Amended Site Rules And Science Category Introduction

[ABSpareEditor]

There was some commotion over the weekend in the "Science" category regarding misinformation and fact checking.

To cover any issues that may arise in the future, we have amended the Site Rules. We have also amended the introduction for the "Science" category.

We have added the following text to the "Science" category introduction:

"Whilst discussions and debates are encouraged, The AnswerBank reserves the right to remove answers that are misleading, e.g. by implying that a statement is a scientific theory or law when it is not, especially when such answers may impact personal health choices.

The AnswerBank makes no claim regarding the scientific accuracy of any post (question or answer) made by a member."

We have added the following text to the Site Rules:

"The AnswerBank also reserves the right to remove any false or misleading information, especially in the Law, Body & Soul and Science categories."

[Ellipsis]

https://slideplayer.com/slide/3060090/11/images/6/The+sky+is+falling+down%21+We+are+on+our+way+to+tell+the+king%21.jpg

[pixie374]

Well, this is an exceptionally courageous move to make. No questions or explanations needed in future.

I am looking forward to seeing how this affects the "religion" category, as we are now going with truth and not belief.

And also, any threads about transsexuals or transgender, where somebody claims that someone has changed sex... and the pronouns should be changed- as that is both scientifically and grammatically incorrect.

This site is either going to be full of hypocrisy now... or most answers will be removed, which is hardly educational either.

A very interesting and very brave stance.

[douglas9401]

You could even call it a Ratner moment.

We'll see.

[Ellipsis]

> I am looking forward to seeing how this affects the "religion" category

It's clearly stated that it's for that hotbed of AB activity, the "Science" category.

[pastafreak]

Are there any AB staff members with the time, expertise, knowledge, or inclination to keep up to date on scientific theory or fact in order to make these decisions?
And don't facts evolve from theories?
Bad move that will crush debate and discussion.

[pixie374]

Ellipsis, I go with science, but even scientists are wrong sometimes. A conversation is always, surely, more useful than silencing someone with a different view?

[douglas9401]

We have added the following text to the Site Rules:

"The AnswerBank also reserves the right to remove any false or misleading information, especially in the Law, Body & Soul and Science categories."

Just stating.

Clearly.

[steg]

//surely, more useful than silencing someone with a different view?//

Having a different view is not what it’s about tho, i think its the use of blatant false information stated as fact that seems to be the concern

[pixie374]

That happens on every topic, and with the exception of CB, we could all report everything that isn't factual.

Is that what we should do now? What if someone believes something, but is wrong... should they not be able to say so and get a reply?

[steg]

There is a difference in believing something to be true than stating it as a fact

[pixie374]

Oh yes. But facts also get removed, if they are not PC enough. I am just wondering what is allowed now.

If I genuinely believe something, I am perfectly happy to be corrected by someone who knows better. Education is good. Being removed, without getting answered, isn't.

As I said, I will be interested to see how many non-facts are allowed to remain, and who by....

[Ellipsis]

> A conversation is always, surely, more useful than silencing someone with a different view?

Usually, yes, but always ... not sure about that.

For example, supposing there was a question on the MMR vaccination - whether that question was in the Science or Body & Soul categories - and a hundred different members each posted of a personal experience of an apparent relationship between MMR and autism. Should a reader be left with the impression that there was genuinely a relationship? It's a fair question - some would say "Yes", others "No". I would imagine given this new rule that most answers would be left but, at some point, ideally a moderator or Editor would act to avoid letting the questioner take away the "wrong" impression. The purpose of The AnswerBank is surely to provide a correct answer when possible, not treat literally everything as a matter of opinion and debate no matter what the category.

[steg]

//As I said, I will be interested to see how many non-facts are allowed to remain, and who by....//

Again it’s not about an opinion etc being right or wrong, it stating something is a fact that is not, its simple

[ProfessorMaisie]

Why keep hammering on about the MMR vaccine. The posts removed from a thread on global warming started the 'commotion' - haven't you got an opinion on the rightness of that bit of censorship?

[pixie374]

Ellipsis, while I agree with you about MMR, specifically, I also think it is useful for those who don't, to be able to give their views and get replies and maybe even learn something.

Every same adult knows not to take everything as read online, and there are plenty of disclaimers here...

As I said earlier, I have seen many opinions that are wrong, which are given as facts. So, I will be interested to see which are removed in future.

Presumably, the whole editorial team must know all the truth about everything, in order to decide... if that is the case, and answers are no longer removed for just not being "PC", even though they are right... then fair enough....



We should all repor

[pixie374]

Sorry... we should all report anything we think is "wrong" and see where we get...

[steg]

//Sorry... we should all report anything we think is "wrong" and see where we get...//

Aye just do that

[Ellipsis]

> Why keep hammering on about the MMR vaccine

Because it's a good example.

> The posts removed from a thread on global warming started the 'commotion' - haven't you got an opinion on the rightness of that bit of censorship?

Since you ask, I thought the removal was a bit OTT ... but it was reinstated wasn't it? i.e. a mod did something, the Ed undid it. Not worth getting hot under the collar about. The perfectly good posts I've had removed that stayed removed - I don't know why I put up with it ...

[steg]

//Presumably, the whole editorial team must know all the truth about everything, in order to decide... if that is the case, and answers are no longer removed for just not being "PC", even though they are right... then fair enough....



We should all repor//

Jings

[Togo]

The Sneaks Charter has one immediate ramification. It is that the site management, by their own hand, have caused in trying to satisfy the ego of just one serial poster of opinion that is not science but who likes to play on the fact that he did a bit on science once, is more valuable to the site than everybody else who contributes. We would never have known had the sneak not been unable to contain his smug glee at wielding influence beyond his wisdom and boasting about it. Here is the rub. Prior to this panic measure the site could quite easily have countered any mischievous attempt to sue or hold responsible the site for opinions, or answers given, by rightly pointing out that it has always allowed the anonymous members(nearly choked with laughter writing that) to freely exchange opinions without the site ratifying them. After all......it has been happening for 20 years your honour. Not now. The site has accepted the responsibility for every opinion posted. The times they are a changin.