Timeline for Problem on our hands
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
23 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 1, 2019 at 21:19 | comment | added | JJJ Mod | Yea that's true. But providing multiple viewpoints in one answer doesn't solve that, answerers can still provide a bad context to further their agenda. In practice, it's easier to add a comment pointing it out and providing an answer with a better context if needed. | |
| Oct 1, 2019 at 20:55 | comment | added | grovkin | @JJJ it's just facts though. It's often a choice of the frame. You can discuss any issue in the frame in which it makes sense and then you'll see as a screaming yahoo anyone who points out why it makes no sense in some other frame. The "yahoo's" argument will seem out of place. But, again, if there is anything worth discussing (in politics), it's usually because there is some cause for disagreement about it. You can view all information, actually as content (the changing part) vs context (the fixed part). Anytime you generalize the issue, the context becomes part of the content. | |
| Oct 1, 2019 at 20:50 | comment | added | JJJ Mod | @grovkin only if the question or answer has an element of value judgement to it. If you ask what views there are on abortion, a controversial issue in many places, then you have generally two answers: those who want to allow and those who want to forbid it. Then there's a bit more nuance to it, but it can be answered without much controversy if people add references to support what arguments different sides use. So, while it's a subject of discussion, it can be answered (either in one answer, or two+ answers laying out both / different view points). | |
| Oct 1, 2019 at 20:46 | comment | added | grovkin | @JJJ anything which provokes discussion will have considerations on the opposite side. Otherwise, there is nothing to discuss. It may be hard to understand the opposing considerations, but think of it as analyzing a game of chess. You can't really understand your position without understanding the opponent's position. | |
| Oct 1, 2019 at 20:45 | comment | added | JJJ Mod | @grovkin it's hard for me to discuss without a question in mind. Some questions are factual and some are subjective, some are in-between. Laying out all sides to something is hard, laying them out well may be impossible if the question is complex. Also, one side to a question is already a partial answer at the minimum so I wouldn't try to discourage those. Instead, the focus should be on making them high quality by adding sufficient references. | |
| Oct 1, 2019 at 20:42 | comment | added | JJJ Mod | @Sjoerd if answers have references you can criticize those if needed or acknowledge that they are a viewpoint. That's actually what sparked my recent question, your recent answer lacked sources to be scrutinized even though I think there's an element of truth in there. I'd highly encourage adding sources, even if it's an answer most would disagree with it helps them getting some research which is why some visit the question (and thus the answer) in the first place. | |
| Oct 1, 2019 at 20:42 | comment | added | grovkin | @JJJ emphasizing the position of one side, without stating the position of the opposing side, is all but guaranteed to tickle the funny bone of those who agree with that side. And it usually comes off as highly partisan to those who disagree. Information, even if it is true, still only acts as a weight in any overall consideration (in the sense of weights on a scale, if you will). | |
| Oct 1, 2019 at 20:38 | comment | added | JJJ Mod | @grovkin I'd put it differently. You can just write an answer saying group X has the following argument / reasoning. And that's only to somewhat ideological questions. Many questions (which I answer), e.g. on Brexit, are about procedure in parliament and on EU treaties. Those tend to be less ideological and more about finding where they are (e.g. in laws or as a custom). Of course there are opposing views and then it's mostly quoting that politician X has put forward this or that argument. | |
| Oct 1, 2019 at 20:38 | comment | added | Sjoerd | @grovkin While I agree in theory, the practical problem is: who judges whether the other side's arguments are shown correctly? If those who judge have seen nothing but their own side's mockery of the other side, what will this requirement add? In the end, the only solution is either "one person, one vote", or "one person with the single vote." | |
| Oct 1, 2019 at 20:25 | comment | added | grovkin | @JJJ as a possible fix, we could institute the requirement that anyone presenting an argument must be required to post the opposing side's argument. Anyone who is not even aware of the opposing side's argument should not be considered an expert on the subject. | |
| Oct 1, 2019 at 20:22 | comment | added | grovkin | @JJJ there is zero chance of answers not being voted on ideology unless one cannot figure out the poster's ideology from their answers. There is only 1 person on this entire site whose ideology I have not been able to figure out from their answers (luckily he is one of the moderators). | |
| Oct 1, 2019 at 16:48 | comment | added | JJJ Mod | @KDog I may have misread your suggestion thinking that it somehow tallies into one score. Even if the four scores stay separate, there's a lot of discussion on what the categories would be and how it's displayed (as many posts only get a few votes). It's an interesting idea, but I think there are practical hurdles (and of course SE won't bother implementing bespoke features for such a small site). | |
| Oct 1, 2019 at 13:29 | comment | added | user9790 | @JJJ I don't see how my suggestion of conservative/liberal/moderate/other categorization would polarize into professional vs quacks, unless they all self-identified as other. Frankly, that would be a service in and of itself. | |
| Oct 1, 2019 at 9:53 | comment | added | JJJ Mod | A quack is someone who pretends to have authority (e.g. as a medical doctor) when they do not have the corresponding qualifications. I am not against people without a relevant degree participating in answering (here or on the medical site) if they can support their reasoning with appropriate references. What I object to is putting them on equal footing with professionals. That's what (I think) you implied by saying those 4 ideologies should share equal voting power on this site. Answers should not be voted based on ideology but based on quality (which should be somewhat objective). | |
| Oct 1, 2019 at 9:34 | comment | added | user9790 | @JJJ you were just against quacks, and now support the unlearned. Maybe define quack? | |
| Sep 30, 2019 at 17:10 | comment | added | JJJ Mod | @KDog I don't really see why having a degree in those subjects would be that important. I agree that it may be a plus for answering some questions, but they too can write bad answers just like anyone else. Conversely, other people may be able to write good evidence-based contributions too. Note also that scientists are focused on narrow specialisations within their field, so in the broad range of questions here many won't have that much of an edge compared to informed readers. | |
| Sep 30, 2019 at 17:02 | comment | added | user9790 | @JJJ and I meant specifically majoring in Government or Political Science. If you majored in some other discipline, it doesn't matter. | |
| Sep 30, 2019 at 10:12 | comment | added | user9790 | @JJJ You don't have any political scientists on this site, or historians, or professionals pundits. You have 98 percent coders, and 2 percent that may have studies in a university setting. If you want to ban the coders as quacks, I am all for it | |
| Sep 29, 2019 at 22:46 | comment | added | JJJ Mod | @KDog who determines what the categories would be? And why would each category carry the same weight? That's like doing this on health.SE and giving doctors half the weight and quacks the other, as if they are equal branches of healthcare. | |
| Sep 29, 2019 at 21:02 | comment | added | user9790 | And many people here get their news from The Daily Show. Neither condition helps the quality here | |
| Sep 29, 2019 at 20:47 | comment | added | grovkin | @KDog many people are not that firm in their opinions. | |
| Sep 29, 2019 at 20:44 | comment | added | user9790 | A very early suggestion of mine was that folks had to register with an ideology (prog, con, libertarian, other) and then have these only offset each other. 4 votes tallied per question. So you could have 4 highest ideological responses each get some real estate. Make the mods register too | |
| Sep 29, 2019 at 19:31 | history | answered | grovkin | CC BY-SA 4.0 |