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

[laconicsax]

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.

[trotsky]

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.

[laconicsax]

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.

[trotsky]

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

I'm all for it.

[Orrex]

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

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

[laconicsax]

7. Love it. n/t

[SidDithers]

27. Awesome...

:thumbsup:


Sid

[NMMNG]

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.

[laconicsax]

6. Second draft:

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.

[Orrex]

8. That last part sucks.

Oh, wait a minute...

[trotsky]

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.

[Orrex]

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.

[trotsky]

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.

[Orrex]

12. Good point.

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

[trotsky]

13. DELETE ALL THE POSTS!

[laconicsax]

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.

[trotsky]

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

[laconicsax]

16. Great! n/t

[Orrex]

17. +1

[Warpy]

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.

[LeftishBrit]

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.

[laconicsax]

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.

[laconicsax]

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.

[trotsky]

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."

[laconicsax]

25. Only if I want it to make sense.

are

[salvorhardin]

23. I like that

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

[mr blur]

26. Looks great to me.

[Silent3]

33. Ponies

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

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

[onager]

24. Good work!

:thumbsup: on the new statement of purpose.

[SidDithers]

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

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

Sid

[laconicsax]

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

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

[SidDithers]

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

[beam me up scottie]

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.

[beam me up scottie]

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.

[laconicsax]

34. I'm submitting it to Skinner anyway.

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

[laconicsax]

35. Kick

[salvorhardin]

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

+1

[laconicsax]

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

[greyl]

38. Late "yes" vote from me. nt

[LeftishBrit]

39. Mine too!

+1