Let's make a new Statement of Purpose for this group.

laconicsax

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Nov-10-11 04:56 PM
Original message

Let's make a new Statement of Purpose for this group.

Skinner has given the OK to us coming up with a new statement of purpose for this group, so let's get cracking.

The current statement reads:

This Group is for the discussion of issues related to skepticism, science and pseudoscience, and the role of rationalism in society. Non-skeptics are invited to participate, provided that they do so in a respectful, non-disruptive manner.

Taking a cue from the other groups (and the thread here from the last time we tried this), I think the best course of action is to amend the current statement so that it is more similar to other groups (i.e. more specific and limiting).

So what does everyone else think? What direction should we take it? Should we just wait for DU3 (the launch of which I have my doubts)?

I'm working on a new possible statement of purpose, but I wanted to start the discussion immediately, so it isn't even close to ready.

Refresh | 0 Recommendations

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

trotsky

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Nov-10-11 07:21 PM
Response to Original message

1. I saw your question in AtA and I felt like you did not get a good answer.

To me, posting pseudo-scientific garbage *IS* participating in a disruptive manner. So in that regard, I think the existing statement of purpose is just fine. But if we have to change it to get rid of the nonsense, by all means.

We should at least change it to say that no OPs shall be based upon an article or page from a pseudo-science website, unless it is to point out the flaws and problems with it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

laconicsax

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Nov-10-11 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #1

2. I absolutely agree.

Unfortunately TPTB don't see it that way. I know that if I went into the Astrology group and posted something about how astrology is bullshit, it'd get deleted for being disruptive.

I'm thinking a line like, "Linking to pseudoscientific articles and editorials is permitted only for the purposes of criticism," but there's something not quite right about it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

trotsky

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Nov-10-11 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #2

3. What you wrote sounds a hell of a lot better than what I mashed together.

Edited on Thu Nov-10-11 07:43 PM by trotsky

I'm all for it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Orrex

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Nov-11-11 12:21 AM
Response to Reply #2

5. How about something slightly more general, like...

Posts that endorse, promote, or support pseudoscientific beliefs, products, or materials are not considered acceptable.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

laconicsax

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Nov-11-11 12:31 AM
Response to Reply #5

7. Love it. n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

SidDithers

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Nov-13-11 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #5

27. Awesome...

:thumbsup:

Sid

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

NMMNG

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Nov-10-11 11:04 PM
Response to Original message

4. Sounds good to me

I don't understand why anybody would think this group is for the promotion of pseudoscience but I guess some people need it spelled out for them.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

laconicsax

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Nov-11-11 12:30 AM
Response to Original message

6. Second draft:

Edited on Fri Nov-11-11 12:33 AM by laconicsax

This Group is for the discussion of issues related to skepticism, science and pseudoscience, and the role of rationalism in society. Skepticism is not doubting, but investigation or research. It is expected that members of this group generally accept that the consensus of the scientific community on any given topic is the result of overwhelming evidence born out of this investigation and research and not a conspiracy to silence or conceal the truth.

Non-skeptics are invited to participate, provided that they do so in a respectful, non-disruptive manner. If you believe in astrology, faith-healing, tarot, magic, homeopathy, expanding earth, electric universe, creationism, or other non-scientific or pseudoscientific worldview, this may not be the place for you.

Posts that endorse, promote, or support pseudoscientific, anti-vaccination, alt-med, or creationist beliefs, products, or materials are not considered acceptable.

What does everyone think? Please be specific and ruthless.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Orrex

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Nov-11-11 12:37 AM
Response to Reply #6

8. That last part sucks.

Oh, wait a minute...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

trotsky

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Nov-11-11 07:05 AM
Response to Reply #6

9. I think it sounds good, but it looks like there would still be a loophole.

"Posts that endorse, promote, or support..." - what if someone just posts a link and an excerpt to a pseudoscience website? Technically they're not doing any of those 3 things, but they ARE still disrupting.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Orrex

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Nov-11-11 09:26 AM
Response to Reply #9

10. I think that could be probably categorized as "promotion"

The tactic that you describe has been common enough in the Health Forum, where some will post a 2,000-word excerpt from this or that alt-med website but without including any further commentary.

I'd say that the uncritical broadcasting of pseudoscience in that manner would constitute "promotion" insofar as it seeks only (or primarily) to draw attention to the material.

Sure, it'll still leave some wiggle room, but I think we're all savvy enough to know when someone's trying to spread the word in a disingenuous manner. In the same way that we can't "call out" other DUers--not even obliquely and without naming names--the mods should have the ability to discern such dubiously veiled propaganda, even if only when someone alerts on the thread for that reason.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

trotsky

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Nov-11-11 09:32 AM
Response to Reply #10

11. I agree, it should be categorized that way.

But given the response in AtA, I think I would prefer to see it spelled out clearly. No wiggle room for interpretation or guessing someone's motives.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Orrex

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Nov-11-11 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #11

12. Good point.

I hereby nominate trotsky for mod. Who's with me?!?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

trotsky

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Nov-11-11 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #12

13. DELETE ALL THE POSTS!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

laconicsax

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Nov-11-11 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #9

14. So let's add this to the final paragraph:

For this reason, links and excerpts from pseudoscientific, anti-vaccination, alt-med, or creationist sites permitted only for the purposes of criticism.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

trotsky

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Nov-11-11 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #14

15. Perfect! You've got my vote! n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

laconicsax

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Nov-11-11 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #15

16. Great! n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Orrex

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Nov-11-11 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #15

17. +1

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Warpy

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Nov-11-11 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #6

18. First one was a little wishy washy; this one is much better.

I got rid of the problem with the ignore feature when I realized the "I'm skeptical OF science so I belong here!" stance was getting by the mods and would continue to do so.

It would be nice to inform wooheads right out of the gate that this isn't the forum for them. There's another group set up specifically for them where few of us are ever rude enough to intrude and it would be nice if they could be encouraged to stay there instead of disrupting this one.

I vote for this one, tells it like it is and offers the mods a clear guideline for sweeping out the trash.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

LeftishBrit

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Nov-11-11 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #6

19. Sounds pretty good!

I think the last sentence might end 'are not considered acceptable *for this forum*' so as to avoid accidental or deliberate misunderstandings to the effect that we are suppressing other people's views throughout DU, or even in the world in general!

I might also change the second sentence to 'Scepticism is not used here to mean doubting, but refers to a desire to subject ideas and conclusions to research and investigation'.

I think we need possibly to find some way of indicating that the forum is not for 9-11 'truthers' and the like, as such people do tend to regard themselves as sceptics, researchers, seeking evidence, etc.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

laconicsax

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Nov-11-11 07:37 PM
Response to Reply #19

21. I've incorporated some of your suggestions.

I'm not sure we need to exclude troofers and the like in the statement since that stuff is restricted to the 9/11 forum per DU rules.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

laconicsax

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Nov-11-11 07:37 PM
Response to Original message

20. Third draft

Incorporating LeftishBrit's suggestions:

This group is for the discussion of issues related to skepticism, science and pseudoscience, and the role of rationalism in society. Skepticism is not used here to mean doubting, but refers to a desire to subject ideas and conclusions to research and investigation. It is expected that members of this group generally accept that the consensus of the scientific community on any given topic is the result of overwhelming evidence born out of this investigation and research and not a conspiracy to silence or conceal the truth.

Non-skeptics are invited to participate, provided that they do so in a respectful, non-disruptive manner. If you believe in astrology, faith-healing, tarot, magic, homeopathy, expanding earth, electric universe, creationism, or other non-scientific or pseudoscientific worldview, this may not be the place for you.

Posts that endorse, promote, or support pseudoscientific, anti-vaccination, alt-med, or creationist beliefs, products, or materials are not considered acceptable for this group. For this reason, links and excerpts from pseudoscientific, anti-vaccination, alt-med, or creationist sites permitted only for the purposes of criticism.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

trotsky

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Nov-12-11 08:26 AM
Response to Reply #20

22. Looks good to me. I'd like to see this be our new group statement.

Just one minor grammatical edit for the last sentence. I think you need an "are" in between "sites" and "permitted."

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

laconicsax

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Nov-12-11 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #22

25. Only if I want it to make sense.

are

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

salvorhardin

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Nov-12-11 09:03 AM
Response to Reply #20

23. I like that

Maybe we should use the term 'scientific skepticism' ala Sagan to make the delineation from philosophical skepticism sharper?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

mr blur

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Nov-13-11 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #20

26. Looks great to me.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Silent3

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Nov-14-11 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #20

33. Ponies

Where's the clause that guarantees all participants a pony?

Other than that egregious ommision, this draft looks good to me. :)

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

onager

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Nov-12-11 02:17 PM
Response to Original message

24. Good work!

:thumbsup: on the new statement of purpose.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

SidDithers

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Nov-13-11 01:03 PM
Response to Original message

28. So, how and when do we vote?...

I'm for anything that keeps electric universe nonsense in it's proper place.

Sid

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

laconicsax

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Nov-13-11 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #28

29. I think that when enough regulars chime in (assuming they support it)...

I'll let Skinner know that we have a new statement.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

SidDithers

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Nov-13-11 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #29

30. In that case, count my semi-regular vote in the yes column...

good job and thanks for initiating the process to change the mission statement.

:thumbsup:

Sid

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

beam me up scottie

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Nov-14-11 11:45 AM
Response to Original message

31. Y'all might as well wait to do this.

Apparently those who have money will be able to rule the roost in DU3.

I will be starless unless I can find something else to sell so that I can pay for a DU subscription.

Since I've had to let my beloved $25/yr Flickr account lapse for over a year I doubt that will happen.

The new mission statement is great but I wonder who will be the 'deciders' when it comes to policing this group.

This is *not* a slam on Skinner or TBTB on DU, everyone does what they have to to survive.

Good luck.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

beam me up scottie

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Nov-14-11 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #31

32. Okay now you guys had to go and make me cry.

Thank you for the star :hug:

Anyone got a box of hankies they can send my way?

I watched 'The English Patient' for the 5th time Saturday night and all I've got left is toilet paper.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

laconicsax

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Nov-14-11 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #31

34. I'm submitting it to Skinner anyway.

Worst case scenario is that we have to do it again when DU3 comes out.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

laconicsax

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Nov-16-11 02:26 PM
Response to Original message

35. Kick

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

salvorhardin

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Nov-17-11 08:27 PM
Response to Reply #35

36. If you're waiting for my vote, you've already got it

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

laconicsax

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Nov-17-11 09:49 PM
Response to Reply #36

37. I submitted the new statement to Skinner. Now comes the waiting game.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

greyl

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Nov-18-11 12:37 AM
Response to Reply #37

38. Late "yes" vote from me. nt

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

LeftishBrit

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Nov-18-11 03:17 AM
Response to Reply #36

39. Mine too!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Wed May 08th 2024, 03:12 AM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.