Timeline for Flagging low quality answers: an experiment
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:40 | history | edited | CommunityBot | replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/ | |
| Aug 19, 2016 at 15:19 | comment | added | John Duffield | @Michael Kjörling : noted. IMHO part of the issue there is that there's only 77 physics users with >10k rep, and not many are active. | |
| Aug 19, 2016 at 13:41 | comment | added | user | "And once it's deleted, who's to know?" It's somewhat of an aside, but do keep in mind that posts on Stack Exchange are only soft-deleted. With the exception of comments, any user with sufficient reputation sees deleted posts. (Deleted comments are visible only to moderators and Stack Exchange employees, and require specific action to be displayed, but they remain in the system.) At that point, you can either flag or vote for undeletion of a post. I see you don't have sufficient reputation anywhere on the network to see deleted posts, but believe me, they do show up once you have enough rep. | |
| Aug 17, 2016 at 0:41 | comment | added | sammy gerbil | I share your views on this matter, John. Your example is a good one : your answer proved unpopular but it was not deleted. That is the important point. The rhetoric about the "harmfulness" of incorrect answers is over-hyped and verges on censorship. | |
| Aug 10, 2016 at 12:19 | comment | added | John Duffield | @Jim : the veiled emotion and sub-textual grudges aren't coming from me. They're coming from the OP. See this. He's employing sophistry here. See this comment in chat. That probably won't make you a happier person. Sorry about that. | |
| Aug 8, 2016 at 13:09 | comment | added | Jim | I agree with the general direction this answer takes, but at the end there, you kinda went off a bit and it sounded like you were just being bitter about an instance of unfair voting against an answer of yours. The validity of your bitterness aside, you'd at least make me a happier person if this post didn't contain veiled emotions and sub-textual grudges. Of course, if I'm reading the situation wrong, then that's entirely my mistake. | |
| Aug 8, 2016 at 9:51 | comment | added | John Duffield | @Inquisitive : to be fair, physics stack exchange is meant to be for active researchers, academics, and students. IMHO the important issue here is that power corrupts. High-rep users will be able to delete an answer that's better than theirs. And once it's deleted, who's to know? | |
| Aug 7, 2016 at 17:22 | comment | added | Inquisitive | Mr. Duffield, I couldn't agree any more with your opinion than I already do. Is Physics StackExchange to be a place where only "Dr. Physics" types come to consult with each other? Or, is it to be a place that includes far more people? If it's the former, StackExchange won't endure for the long term. The censors just don't get that concept. It may be too lowly for them. | |
| Aug 7, 2016 at 7:43 | comment | added | John Duffield | Your example sucks. I present coherent science. It isn't appealing to authority to refer to some peer-reviewed paper. Or to hard scientific evidence, which you airily dismiss on specious grounds too, with similar vague insinuations. Let's not forget, that according to you, users should _"beware that many users of this site find JD's answers to be "nonsense that sounds good". Letting people like you delete answers is like putting the fox in charge of the hen house. | |
| Aug 7, 2016 at 1:30 | comment | added | DanielSank | I wanted to up-vote this answer, but then I got to the part about Einstein. References to Einstein do not a correct answer make. Appeal to authority is not good science. Here's an example: Einstein says red jellybeans are green. See, I cited Einstein, but what I said is wrong. The only way to know that is to go read all of Einstein's work to see that I misquoted. The reference isn't enough; you have to actually present coherent science yourself without leaning on appeals to authority. | |
| Aug 6, 2016 at 16:31 | comment | added | John Duffield | But you have been agitating for censorship in chat. And the moot point is that stack exchange has rules which make it difficult for dishonest posters working in concert to hijack a site. Your proposal sounds fine provided posters are honest. But power corrupts. Giving high-rep posters the power to delete answers is like letting "the expert in the field" referee all papers. (He's the guy who wrote the £150 textbook). And once those answers are deleted, who's to know whether they were right or wrong? I reiterate: no. | |
| Aug 5, 2016 at 17:27 | comment | added | Emilio Pisanty | I thought you'd say something like this, but I should be clear that it's not meant to address answers like yours (where correctness requires a fair bit more time and expertise to determine conclusively); the relevant examples are linked in the question. Maybe you think those posts should be retained but I honestly don't think a policy of 'absolutely everything needs to stay' is right. That said, I won't argue further - I've said my piece, you've said yours, and if people agree with you then I'll be happy to accept that that is how the community wants to run the site. | |
| Aug 5, 2016 at 16:10 | history | answered | John Duffield | CC BY-SA 3.0 |