There is a broad question here which has been touched on by meta-questions before, including another recent meta-question:
What is the best way to treat spurious claims from sources that regularly produce spurious claims?
Let me tackle that broader question, and present the arguments from both sides:
Why to ban such discussion:
There are many reasons to ...
Further to @Sklivvz's response:
Please do flag the post as rude or abusive or spam (as appropriate).
Six votes from the community will nuke the question (delete and lock) and ban the IP automatically.
It would be an interesting exercise to look at the data, but I estimate troll and spam posts that manage to get through the automated filtering have a half-...
There's a very large grey line between a legitimate question and the trolling kind of nonsense you're talking about. Making a policy to try and weed out those trolling questions will create more problems than fix. After all the prime effort of trolling is to post something offensive while still obeying the rules.
Further there's no reason to be scared of ...
I have quite enjoyed answering a few of them them: I learned a little more about history.
If you only want question on topics that affect purchasing decisions then you should probably outlaw history questions too.
I find it especially interesting when it's a misquote, i.e. there is something like it but not exactly what's claimed.
You can ignore a topic ...
The StackExchange network does allow for spoilers on images.You just have to preface the image with an '>!' Greater Than followed by Exclamation Point. This will create a spoiler-block quote. As seen here
The immediately visible post should not contain any NSFW images.
We want to give visitors a choice whether they want to view such content or not. And it doesn't really require much of a compromise on our part, we simply should link instead of embed images that are potentially disturbing. Anyone that wants to view them just has to follow one link more.
Skeptics.SE, like a number of Stack Exchange websites, has roomba, which will automatically delete many low quality questions.
If the question is more than 30 days old, and ...
has −1 or lower score
has no answers
is not locked
If the question is more than 365 days old, and ...
has a score of 0, or a score of 1 in case of deleted owner
Please don't put them all in one question. That makes it nigh impossible to answer, even when you have great evidence for or against one of the claims. Multiple questions are preferred.
Please consider spending a few minutes on each claim yourself to see if the Internet already has a good answer. If the top hit on the obvious search words lead to a reliable ...
Let's go back to first principles.
We want claims to be notable so we know the large effort of producing a quality answer (and editing the question into shape) is worthwhile - that it affects a belief that lots of people share, rather than some spurious conjecture that a couple of people drinking in a pub came up with.
We can't easily know how many people ...
In general I agree with you.
I'd like to point out that this should not be a unilateral moderator action, but a community action. we have 25+ users that can vote to delete questions. They should be doing so.
When moderators close posts, the community at large can still discuss and reopen. Deleting posts basically ends the discussion, beyond 10,000+ ...
I am not sure where you see a conflict of interest, maybe you mean bias?
The short answer is that, yes, this community has a bias -- we are absolutely biased towards anything which is provable by evidence.
Skeptically speaking, history is the evidence based consensus of historians. There is no need for unanimity in order to have consensus. Therefore in a ...
Went over science and removed/replaced it from all questions
Went over study and removed/replaced it from all questions
Went over bias and removed/replaced it from all questions
Went over untagged and removed/replaced it from all questions
This has been covered extensively in the past, and I don't think, in this case, we're any different from other network sites.
As is stated in this question your options as a user (and assuming you have enough rep) is to
Comment on it and on the question, hope people read your comments.
Edit away and fix stuff
Other related reading
Focus your question on a single well known claim. Usually our answers are thorough. For example: "is any known vaccine known to cause cancer?" seems to be more answerable than listing a series of ingredients for a few reasons: it deals with something that can actually be measured, it does not ask for the ambiguous "increasing risk" in favor of "causing", it ...
I think the "dull" quote attribution questions should be off-topic.
Main reason: they gave absolutely nothing to do with the site's stated mission of "applying scientific skepticism". Even if they can be falsified in a convincing manner, there's nothing "science" about their scope.
They are trivia. As OP noted, nothing meaningful changes based on the claim'...
I've reopened the original Dragon question after finding very strong notability: Young Earth Creationists do assert that Dragons existed. They are Bible literalists.
So since we allowed other YEC questions, this should be allowed too.
Note: Can someone from the community can step up a provide a great reference answer?
Normally it's better to either leave a link with a warning, or leave an address without a link (for example by adding a space after http://.
Also, it is good practice to prefix posts which contain known trauma triggers with a warning, and not use trigger words in titles.
In other words, make the posts "safe", even when they talk about NSFW material.
As a bonus, I also threw out social-science, fairtrade, hungary, and archaelogy! Next, we really ought to do something about archeology...Also, some synonyms to reconsider:
What about musicians? There is a ...