Timeline for Crackpots and links to crackpot articles in their profile
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 4, 2020 at 15:34 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Dec 14, 2017 at 16:05 | comment | added | Emilio Pisanty | @Undo I don't understand your question. The byline is part of the text. This answer is displacing an equivalent community response and that does devalue the response. This thread informs adjacent ongoing and emerging site issues that the party line either doesn't touch or explicitly fails at (including, say, the access to the 3k queue of users with a disastrous track record of pushing pseudoscience) and therefore also forms part of that conversation as well. This answer barges in on that - though I'm sure Mithrandir was perfectly aware of that when they posted this? | |
| Dec 14, 2017 at 16:02 | comment | added | rob Mod | There's a very meta-question feeling to this comment discussion. The reason that we don't ban users who post links to non-mainstream physics in their profiles is that we don't care what our users do with their lives outside of SE. If I have some question about moments of inertia, and you answer it, your paper on viXra asserting that Mars is made of strange matter and the first sample return mission will destroy life on Earth doesn't matter. Likewise, it doesn't matter that Mithrandir's contributions to SE are mostly on other sites --- this is a good answer to the question at hand. | |
| Dec 14, 2017 at 15:45 | comment | added | user20703 | That's still a process argument, @Emilio. Disregard the author for a moment - is there anything wrong with the text of this answer? | |
| Dec 14, 2017 at 15:44 | comment | added | Emilio Pisanty | @Undo This. | |
| Dec 14, 2017 at 15:43 | comment | added | user20703 | @EmilioPisanty It sounds like you know of a site-specific policy that overrides the network here, or of specific differences that change what the policy should be. Could you post those? Meta-process arguments are fun, but often aren't useful. | |
| Dec 14, 2017 at 15:41 | comment | added | JohnP | @EmilioPisanty - You're a physicist (presumably). Extrapolate. Look for a common factor among the people weighing in. As for the why, while it's on a single site meta, it is a subject that has system wide implications. Just because you view it through a narrow lens, doesn't make it a narrow subject. | |
| Dec 14, 2017 at 15:39 | comment | added | Emilio Pisanty | @Mithrandir That only answers half the question. That's how you saw it, yes. What is it about this thread that made you disregard the possibility that this might be resolved inside the community, and you just felt that you had to weigh in, without waiting the fifteen extra minutes it took for a response from within this community? | |
| Dec 14, 2017 at 15:38 | comment | added | Mithical | @Emilio - I personally saw it because it was tagged [spam], and I follow all questions with that tag on meta sites all over the network. | |
| Dec 14, 2017 at 15:38 | comment | added | Emilio Pisanty | And as for the claim that I dismiss the party line as irrelevant - I very much don't. But, as I said, a statement of the party line is much stronger when it is written by someone that has demonstrated that they understand the concerns at hand and goes on to explain how the party line still overcomes those. Or, put another way, I'd much rather @rob had written this. | |
| Dec 14, 2017 at 15:38 | comment | added | rob Mod | @EmilioPisanty That's a good question. The answer is that some folks with network-wide interests watch the "spam" tag. | |
| Dec 14, 2017 at 15:36 | comment | added | Emilio Pisanty | @JohnP Indeed, there are other SE sites that are subject to similar pressures, but neither you nor this answer's writer appear to have sizable participation in those. This answer isn't wrong, but I would much rather that we solve this as a community instead of by dictate of people with no stake in the matter. I am genuinely curious, though - what is it about this thread that pulled in not one but two people with otherwise no involvement in this site to inveigh on site issues, without waiting to see if this didn't get resolved internally first? | |
| Dec 14, 2017 at 15:33 | comment | added | rob Mod | This is basically the answer I would have written if I'd gotten here first. | |
| Dec 14, 2017 at 15:28 | comment | added | JohnP | @EmilioPisanty - Other than this seemingly affects a site you participate on, how is this different from skeptics.se, academia,se, workplace.se, etc etc? It's not a site specific thing, so the "party line" you casually dismiss as irrelevant is quite relevant. People can put what they want in their profile. It only diminishes you if you let it. | |
| Dec 14, 2017 at 15:19 | comment | added | Emilio Pisanty | I'm sorry, but who are you? I don't want to be harsh, I really don't, but this answer would only carry real weight when written by someone that has demonstrated that they understand the issues laid out in the question. The answer ultimately does default to the SE-wide party line you expound here, but there are nontrivial site-specific issues at play here. If you don't understand them, then how can you be sure that there isn't nontrivial background that needs to be factored into how the answer is phrased? | |
| Dec 14, 2017 at 14:02 | history | edited | Mithical | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
*facepalm* Don't forget the link next time...
|
| Dec 14, 2017 at 13:40 | history | answered | Mithical | CC BY-SA 3.0 |