9

A couple of recent Q/A have answers, including one marked as Accepted, which are actually badly researched to put it mildly.

Their source material is from outright Neo-Nazi, far-right, white-power sites. From the phrasing and choice of words, I'd sadly also have to accuse the answer-giver as having sympathies and leanings in that direction. (why use those sources otherwise). But that's his or her own problem.

As far as I can tell, the best approach seems to flag the posts. Which is what I proceeded to do. Are there other approaches?

  • 6
    Excellent question; thank you for asking. I'm tempted to call out any unreliable source in comments, but I'm afraid that doing so will create a flame war (unreliable sources tend to be defended tenaciously). I hope someone has a better solution. – Mark C. Wallace Apr 28 '16 at 14:56
  • 2
    Thanks, @MarkC.Wallace, it's the edit wars/flame wars that I was indeed worried about. I have zero inclination of getting into the same retreaded arguments with that ilk, not on SE anyway, but that doesn't mean it should just spread here through a sort of backdoor, i.e. the Acceptance. – Marakai Apr 29 '16 at 0:21
  • Speaking of flags: how do I track and see the status of flags/flagged articles? Looking at my profile, I don't see anything about them or where they are in the peer review process. – Marakai Apr 29 '16 at 0:24
  • 1
    @Marakai The only thing visible to you would be the final status of the flag which can either be pending, helpful, rejected or disputed. To view real time progress on flag's status, you need access to that review queue, which you will with enough rep. Even then you can view only the flags you have casted a vote on yourself. – NSNoob Apr 29 '16 at 5:53
  • 1
    Thanks for that @NSNoob. There may not be a perfect solution. It's simply annoying every time I see that drivel and mess of half-truths and outright falsehoods accepted as correct answer. Being German of birth and with my own family having first hand experience of the post-war years (one side having being "ethnically cleansed", the other either fleeing the Russians or having to live under them decades), this just really galls. – Marakai Apr 29 '16 at 6:16
  • 1
    Perhaps you could raise questions about specific sources in meta? THat at least contains the resulting flame wars? In the end, I'm more uncomfortable with doing nothing and permitting racism to pass unchallenged than I am with the inevitable argument. – Mark C. Wallace Apr 29 '16 at 8:46
  • 1
    I hope everyone would downvote and call out answers like this in the comments. I think it is important to inform passing readers of problems with an answer. Especially if it is an answer based on bigotry, I believe it should always be challenged whenever possible. – Semaphore Apr 29 '16 at 13:06
  • 1
    May I suggest that you edit the title to refer refer to "irresponsible propaganda"? This issue isn't "right wing propaganda" or "left wing propaganda" - the issue is propaganda that ignores the responsibility to accurately describe reality. – Mark C. Wallace May 3 '16 at 12:21
  • 1
    A valid point, it's simply that I had a concrete case and didn't want to over-generalise the subject. Hence frequently lies a meandering discussion about "what constitutes propaganda". The thing about far right-wing (OK, let's call it what it is: Neonazi) propaganda is that it has legal implecations, as it's illegal in some European and other countries. – Marakai May 3 '16 at 20:49
  • 1
    Related question: meta.history.stackexchange.com/questions/2192/… (tl;dr - flag hateful stuff such as holocaust denial, downvote low quality but non-hateful stuff such as humans not walking on the moon) – Andrew Grimm May 5 '16 at 9:00
10

Speaking as one of the site janitors, I'd like to see potentially biased sources called out in the comments. You should just be able to factually state the bias (eg: "This is a neo-Nazi source") without directly making value judgments on the poster. If you stick to the facts, the mess I have to clean up shouldn't be too bad (and won't be your fault).

I know some people flag such content, expecting it to be deleted or something merely because of the source. In some cultures, censorship would be expected for content expressing or supporting certain views (particularly Nazi material in Europe). But personally, unless its saying something blatantly offensive, or its been downvoted so low that I can reasonably say the entire stack has rejected it, I have trouble justifying deleting a post. I can't speak for the other two moderators, but they are both US-based like me, so I suspect they have similar principles.

Saying that, I have in the past deleted things that didn't seem that bad to me, but had several "offensive" flags on them. Maybe I don't see it, but if a large % of the stack says something is offensive, then it almost certainly is. So if it really offends you, yes hit that flag.

  • Thanks for that, it's a good guideline so that I know how to phrase the flags moving forward. I'll see how the current moved through and may then just "re-flag" making sure I use your advice. – Marakai Apr 29 '16 at 23:16
2

This is an important issue. We certainly do not want any Nazi (or any other) political propaganda on this cite. I did not notice the "accepted answers" we are discussing (I do not read all answers to all questions), and I would like to see them.

But I did notice several QUESTIONS which constitute Nazi propaganda. I cannot give an example because the questions of this sort that I know have been removed, but I can explain how a question can constitute a propaganda. A question may contain "implicit assumptions" (in fact many questions do). Examples (not from this site):

Are you still beating your wife?

Why is the Moon made of green cheese?

Such implicit assumptions may constitute propaganda. I hope everyone understands what I mean.

Now how should we fight this. First of all, by voting down. I suppose an accepted answer can be voted down. Is it reasonable to empower the administrators to remove some answers? Even those accepted? If there is a sufficient number of downvotes and tags. I think this is reasonable.

Administrators should not decide themselves what constitutes propaganda and what is not. We should be relying on votes and tags.

Now why should we single out Nazi propaganda/antisemitism? Or right-wing propaganda? I understand it is most obnoxious, because it is related to the hudge mass murder in the recent past. But left-wing propaganda can be also obnoxious. I do not want to give examples, (read political articles of people like Noam Chomsky yourself, if you want examples). And it can be neither left nor right. (Example: Russian state-sponsored "news" about the recent events in Ukraine which flood the media).

For these reasons I propose to introduce a reason for closing vote "political propaganda", and a corresponding tag for the answers. Questions and answers which collect certain number of these tags are closed and removed by the administrators. We can leave to the administrators to decide how many are needed in each case. This should apply even to the accepted answers.

EDIT. I react on the references in the comment of Marakai. The author of the "answer" in the first reference is the same whom I already mentioned. His two "propaganda questions" in the similar style were deleted. I already proposed to ban this user. And I repeat my proposal: after all, this is a third offence, and I hope the moderators have access to his deleted "questions". This "answer" is not accepted, and was downvoted many times. This case seems to be clear.

The case of the second reference is more complicated. Superficially it looks like a well researched answer, and has many up votes. But it actually contains a lot of incorrect statements, of course without citing any source, which are skilfully mixed with correct ones. In this case I expect some person with good knowledge of the subject to refute this answer.

  • Thank you. I will give two concrete example. Fortunately one has already been downvoted to near oblivion Supposed quote from a US newspaper in 1945 about the Western allies murdering nearly 1 million German POWs. Another has an overall inflammatory tone with at least one statement that is unsourced and which I've debunked elsewhere Camera ownership in post-war Germany. This one is a borderline case, but with the OP of the answer then adding a very inflammatory comment, it raised my eyebrows. – Marakai Apr 30 '16 at 22:49
  • There is another question open right now based on a neo-nazi source even though OP's intentions are valid as he is seeking to refute the claims made by the nazis. – NSNoob May 2 '16 at 7:44
  • 1
    @Marakai - Oh wow. -6 and counting. I generally have to delete such posts, for the good of both the site and the poster's rep. Off I go with my mop.... – T.E.D. May 2 '16 at 13:40
  • @T.E.D.Does SE provide you with a grand white charger and shining armour? – Marakai May 2 '16 at 22:55
  • 1
    Marakai - Oh my lord no. I have more than enough work without having to clean up after a horse too. – T.E.D. May 3 '16 at 12:56
  • @T.E.D. Meh, you get used to it. I speak from first hand experience. ;) – Marakai May 5 '16 at 10:10
  • Oh, the irony that I managed to now get into it with someone who accuses me of Neonazi tendencies, apart from other insults. As that person (who uses his real name and I therefore know from Google searches as being a ... difficult <understatement alet> person, I just flag it an move on, but the vileness of the accusations leaves a bitter aftertaste. If anything, it made me make a resolution that I'll be careful with accusations myself, unless they are clearly using such sources. I don't want to follow a similar path of "anything I don't like or agree with is clearly right-wing propaganda". – Marakai May 6 '16 at 0:23
  • Could the same person have returned? Or just the same problem history.stackexchange.com/a/30614/13123 history.stackexchange.com/a/30613/13123 history.stackexchange.com/q/30581/13123 – user13123 Jun 30 '16 at 10:45

You must log in to answer this question.

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