Timeline for Citing holocaust denial sites in answers is regarded as acceptable by moderators
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 15, 2016 at 0:56 | vote | accept | Golden Cuy | ||
| May 10, 2016 at 7:28 | comment | added | Oddthinking Mod | I acknowledge we need to be careful not to give false balance. | |
| May 10, 2016 at 7:27 | comment | added | Oddthinking Mod | If someone says that there is good evidence for a claim on an obviously anti-semitic web-site, as good skeptics, we should keep an open mind that it might be right. (While as good Bayesians, we should go in with priors that understand how unlikely that might be.) I try not to use my mod-hammer to resolve whether a reference is reliable. I will certain use downvotes and comments to expose bad references though. (Editing too, if there are better references to support the claim.) | |
| May 10, 2016 at 6:29 | comment | added | tim | @Oddthinking I'd actually agree with you an all of that. But OP asked about answers, not about questions, and I think that there is a somewhat different standard there. | |
| May 10, 2016 at 1:54 | comment | added | Oddthinking Mod | If this were a programming web-site, links to anti-semitic nonsense would be totally inappropriate, and I would agree with your assessment. However, distasteful as they are, questions about the Holocaust and the Nazi's actions against the Jews are legitimate fodder for Skeptics.SE. We can't simply ban links to anti-semitic conspiracy web-sites any more than we can ban links to homeopathy web-sites, because declaring them unreliable is begging the question. The skeptical position of keeping an open mind to the source of a claim, but following the evidence, is not unproblematic. | |
| May 8, 2016 at 18:13 | history | answered | tim | CC BY-SA 3.0 |