What is the stance of this website and community concerning answers that are 1. accepted and 2. biased?

If the answer has no credible sources to confirm a claim then it is by definition a bias response.

Should the community simply accept an answer just because of the number of votes it has and because the OP just accepted it, even if it just in itself perpetuates the myth being debunked?

There are obvious different opinions on the subject of the question and specially on the claims of the accepted answer. On a site that claims the following:

Skeptics - Stack Exchange is for skeptics, rationalists, free thinkers, or anyone who questions pseudoscience. Skeptics is about applying skepticism — it's for researching the evidence behind the claims you hear or read. It is not for philosophical discussions about skepticism itself.

do answers like these really have a place? The answer has improved a lot with the successive edits but the overall tone has not changed. My proposed edits that attempted to rebalance the tone towards something more neutral were rejected by the poster hirself, and not seen by a moderator.

I understand the posters opinion that isn't 100% anchored on undebatable facts. We are here to challenge claims and ideas, however these claims are not being addressed. The answer itself probably deserves a question on the site to debunk it! The system used for edits on wikipedia is a much more developed one where a poster never* (almost) owns certain content, so it can be edited by easily anyone. Is this really a community with commonly agreed content or not?

Ultimately questions should be answerable based on evidence and not speculation. In practice this is a speculative answer.

I have thought long about posting my own answer to the question but that is not a practical solution for the community, the first answer with so many votes is the one that will always be read. Maybe change the order of the answers regardless of the votes or acceptance status could be a good solution to counter this, though it has other inconveniences.

Maybe I haven't understood correctly the purpose of the site?

Thanks a lot for your input.

| |

Let's get our terms straight:

  • Everyone is biased, but people have different biases.
  • It's impossible to avoid biases.

which is why we want objective sources.

If an answer lacks sources, especially in its main point, then notify the author in a comment, flag the answer for moderator attention and (if you want) downvote it. Then move on. Moderators review all flags, mark answers which are objectively unreferenced with a banner and eventually delete them in time, even if accepted or highly upvoted.

If an answer is wrong, or has biased sources, or you don't agree with its conclusion, simply downvote and walk away. If you have some contructive criticism, leave it in a comment but don't get dragged in a discussion. Moderators won't act on wrong answers unless the are unreferenced or otherwise objectively bad (e.g. spam, insults, link farming, etc.), so there's no need to flag something unless it's really bad.

It's quite normal that sometimes voting, or accepting, doesn't choose something we like. In that case, the best course of action, besides constructive criticism and voting, is to leave your own better answer. At worst, you will have provided a second point of view, at best, your answer will rise to the top and get accepted.

| |

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .