What the mods do and don't do: Someone is wrong on the internet!

[swansont]

I was going to post this in "Comments on moderation" but since that is a locked thread there can be no discussion. So it's here, so that there can be a conversation, if anyone desires that.

 

Every so often we will get a reported post with a comment along the lines of "This person is wrong. You mods should do something about that"

 

That's not what we do. Moderation, as we practice it, does not include evaluating the correctness of someone's response; if a moderator is posting about the material itself and in a position to evaluate the content, s/he is not acting as a moderator. (Posts in Speculations is possibly an exception, where these roles can be combined, mostly in order to enforce the rules unique to the speculations forum, i.e. making people post models and/or evidence to support their claims, and closing threads when that's not happening). Moderators enforce the rules.

 

If someone is wrong, then you are free to correct them. That's part of a scientific conversation, and being corrected is part of learning. Moderators should not be a part of this — we hope that such discussion does not get personal or otherwise descend to a level where we need to get involved. If it does, that's when you should report the post — let us take care of rules violations. You can (and should) focus on talking about science, rather than peripheral commentary.

 

Having said that, note that soapboxing/preaching is against the rules. If someone is simply pontificating and not engaging in discussion (this would include repeating arguments and ignoring correction), that's something you can report. Being wrong is not against the rules, but argument by repeated assertion is.

[studiot]

Even if you don't lock this thread, you should make at least this useful explanation a sticky.

[Ophiolite]

This is likely a response to a Report I made the other day. If not, it could certainly serve as a sound response to that Report.

 

Point 1: I consider an important function of forums such as this to be the education of its members in the methodologies and findings of science. This occurs in two ways.

• Members learn from reading posts by other members knowledgeable on the topic.
• Members learn from researching material in order to make a better informed post.

I have benefited and continue to benefit from both approaches.

 

I hope the membership in general and the mod/admin team in particular would agree that this educational aspect is an important forum function.

 

Point 2: Sometimes discussions develop in which an inaccurate view of science is presented by one or more members. The correct view is presented by other members. But to a non-expert it can be difficult to discern who is correct. (I am not referring to those discussions that review genuinely uncertain grounds, but to ones where - to the expert - the established, validated view is clear.)

 

It is my belief that it is the responsibility of the mod/admin team to provide clarity in that situation. If this is not done then the team fails to properly implement the educational function of the forum.

 

Point 3: swansont has made it clear that the mod/admin team do not consider this to be their responsibility. I accept that.

 

Point 4: That places the responsibility upon the members.

 

Point 5: In many of these instances it is clear that those arguing for the "wrong" view are ignorant of the subject matter. This ignorance then becomes central to their position and thus, in my view, a bona fide point for discussion.

 

Point 6: Noting people's ignorance on a topic is subject to moderation by the mod/admin team.

 

Point 7: So, as currently applied, the application of rules favours politeness over education.

 

Point 8: I see that as a mistake and shall be posting accordingly.

 

Point 9: I don't expect this to end well.

[swansont]

We do have people designated as resident experts, as you know. A casual reader can reasonably expect responses from them to carry more weight and to be correct (or at least much closer to being correct) than a contradictory post.

 

The reality is that a mod who has expertise in an area is likely to become involved in a discussion involving that topic. Owing to the possible conflict of interest of enforcing rules and posting to make a point, we try and make sure we only do one or the other (again, outside of speculations). If I (or any mod) was citing someone for rules violations as well as disagreeing with them, they might feel like they were being unfairly pressured to not disagree. That's not a desirable situation. We already get accusations of such in reference to some threads (we never get any substantive evidence, though, just the snide comments, vague pronouncements and glorious claims of persecution). What's also not a desirable situation is to ask someone — who is here to discuss science — to stay out of such a discussion in case they have to act as referee. Why would they be a moderator? I wouldn't. We all do this from time to time, but if I had no chance to discuss physics because my role is to be an impartial referee, I would quit being a mod. I'm here because I like discussing physics and a few other topics. Being a mod is a price I pay to help keep this a place where that can happen. Unmoderated boards are generally horrible.

 

I don't see this as favoring politeness over education. And you can educate without losing the politeness. I don't see any inherent conflict there. Politeness is not the same as deference to a fragile ego — it's OK to tell someone they are wrong. You can do that without a personal attack.

[Ophiolite]

All good points swansont until we get here.

I don't see this as favoring politeness over education. And you can educate without losing the politeness. I don't see any inherent conflict there. Politeness is not the same as deference to a fragile ego — it's OK to tell someone they are wrong. You can do that without a personal attack.

I do not consider that telling someone they are ignorant on a specific topic to be making a personal attack.

 

If they have demonstrated, to anyone with a reasonable knowledge of a topic, that they do not properly understand it and if that lack of understanding is muddying the waters, then it seems to me proper that this should be drawn to the attention of members who may not be in a position to make that assessment. This can be done objectively, with no implicit, or explicit, derogatory comments. It can be done and, in my view, should be done.

 

However, as has been made clear to me by moderator posts and - in the past, pms - this is not the view of mod/admin team. That is what I am expressing concern about.

[Phi for All]

I do not consider that telling someone they are ignorant on a specific topic to be making a personal attack.

 

Some words carry a lot of baggage with them, and ignorance is certainly one of them. You, in particular, tend to apply it surgically but it is sometimes perceived as a generalized judgement. If I don't properly understand a topic and you call me out for ignorance rather than simply telling me which parts I've got wrong, there's more than a passing chance I'm going to assume you're saying I lack ALL knowledge of the topic rather than the specific bits you mean.

 

Perhaps we need to start a sticky list of words with the definitions we typically employ here. That way we can point a member to a resource that explains why being ignorant about a certain topic doesn't mean you're ignorant overall. And again, it's not about fragile egos, it's about reducing the chances for misunderstanding that tend to clutter up a good conversation.

[swansont]

All good points swansont until we get here.

I do not consider that telling someone they are ignorant on a specific topic to be making a personal attack.

Neither do I. I don't see where that has been suggested.

 

If they have demonstrated, to anyone with a reasonable knowledge of a topic, that they do not properly understand it and if that lack of understanding is muddying the waters, then it seems to me proper that this should be drawn to the attention of members who may not be in a position to make that assessment. This can be done objectively, with no implicit, or explicit, derogatory comments. It can be done and, in my view, should be done.

 

However, as has been made clear to me by moderator posts and - in the past, pms - this is not the view of mod/admin team. That is what I am expressing concern about.

I'm a physicist, so I am not comfortable stepping into a discussion on other topics, or even some topics within physics, and tell someone they are wrong. I would be extra uncomfortable doing so while wearing my moderator hat.

[EdEarl]

Even if you don't lock this thread, you should make at least this useful explanation a sticky.

I agree, in addition this discussion illustrates the care and concern moderators here have toward the board's conversations and members. Unfortunately, it will not prevent people from having bruised egos when being told they are wrong, and is unlikely to stop some from saying unkind things about the moderators.

[Ophiolite]

Neither do I. I don't see where that has been suggested.

There have been a number of occasions. I'll pm you with the most recent one, since I can locate it.

 

I'm a physicist, so I am not comfortable stepping into a discussion on other topics, or even some topics within physics, and tell someone they are wrong. I would be extra uncomfortable doing so while wearing my moderator hat.

I am fully on board with you there. However, there are mods and experts who cover most of the topics that we discuss in sufficient depth to be able to make an authoritative statement. This could be presented in a similar way to that of the mod intervention format. I invest a lot of time before telling someone they are mistaken, to ensure that it is not I who is ill-informed. That has saved me several times from looking simultaneously a fool and an ass-hole. But is has also enabled me, on other occasions to identify the ignorance - on that topic - of another member.

[davidivad]

I might very remotely consider the usage of "ignorant" if it is used with precision.

Even inflaming comments are better taken this way as i do not hold the concept that incorrectness or lack of knowledge in the presence of experts is demeaning.

 

Ophiolite, please do not be offended by this, but sometimes the evidence is in plain sight and i hope this helps everyone understand.

 

1) your avatar is led by the comment of "moderately superior". this is at the top of what represents your presence in a thread.

 

2) as a closing statement you leave the reader with the comment "I waited and waited for a response to my post and when none came I knew it must be from you."

 

 

you are ingorant of the fact that using the term ignorant is suggestive due to your entering and exiting the building.

i hope this is not offensive but instead an addition to the body of knowledge we have built thus far.

Edited December 17, 2014 by davidivad

[physica]

1) your avatar is led by the comment of "moderately superior". this is at the top of what represents your presence in a thread.

It actually says "moderately super" I think you're seeing what you want to see here.

 

As always this topic is tricky. I sometimes see myself flittering to either side of the fence. I don't think there should be definite rules. Generally when someone is trying to understand or is being reasonable politeness never hurts. However, there are some people who post who don't have a strong grip on reality. They themselves must twist what they see in order to obtain theses views. With these people I believe you have to be very straight with them. We all know a few posters who will spin a thread for pages and pages. We cannot block people unfairly or silence them but we must be straight forward. On the thread: the nature and history of physics, Ophiolite made the point that computers are a tool. The other poster didn't get this nuance. The point had to be repeated to him in a direct manner hinting that he should read a little more. This prevented a side run into a pointless ramble of effectiveness of computers in science which the thread was not about. If we pandered to his feelings it would deter people who actually wanted to talk about science. We all remember Popcorn Sutton. All this guy wanted was attention. He was constantly telling people how smart he was. I got a number of PMs of him waffling about how smart he was. If I wasn't direct with him I get the impression I would have heard from him a lot more.

 

Whilst I think that this forum is very well moderated when someone is being delusional or talking trash they should be told. I acknowledge that I am not the be all and end all of reason which is why I don't contest mod notes even if I disagree with them (that I can remember). My first job taught me that it's a lot easier to criticise someone else's job performance if you've never done the job yourself. I appreciate that mods are looking at the thread from a different angle to me.

[davidivad]

hahaha,

that's great!

[Ophiolite]

I might very remotely consider the usage of "ignorant" if it is used with precision.

You are free to use words in any way you please. I use ignorant to mean that someone is, indeed ignorant of something. Everyone is ignorant of something. The most knowledgeable person in the world is ignorant of far more than they have knowledge of. Ignorance is nothing to be ashamed of.

 

If you were to wish to waste a few hours you would find a post of mine on this and perhaps other forums where I declare:

 

I see knowledge as like a balloon. What we know is the contents of the balloon. The surface of the balloon is the interface between what we know and what we do not know. The surface of the balloon defines our ignorance. As our knowledge grows, so does the surface of the balloon and so we become more ignorant. My goal in life is thus to be a little more ignorant at the end of the day than I was at the beginning.

 

I always use the word ignorance with precision. I shall continue to do so.

 

 

1) your avatar is led by the comment of "moderately superior". this is at the top of what represents your presence in a thread.

Some years ago I was, for a time, a moderator on this forum. At that time, in the space that says things like Lepton, or Senior Member it said Super Moderator, a title assigned by the admin. I thought it was amusing to change the top title to Moderately Super as a play on words. I've never bothered to change it. As physica suggests, you may be over-thinking this.

 

 

2) as a closing statement you leave the reader with the comment "I waited and waited for a response to my post and when none came I knew it must be from you."

I think this is a highly amusing comment. I ran across it when I was seeking for quotes to include in an internal company guide I wrote on Technical Writing. I wanted something suitable for the section dealing with the timeliness of reports. I found the one you have quoted. I was prompted to include it after a forum discussion about members who never reply to questions. Thank you for reminding me about it, for I see I have failed to credit the author. He truly has an absolutely brilliant name - it is Ashleigh Brilliant.

 

Again, I have no idea what you are reading into it, but I like it because it is whimsical.

 

 

you are ingorant of the fact that using the term ignorant is suggestive due to your entering and exiting the building.

I have no idea what your metaphor (?) means, but then I've had trouble understanding any of your posts.

 

I am very aware of how ignorant is interpreted by people who use terms loosely and look for things to offend them. I am well aware that some people will so misinterpret it and think the less of me for that. I am equally assured that it brings some people up short, causes them to evaluate their state of knowledge and leads them to a proper view of ignorance and an understanding of its value. I am quite happy to be reviled by some if it brings improvement to others.

 

 

i hope this is not offensive but instead an addition to the body of knowledge we have built thus far.

At this point you cannot offend me, since I haven't decided if your opinions are of any value. ¹

 

 

1. The British have a dry sense of humour. It is often misinterpreted. It's a price we pay for feeling superior. ²

2. See note 1.

[davidivad]

you'd be fun to have a beer with.

Edited December 18, 2014 by davidivad

[Ophiolite]

you'd be fun to have a beer with.

I am Scottish. You would have to buy.

[billvon]

All good points swansont until we get here.

I do not consider that telling someone they are ignorant on a specific topic to be making a personal attack.

Telling someone that their post is incorrect is not a personal attack, but telling someone they are ignorant (or an idiot, or a fool, or clueless etc) is.

 

Imagine your reaction to a post where you made an inadvertent mistake and, as a result, someone told you you were an ignorant tool. The discussion after that point would probably be less useful.

[davidivad]

well, now you know.

its all about community at this point.

know your people and follow the rules.

[zapatos]

Telling someone that their post is incorrect is not a personal attack, but telling someone they are ignorant (or an idiot, or a fool, or clueless etc) is.

You seem to be ignorant of the meaning of the word ignorant.

[Robittybob1]

You seem to be ignorant of the meaning of the word ignorant.

enlighten us then!

[zapatos]

lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular.

"they were ignorant of astronomy"

-Google Search

 

lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics.

dictionary.reference.com/browse/ignorant

 

Ignorance is a state of being uninformed (lack of knowledge)

-Wikipedia

[Klaynos]

My view is that there is a very big difference in meaning between two very similar sentences,

 

"You are ignorant."

"You are ignorant of the Hamiltonian formulation of classical mechanics."

 

The first is normally introverted as a personal attack as it is not specific. The second is specific and not in my view a personal attack. The problem with the word ignorant is that people tend to read the first three words of either sentence and get angry. This is exacerbated by them sometimes being ignorant of the proper meaning of the word ignorant.

[ajb]

This is exacerbated by them sometimes being ignorant of the proper meaning of the word ignorant.

Now how many are ignorant to the meaning of 'exacerbated'?

 

But you are right, one has to take care with words like ignorant.

[Strange]

Telling someone that their post is incorrect is not a personal attack, but telling someone they are ignorant (or an idiot, or a fool, or clueless etc) is.

 

Imagine your reaction to a post where you made an inadvertent mistake and, as a result, someone told you you were an ignorant tool. The discussion after that point would probably be less useful.

 

How can you equate informing something that they are not in possession of some, possibly quite specialised, knowledge with calling them an idiot. There are vast areas of knowledge I am ignorant of, does this make me an idiot?

[Ophiolite]

Imagine your reaction to a post where you made an inadvertent mistake and, as a result, someone told you you were an ignorant tool. The discussion after that point would probably be less useful.

If someone said:

"You are ignorant of the relevance of Hilbert space to this problem."

 

I would think:

"Well, she has me pegged. I may be able to learn something here."

 

If someone said, relating to an error on my part:

"You appear to be ignorant of the results from the rover Curiosity's forays on the Martian surface."

 

I would reply:

"My mistake. I meant to say 'pre-Pathfinder it was thought that....'"

 

If someone said:

"You are ignorant."

 

I would think:

"Peasant!" and reply, "Ignorant of what? We are all ignorant. Please be specific."

 

If someone said:

"You are an ignorant tool."

 

I would rightly think:

"You are being deliberately offensive."

 

I would modify all thoughts and action based upon my estimate of the language skills of the poster.

 

I think the examples above cover the range of ways in which ignorant may be used and in most of them there is no cause for offense.

Now how many are ignorant to the meaning of 'exacerbated'?

Decades ago, when the world was young and no one had heard of the X-Factor, I knew a technical writer who had this sign on their desk.

 

Eschew Obfuscation

 

I loved that sign.

[EdEarl]

I believe it is also used pejoratively, which means some people may misunderstand when it is used correctly.