Re: Recommendations for effective online scientific discussion


"Bob Cain" <arcane@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:0uGdnZUY9N9z1AjVnZ2dnUVZ_t_inZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
"Juan R." González-Álvarez wrote on Tue, 22 Jul 2008 11:22:02 +0200:

This set of recommendations was first prepared after noticing some nasty
behaviors on the USENET. Initially, I embraced the usual recommendation
to ignore trolls, crackpots, liars, flamers, and other nasty posters.

This worked for most of cases. For example, after postings from certain
nasty posters were ignored several times, the posters stopped from
replying more.

However, this recommendation did not work for the most nasty individuals
[*] and this has obligated me to rethink the guidelines, incorporating
new tactics for beating that people.

I had been ignoring most accusations, nonsenses, and lies from certain
poster in non-moderated newsgroups but then he followed me to two
moderated newsgroup and started again.

Also there was some recent discussion in moderated newsgroup
sci.physics.foundations about moderation policies, just after a group of
people openly protested to the moderator board about the annoying
messages that passed moderation. This chapter finished after one of the
moderators warned in public to the nasty poster.

Since his interest in that moderated newsgroup has diminished and
actually he is not posting more, returning to moderated newsgroups where
he posts dozens of nasty messages (insults, lies, ad hominem...) each
day.

After this episode was analyzed I have also included recommendations for
moderated newsgroups. I have done several experiments in different
newsgroups, forcing limiting behaviors, recollecting the data, and
preparing the guidelines.

In several occasions I have publicly said I was recollecting information
for the guidelines and warned nasty posters about their behavior. For
example the day 12 I wrote

I repeat again, are you aware that this thread and your messages will
be cited in a new version of USENET guidelines?
And the reply was

"Why should I care? Nobody but you cares about your guidelines."

I have also received some feedback from users of moderated newsgroups, I
wait more feedback from moderators for this part.

Another defect of the original recommendation to ignore crackpots was
they feel freedom to post anything nonsensical they want. This was
irrelevant for veteran readers, of course, most of whom already kill-
filled the crackpots but was a source of continuous confusion for novice
readers.

For example, recently I wrote the standard Hamiltonian of special
relativity and one crackpot replied

"No. The special relativistic Hamiltonian is H = L = -mc^2 * [1 - v^2/
c^2 ]."

and from here followed a nasty discussion with more crackpots adding
more mistakes, noise, and insults. For example, another crackpot picked
over the above wrong Lagrangian and wrote

http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.physics.relativity/2008-07/
msg00824.html

Everyone who studied a minimum of special relativity and mechanics
detected the mistakes they were doing, but there was case of one novice
(no physicists are usual on newsgroups) who did not and supported in
public to the crackpot who wrote "H = L = -mc^2 * [1 - v^2/ c^2 ]".

I think it is our responsibility do not ignore those notorious mistakes
and warn novice readers always was possible. That is my current view
with further recommendations to notice the mistakes without being caught
in the noise generated by crackpots as those.

The guidelines are accessible on

http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.html

and comments are welcomed. I thanks Murray Arnow and Peter M. Brown for
their reading of the guidelines and useful suggestions.


NOTE

[*] There is a documented case of a clearly perturbed individual who has
tried for close a year to falsify the Groups ratings about posters
adding hundred of negative stars and simulating the ratings of a hundred
of different readers. He achieved this by exploiting a well-known bug in
the Groups console.

This poster was once caught by a Groups administrator, and his fake
rates eliminated from the total rate. But that did not stop him. He
changed the nick, started a new account and continues trying to falsify
the archive.

This and other samples from crackpots like Eric Gisse, disorder trolls
as Dono (Karandash2), professional liars as Tom Roberts and others will
be presented, with details, dates, original messages, and links on a
future Micro-thought, "Some samples of USENET fauna", now in preparation

canonicalscience.blogspot.com

Thanks everyone by feedback. Thanks by kindly words and thanks also by
all the hostile replies.

Latter ones (some very hostile) clearly indicated that I shoot to the
center of the target :-)

Here in thereafter lies, ad hominem, and straw man will be not longer
ignored as before but just noticed each time some troll want to break a
normal thread with usual nasty behavior. Trolls are advised to keep out
:-)


Juan, you seem to think they are all about you. They are not. You make
too much ado about nothing rather than simply sticking to science.

While I myself have steered some of my attention away from flammers (which
was not the way I used to post) I do think Juan's efforts are a waste of his
time in some respect. Sure. People need to be corrected when they make
mistakes. The more arrogant the person is and the more unwilling they are to
admit their errors the more tempting it is to rub it in their face or
constantly remind them of it (which only servers to deter them from
admitting their mistakes in the future). But I do think that establishing
scientific arguement strategies is a worthwhile effort. But it is only
useful if all concerned parties are willing to abide by these strategies.
And we all know that isn't going to happen. But I do applaud Juan's effort.
I admire his principles in that respect, i.e. striving toward a better
newsgroup even when its likely that the effort will be for naught.

Pete


.

Relevant Pages