We could take a cue from high-quality communities on Reddit. For example, r/science allows users to apply for special flairs which indicate their expertise in a certain topic. Similarly, r/askscience has a “panel of experts” that one can apply for membership. In both cases, users have to point to posts in the subreddit which show some of their expertise.
1 Like
I would love any modifications that help control the toxic side of discussions that you have so ably described!
2 Likes
Obviously I don’t agree with this, which is an implicit argument from authority.
Here’s a suggestion for you if you want to achive this goal. Create a division on your forum between threads for experts and threads for non-experts. That way you can shield the experts from being disagreed with or debated with by non-experts. You could, of course, take questions for the experts from the non-experts and have them delivered indirectly.
Moving this forum in the direction of Reddit is the worst possible idea. Might as well dissolve it altogether and usher everybody over there. People are already being represented by their expertise here as it is.
One thing that I would benefit from seeing more of is a focus on an element of a topic at a time before moving on.
There seems to be a lot of scattergun threads, where someone mentions X in support of their view, someone says yes - but Y, then as X isn’t properly finished people revert back to using it as support for their view later. Just seems to go around and around sometimes
4 Likes
I think that it is also important for the forum to be clear that theologians are experts in their respective fields, as well. I have seen a few cases where theologians are disrespected as non-scholars. We should be clear that type of language is inappropriate on this forum.
4 Likes
i agree with the ideas of closing old threads and setting automatic timers to close topics a month after the last reply
I also agree with taking side conversations off the public facing side and making them nonsearchable, especially because they are less moderated such that many devolve quickly and not are examples of good discussion.
It makes sense to highlight threads where people are trying to learn from each other. So conversations with non-experts and the opportunities to discuss ideas and learn from each other is a very important goal to keep in place.
1 Like
If this is technically available, I would suggest that be implemented. Doing so would not markedly alter what makes this an engaging forum. Trust level, which must be earned and kept, would decide the levels of privilege extended and moderation required.
There is a balance of high quality and lively exchange. A lecture on Latin grammar might be high quality and free of grade school taunts, but pretty restricted in level of interest.
4 Likes
5 posts were split to a new topic: A Proposal for Curated Conversations
The idea for a guideline on this area is not because we want to engage in fallacious discussions. It is a pragmatic matter regarding who is attracted to sensible discussions … and who would be repelled if we allowed every YEC to become his own authority.
We have some members who are legitimate authorities in their fields. Recognising expertise is not a fallacy. We should trust experts to separate authority from opinion, but verify when necessary. According to Dunning-Krueger, we should expect experts to be more aware of the limits of their own knowledge than non-experts.
8 Likes
A post was split to a new topic: Questioning Expertise (Curated Discussion Test)
OK, lesson learned - comment approval should be turned on, and moderators need to be aware of Curated Discussions. I’m inclined to use a Topic tag, otherwise we need two categories for public/private.
1 Like
I don’t see that this has been implemented. Deleting posts that contain insults, attacks on character or intellectual ability would be great - if people want their voice to be heard then they would need to toe the line
I think comment approval has been pretty decent, even if a bit annoying at times(thinking here of approval being either slow or in wrong order).
I’ll even go so far as to say I’m glad it’s been there some times as I’ve pressed reply with posts written out of frustration, which I instantly regretted writing, but I’m happy never saw the light of day.
One thing besides more extensive delays, that could see improvement, is the order of appearance of approved comments. They some times appear in a sequence out of order of when they were first posted.
4 Likes
Thanks for the feedback, Mikkel - much appreciated.
3 Likes
Some comments are easier to approve than others. I think we see the most recent comments first too
I will make more effort to approve then in order.
1 Like
In the balance between freedom and quality, we’ve erred towards freedom. Though, more and more, am being convinced to err the other way…
I have had my fair share of daft comments so freedom is a good thing and thanks for allowing it as much as you do.
It is a difficult one to deal with, but it genuinely does make me just give up following a number of threads that could actually have some good information if things were kept a bit cooler. If it is making me do that, as someone who is semi-engaged on the board, it must be turning off a lot of other people who are less engaged on the board / just visiting it as well
3 Likes
There is a reason why experts have more authority to discuss matters in their own area of expertise than non-experts.
Experts have hands-on, practical experience.
More to the point, they have hands-on, practical experience working with science in situations where getting things wrong has real-world consequences for which they would be held personally accountable.
In many areas of science, getting things wrong can kill people. It can drive your employer out of business. It can cause aeroplanes to crash, medical devices to fail, power grids to go offline. If, that is, you don’t get fired for incompetence, malpractice, or professional misconduct first.
There was another thread here last week where we heard from a couple of petroleum geologists who told us that in oil exploration, getting geochronology and evolutionary biology – the historical sciences – wrong can leave oil companies wasting hundreds of millions of dollars drilling in the wrong places and losing a whole load of political good will in the process. They told us that they have to give an account for the reliability of their tools and techniques to regulators, politicians, accountants, planning committees, you name it.
This kind of experience makes a massive difference to how you view science. When you have worked in such situations, you simply cannot afford to tolerate nonsense, cluelessness, dishonesty, or sloppy thinking when it comes to discussing scientific matters.
It is also a kind of experience that you simply do not get if your university degree is in the humanities, you haven’t set foot in a laboratory since leaving school, and your understanding of science comes entirely from being spoon fed videos, talks and articles, whether those articles come from creation.com or The Guardian.
7 Likes