Amended Site Rules And Science Category Introduction

[ABSpareEditor]

There was some commotion over the weekend in the "Science" category regarding misinformation and fact checking.

To cover any issues that may arise in the future, we have amended the Site Rules. We have also amended the introduction for the "Science" category.

We have added the following text to the "Science" category introduction:

"Whilst discussions and debates are encouraged, The AnswerBank reserves the right to remove answers that are misleading, e.g. by implying that a statement is a scientific theory or law when it is not, especially when such answers may impact personal health choices.

The AnswerBank makes no claim regarding the scientific accuracy of any post (question or answer) made by a member."

We have added the following text to the Site Rules:

"The AnswerBank also reserves the right to remove any false or misleading information, especially in the Law, Body & Soul and Science categories."

[fiction-factory]

Good luck. I'm not sure what the definition is of a 'scientific theory' but will see what develops.
By the way, should there be an Oxford comma after 'Soul'? ;)

[Peter Pedant]

seems OK to me

[Zacs-Master]

'Whilst discussions and debates are encouraged, The AnswerBank reserves the right to remove answers that are misleading, e.g. by implying that a statement is a scientific theory or law when it is not, especially when such answers may impact personal health choices.'

All a bit 'nanny state' isn't it? A rather worrying development.

[Peter Pedant]

// what the definition is of a 'scientific theory' but will see what develops.//

you know what it is when you see it
genesis ch 1 no - evolution, yes

[Peter Pedant]

// A rather worrying development...//
where there are worrying developments, there may be progress

anything that cuts down the - yeah - foo - what dat den - automatic answers ( that is about 50% of stuff) is to be welcomed

[Zacs-Master]

well, maybe not 'worrying' but somewhat concerning. I can't see why it's necessary to remove any posts. You would seem to be adequately legally protected from members affecting their health by following by the suggestions, claims or recommendations on here by the accompanying
'The AnswerBank makes no claim regarding the scientific accuracy of any post (question or answer) made by a member.'

[Ellipsis]

> I'm not sure what the definition is of a 'scientific theory'

This may help ...

https://lifehacker.com/the-difference-between-a-fact-hypothesis-theory-and-1732904200

[Togo]

Could the Site Rules also confirm that as well as removing information that could be deemed to be "non factual" by some, also include the warning that any post which includes facts, that although 100% correct, are liable to be removed ? That would square the circle nicely. We should perhaps also call the new rules "The Sneaks Charter" .

[Jordyboy9]

Yes you are right Zacs a rather worrying development,But you and others like you ,have only yourselves to blame,
You have forever spouted the Site Rules to myself and others,
Any time we said anything about the rules,
So now it’s coming back to bite you on the bum.

[Ellipsis]

> somewhat concerning

Wouldn't it also be somewhat concerning to get a load of completely wrong answers to a science question in the science category, and for those wrong answers to remain? What is the purpose of The AnswerBank?

[Zacs-Master]

I'm not about to make any posts which could affect anyone with an ounce of common sense to imbibe, inhale, apply or insert anything which might affect their health, Jordy.
Just a warning to those without any common sense....being bitten on the bum or biting someone on the bum is generally unhealthy.

Phew, Ed, I think I averted a potential legal case for you there!

[Zacs-Master]

'Wouldn't it also be somewhat concerning to get a load of completely wrong answers to a science question in the science category, and for those wrong answers to remain?'

Absolutely not. It is incumbent upon the reader to do their own research and find out whether it is the truth or not. Hence my assertion that the new approach is a bit 'nanny state'.

[Cloverjo]

No Oxford comma needed there, ff, according to Susie Dent.

[Old_Geezer]

Need is not the crucial bit. If it's always used, so it's read as intended, it'll be there when it's vital anyway.

Seems a high risk change to me. Censorship that allows maverick theories to be removed if admin doesn't agree with them. Have to see how it goes, I guess.

[steg]

///It is incumbent upon the reader to do their own research and find out whether it is the truth or not. Hence my assertion that the new approach is a bit 'nanny state'.///
Aye go into quizzes, crosswords etc and start giving incorrect answers, could be fun ;)

[douglas9401]

The old 'be careful what you wish for' proves true again.

[ProfessorMaisie]

What a ridiculous addition! You intend to remove 'misleading answers' but make 'no claim regarding the scientific accuracy of any post' - which one is it! Or does this give you the leeway (as Togo is suggesting) to remove posts that, while accurate, don't sit well with the new AB ethos?

[sanmac]

And who on the Editorial Team is going to lay claim to being an expert, or at least highly knowledgeable, on all things scientific in order to separate the wheat from the chaff?

[naomi24]

Bad move.