The comments are full of stupid, Brandon did a good job of handling them.
This was a classic.
QUOTE
[–]NotoriousFIG 18 points 50 minutes ago
What are your thoughts on sites like Conservapedia?
[–]jorm[S] 82 points 27 minutes ago
I'm a big fan of fantasy and fiction, so I guess it's alright.
[–]exist 3 points 7 minutes ago
Well done.
What are your thoughts on sites like Conservapedia?
[–]jorm[S] 82 points 27 minutes ago
I'm a big fan of fantasy and fiction, so I guess it's alright.
[–]exist 3 points 7 minutes ago
Well done.
Plus:
QUOTE
[–]pursuitsea 10 points 1 hour ago
a lot of wikipedia articles while being factually true give a distorted process of thought about certain subjects, even though you have the rule of neutrality a lot of facts are left out, and rumors and propaganda are aplenty. Almost every article I read has someones opinion in it somewhere. What rules are in place to prevent this from happening.
[–]jorm[S] 22 points 1 hour ago
This isn't my area of expertise, but:
In theory, you're supposed to hash out disagreements like this on the talk pages and reach consensus there. In some topics, however, this just wasn't possible ("Global Warming" comes to mind).
At that point, the disagreements go up to the Arbitration Committee, which is a set of people who are elected by the community. These people look over the case and the behaviors of people and make decisions. I don't think they influence topic content, but they will get rid of people who are being obstructionist (give them topic bans).
I'm not sure how well it works; I don't really read arbcom cases.
a lot of wikipedia articles while being factually true give a distorted process of thought about certain subjects, even though you have the rule of neutrality a lot of facts are left out, and rumors and propaganda are aplenty. Almost every article I read has someones opinion in it somewhere. What rules are in place to prevent this from happening.
[–]jorm[S] 22 points 1 hour ago
This isn't my area of expertise, but:
In theory, you're supposed to hash out disagreements like this on the talk pages and reach consensus there. In some topics, however, this just wasn't possible ("Global Warming" comes to mind).
At that point, the disagreements go up to the Arbitration Committee, which is a set of people who are elected by the community. These people look over the case and the behaviors of people and make decisions. I don't think they influence topic content, but they will get rid of people who are being obstructionist (give them topic bans).
I'm not sure how well it works; I don't really read arbcom cases.
Perhaps he should.