Timeline for answer to Dealing with questions showing "obvious" bias by T.E.D.
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
Post Revisions
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 2, 2018 at 22:57 | comment | added | SJuan76 | There is the option of "triage" queues. Of course, one of the issues would be having enough reviewers of the queues to avoid starving the new legitimate users; the only site that I do know with triage queues is StackOverflow and their user base is huge. | |
| Feb 21, 2018 at 12:15 | vote | accept | TheHonRose | ||
| Feb 20, 2018 at 20:40 | history | edited | T.E.D.Mod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 17 characters in body
|
| Feb 20, 2018 at 15:58 | comment | added | T.E.D. Mod | @LangLangC - It is perfectly acceptable and normal for sites to have their own local standards and ways of doing things, as long as they are generally agreed to and preferably written down somewhere that can be pointed to. | |
| Feb 20, 2018 at 15:47 | comment | added | LаngLаngС | While I see the allure of AutoHold, is this in accordance with SE-policy? And how should the "auto" part work? Simple keywords? | |
| Feb 20, 2018 at 15:43 | comment | added | TheHonRose | Agreed, although my personal kee-jerk reaction is to challenge the bias rather than vote personally to shut it down, but as @Semaphore says, this is frequently a futile exercise, not to mention a waste of time! | |
| Feb 20, 2018 at 15:36 | comment | added | T.E.D. Mod | @TheHonRose - Well, even if we don't officially do that, you can always use your close vote power that way, if you want. :-) | |
| Feb 20, 2018 at 15:31 | comment | added | TheHonRose | @T.E.D You're absolutely right, of course, we all have our biases, and I was taught that an honest scientist (or historian) must be aware of their own "prejudices" and challenge them. The Holocaust-denial agenda is, I would agree, a special case, being part of a (not so subtle) agenda, and not least because it is currently "popular" in certain circles. I tend to support the policy of automatically putting them on hold and let the community - you all's ;) - proactively decide they are valid questions. | |
| Feb 20, 2018 at 15:18 | comment | added | LаngLаngС | "Custom mod messages"? That is flag for mod attention? Aren't they rather length limited for what you propose here? I see (potentially) less obsessed patterns emerging over time that would require a long list of evidence "in detail". | |
| Feb 20, 2018 at 15:11 | history | edited | T.E.D.Mod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 18 characters in body
|
| Feb 20, 2018 at 15:03 | comment | added | T.E.D. Mod | Honestly, we get so many bad Nazi/Holocaust questions, I wouldn't be adverse to having a site policy that they get automaticly put on hold if submitted by a low rep user, and users then have to vote to get it reopened. | |
| Feb 20, 2018 at 14:58 | history | answered | T.E.D.Mod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |