Timeline for Should we leave super wrong highly downvoted posts visible or should we delete them?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 26, 2018 at 6:47 | vote | accept | Please stop being evil | ||
| Mar 15, 2018 at 14:41 | comment | added | rob Mod | I've removed about ten comments that were devolving into a personal argument. Keep it civil, please. | |
| Mar 14, 2018 at 8:28 | comment | added | John Duffield | @Kyle Kynos : the issue here concerns "super wrong" answers, not low-quality answers, and you're missing the point. If you think some answer is wrong, particularly when it contains references to papers and scientific evidence, then if you can delete it without explanation, the site is providing a platform for your own incorrect theories/understandings. See my answer below, a don't be too sure that your own understanding is correct, because scientific progress occurs when it isn't. | |
| Mar 14, 2018 at 1:21 | comment | added | Emilio Pisanty | @thedarkwanderer It's not a matter of the number of 10k+ users, it's a question of the number of 10k+ users that take an in-depth interest in community moderation to the point of regularly auditing deletion lists. I don't know to what extent the RPG site has an ongoing issue with pseudoRPG answers and RPGific censorship, but deletion of content isn't a simple matter. The point I was trying to make is that making it a thing to delete incorrect answers without having a working review & appeal mechanism and a community to manage it isn't unproblematic. | |
| Mar 14, 2018 at 0:01 | comment | added | Please stop being evil | @EmilioPisanty This is unrelated to the discussion at hand, though, so I'll drop it for now. If there's an issue with the community not having enough high-rep users to undelete things appropriately that can be discussed elsewhere, but I imagine you'd need a problem with your deletion process for that to be the case. | |
| Mar 13, 2018 at 23:58 | comment | added | Please stop being evil | @EmilioPisanty You misunderstood my point; I'm not saying the mods should in any way arbitrate technical correctness, I was saying you can use them to help out with the undeletion process in general if you find the lack of 20K users to be an issue; mods can undelete with a single vote and 10K users can raise potential answers for undeletion via meta (flags are bad for this because there's no room for community discussion). Also, I hope you guys reach a higher standard than RPG! XD It's one of the best/most stringently curated sites on the network, so that'd be awesome. | |
| Mar 13, 2018 at 23:05 | comment | added | Emilio Pisanty | @thedarkwanderer There's a very clear consensus (particularly from the side of the mods) that moderators on this site are not and should not be arbiters of technical correctness. On the second point, I don't feel that relying on 10k users to wander onto deleted answers (in what might be long-dead threads otherwise) and raise the alarm offers enough of a guarantee that we can catch any undue deletions. We need a variety of different eyeballs on contentious deletions, and (sorry to say this but) we do need to hold ourselves to a higher standard than what RPG can afford, I should think. | |
| Mar 13, 2018 at 21:39 | comment | added | Please stop being evil | @EmilioPisanty on RPG before we got that critical mass we used mods for that. Anyone with 10K+ can view deleted answers, and that's enough to start a meta on it being like "Hey, I think X should be undeleted because Y, what do y'all think?", which works fine because the 10K community doesn't really get too many false positives and the incorrect close rate is really low. I imagine the same would be true here, if y'all went that route. | |
| Mar 13, 2018 at 13:10 | comment | added | Emilio Pisanty | Well, the 10k tools aren't the most usable aspect of SE's software, that's for sure. I haven't pushed for a concerted campaign for 20k+ folks to do more of that moderation because we don't yet have the numbers, I think, but we're slowly building up to that. | |
| Mar 13, 2018 at 13:02 | comment | added | Kyle Kanos | Those are all very good points Emilio. I wonder how often the 20k+ members we do have visit the Tools page in review because I know I don't go as often as I should. | |
| Mar 13, 2018 at 12:59 | comment | added | Emilio Pisanty | Deletion doesn't yet have that: we don't have a critical mass of moderation-active 20k+ users with undeletion privileges, and we don't have a workable review queue where we can audit what's gotten deleted to try and catch oversteps, let alone an active 20k+ community to do that review work. It's partly a community-growth thing and partly a lack of suitable software on SE's end, but if we don't have the community to make full use of it then it's fairly pointless to ask for the software (though we have). | |
| Mar 13, 2018 at 12:58 | comment | added | Emilio Pisanty | However, there's a crucial aspect to keep in mind with respect to deletions of low-quality answers, and it's that we do not yet have a system that can self-correct on that score. Currently, if a question gets incorrectly closed (say, because five hasty close-voters didn't understand what was going on, then it stays publicly visible where people that do get it can edit to clarify and vote to reopen. | |
| Mar 13, 2018 at 12:52 | comment | added | Emilio Pisanty | For once-off answers, I agree. However, we also have users with a long track record of building up their reputation with easy mechanics questions half of the time, while on the other half they post extremely harmful pseudo-science or non-science answers; for those, I would rather have that track record out in the open (including the downvotes and the unanswered criticism) than do those posters the favour of scrubbing their record so they can look respectable the next time they feel like posting harmful content. | |
| Mar 13, 2018 at 11:35 | history | answered | Kyle Kanos | CC BY-SA 3.0 |