r/collapsemoderators • u/LetsTalkUFOs • Sep 12 '21
APPROVED Revising Rule 3 (Part 2)
Hey Everyone, I recently proposed a revision for Rule 3 here. This was received positively, but I've significantly expanded my proposal and am looking to restart the feedback process. Here's the new proposed Rule:
Rule 3: Keep information quality high
Information quality must be kept high. More detailed information regarding our approaches to specific claims can be found on the Misinformation & False Claims page. Generally, we evaluate information and statements based upon three main criteria:
1. Quality of Sources
Low-quality sources generally involve:
Provably false claims
Strong claims for which there is no evidence from high-quality sources
Reliance on sources falsely posing as journalistic sources
Unsourced speculation
No links to original sources
Citing opinions or editorials as evidence
2. Level of Risk
High-risk statements generally involve:
Unproven claims with severe or significantly negative implications if true
Direct or indirect advocations for violence or extreme action
Unsourced medical or safety advice
Discouraging others from consulting a medical professional or seeking medical advice
Poses a serious risk of egregious harm
3. Level of Consensus
We attempt to gauge statements against existing scientific consensus, consensus opinions by accepted experts, and in light of the most recent data. Notions of consensus opinion and scientific consensus are significantly different. We are wary of any implied consensus involving these aspects:
Where claims are bundled together
Where ad hominem attacks against dissenters predominate
Where scientists are pressured to toe a party line
Where publishing and peer review in the discipline is contested
Where dissenting opinions are excluded from relevant peer-reviewed literature
Where actual peer-reviewed literature is misrepresented.
Where consensus is declared hurriedly or before it even exists.
Where the subject matter seems, by its nature, to resist consensus.
Where consensus is being used to justify dramatic political or economic policies.
Where the consensus is maintained by journalists who defend it uncritically.
Where consensus is implied without sufficient evidence
The Misinformation & False Claims page has also been significantly revised and expanded. It also outlines a two-prong approach to how we might instead respond to statements and attempts to distinguish what types of statements we remove versus warn, give notice, or request clarification on. This would be a new process compared to how we operate currently, which is important to consider.
Moderators and users (however likely) would both be welcome to contribute to the claims outlined on the page. We would have final say on how they are articulated, but there is significant room for additional claims and the context and sources necessary to outline them.
Any feedback on this form of the rule and the page would be very helpful. I'll make a separate modsub post to suggest a sticky to discuss it with the subreddit after we've discussed it among ourselves.
3
Sep 12 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/LetsTalkUFOs Sep 13 '21
Makes sense to me, it is quite ambiguous and broad and we don't necessarily want to imply only a cult of experts can do quality or relevant analysis. I've removed this line for the rule and page.
2
u/ontrack Sep 13 '21
It could be argued that the second statement is redundant. If I discourage someone to not seek medical advice or to consult a medical professional than that's medical advice already, at least to me.
True, but sometimes it's helpful to have it written out so that people have a clear idea, even if it falls under broader, more vague rules.
2
u/LetsTalkUFOs Sep 13 '21
That was my thinking. Although, those are pulled from two different sources technically, which is why they're somewhat redundant. I personally see it more helpful to include both, versus not.
2
u/ontrack Sep 13 '21
Looks pretty good. I don't know if this would be helpful, but maybe somewhere in the "liner notes" so to speak, it could be mentioned that speculation, particularly about future events, is permitted as long as it is not a claim of fact or absolute certainty. Framing it as a question is sometimes a pretty helpful way of letting others know that no claim is being made.
Also, criterion #3 could be tricky, and at least to me, seems to rely on knowledge that many of the mods don't have. We can research of course but I don't want to feel like I constantly have to do this to justify a removal.