Timeline for Problem on our hands
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 19, 2019 at 18:55 | comment | added | user9790 | Opened the meta question Denis | |
| Sep 19, 2019 at 18:49 | comment | added | Denis de Bernardy | The problem with any sort of hierarchy like that is that it flies out of the window when you've a certified liar at the helm in the UK and in the Us, on a backdrop of deep fakes becoming mainstream. IMHO the only sensible criteria should be more like: well regarded scientific article > well sourced news article > everything else. | |
| Sep 19, 2019 at 18:43 | comment | added | user9790 | Case Law>Primary sourced (Const, Declaration, Fed Papers)>Government sourced research>Think tank/academic sourced research>Newspaper articles>Opinion articles>wikipedia | |
| Sep 19, 2019 at 18:42 | comment | added | Denis de Bernardy | @KDog: Methinks you should put the question to a community vote by opening a (well researched) new meta question without picking on specific questions. You'll get my vote if you mind the "credible" in credible source. Else, refer to what JJJ said. | |
| Sep 19, 2019 at 18:39 | comment | added | user9790 | I think we are in agreement here. Just like in US judicial reasoning: Cont>Constitutional precedent>Treaties/secondary sources>English Common Law and practice> legislative history/intent we could have | |
| Sep 19, 2019 at 18:34 | comment | added | JJJ Mod | @KDog Yea, I think a previous argument was that trolls can just find sources anyway, even from disreputable sources. That's true, but at least readers can then judge sources rather than vague claims. The use of vague claims is common for reputable users, myself included. Sometimes you're writing away and things are hard to back up. So having a rule to back up nontrivial (subject, but so be it) claims would be useful regardless of concerns. | |
| Sep 19, 2019 at 18:33 | comment | added | Denis de Bernardy | @KDog: As I implied towards the end of my answer, I'd be wholeheartedly embrace demanding "(credibly) sourced answers". But it's not my sole decision to make. | |
| Sep 19, 2019 at 18:24 | comment | added | user9790 | I would say JJJ and Fizz brought up a similar point on updating that policy. That I am all for. If you want to elaborate on how you would change that I would change my vote. | |
| Sep 19, 2019 at 18:11 | comment | added | Denis de Bernardy | @KDog: FWIW what I'm mostly seeing is that your question has as many downvotes as upvotes, and your willingness to engage in a conversation on the topic appears to break down to downvoting the only answer you got without addressing what prompted me to answer, and nitpicking about which meta question is most authoritative on the straw you managed to grasp at. So we'll probably just have to agree to disagree. | |
| Sep 19, 2019 at 18:07 | comment | added | user9790 | You regularly see the comment from Mods too. There are more than one q on this, but this one is usually seen as authoritative. | |
| Sep 19, 2019 at 17:57 | comment | added | user9790 | The zero analysis points related to the prior Answer. The worsening comment is to a question that is extremely poor, shows no research by the asker, almost a naive complete ignorance of corporations and governments, a complete hypothetical with no basis in fact. And the consensus you mentioned is contradicted here politics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/40/… | |
| Sep 19, 2019 at 17:47 | history | edited | Denis de Bernardy | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 19 characters in body
|
| Sep 19, 2019 at 17:42 | history | answered | Denis de Bernardy | CC BY-SA 4.0 |