and bibliographies than your 2000 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica. A citation to a wiki entry does not mean “there’s one person with internet access who wants us to think it’s true.” Fears that this might be the case were viable when wiki was first getting off of the ground, but considering wiki an unreliable source today is absurd. Here, have a look at the entries on [Vandalism on Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandalism_on_Wikipedia) and [Reliability of Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia): > [@](#): > > The reliability of Wikipedia (primarily of the English-language edition), compared to other encyclopedias and more specialized sources, has been assessed in many ways, including statistically, through comparative review, analysis of the historical patterns, and strengths and weaknesses inherent in the editing process unique to Wikipedia.[1] > > Several studies have been done to assess the reliability of Wikipedia. An early study in the journal Nature said that in 2005, Wikipedia scientific articles came close to the level of accuracy in Encyclopædia Britannica and had a similar rate of “serious errors”.[2] The study by Nature was disputed by Encyclopædia Britannica,[3] and later Nature replied to this refutation with both a formal response and a point-by-point rebuttal of Britannica’s main objections.[4] Between 2008 and 2012, articles in medical and scientific fields such as pathology,[5] toxicology,[6] oncology,[7] pharmaceuticals,[8] and psychiatry[9] comparing Wikipedia to professional and peer-reviewed sources found that Wikipedia’s depth and coverage were of a high standard. Concerns regarding readability were raised in a study published by the American Society of Clinical Oncology[10] and a study published in Psychological Medicine (2012).[9] > > Wikipedia is open to anonymous and collaborative editing, so assessments of its reliability usually include examination of how quickly false or misleading information is removed. An early study conducted by IBM researchers in 2003—two years following Wikipedia’s establishment—found that “vandalism is usually repaired extremely quickly—so quickly that most users will never see its effects”[11] and concluded that Wikipedia had “surprisingly effective self-healing capabilities”.[12] A 2007 peer-reviewed study stated that “42% of damage is repaired almost immediately… Nonetheless, there are still hundreds of millions of damaged views.”[13] Feel free to click on the footnotes. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-there-was-a-test-for-posting-in-gd/673766.md?page=1)