In the accepted answer to the question: Did JFK win the presidential election by fraud? I found this: "the claim of voter fraud is just sour grapes from Republicans...." (Which I removed in an edit)

This statement is a pejorative, unsubstantiated subjective opinion that smacks of partisan politics, not History, and is IMO inappropriate for this site.

Why was this answer allowed to remain and marked as accepted? Is this a History site or a political blog? I have strong political views quite different from those expressed in this "answer"(?), (and I do my best to keep them out of my remarks on this site) and found it to be entirely devoid of History and full of partisan bluster, as well as "logic" that is so specious it's not even worth refuting.

IMO moderators should be vigilant about such matters, or this site will quickly degenerate into a pile of worthless rubbish.

  • 2
    Vote down and move on ... – Tea Drinker Aug 3 '13 at 10:37
  • @TeaDrinker - normally that's what I do. But that answer is overtly partisan and way over the top, with no evidence whatsoever brought to substantiate its contention. What are moderators for, if not to monitor such bs? – user2590 Aug 3 '13 at 20:22
  • 2
    As a moderator, I guess I will speak on our behalf. Our responsibility is NOT to evaluate whether a question or answer is accurate or valid, that is the responsibility of the community at large. Our primary responsibility is to ensure that all post follow the proper format and guidelines. Our secondary responsibility is to make sure that everybody behaves and stays in line. Frankly, the two of you are really pushing the envelope here. I have only been logged on the site for about three minutes, and I can already see that. Now I'm off to do my real job and see how many comments need deleting. – Steven Drennon Aug 4 '13 at 23:46
  • 2
    @Vector I understand your concern, but Steven explained our role on the site. Yannis also expertly laid out exactly what the role of the moderators are in the site, as well as the role of the community is in the site. The community is really much more responsible for content "control" than us mods are. – ihtkwot Aug 5 '13 at 12:55
  • 1
    Considering just Illinois in 1960, there were noted pro-Republican shenanigans occurring in Southern Illinois while Mayor Daley's machine in Chicago engaged in pro-Kennedy shenanigans. It was the nature of 1960's machine politics, and worked both ways. Every attempt to impartially investigate such behaviour concluded that there just wasn't enough net swing either way to pursue judicially, because both party's had efficient machines. – Pieter Geerkens Aug 16 '13 at 20:20
  • @Vector: You call me partisan, and even ask to have me blocked. Then you claim Obama is a socialist and a Marxist, even though this is completely irrelevant for both the question and the answer, and you are clearly using the question to attack Obama even though it adds nothing. Well, that's the kind of hypocrisy I've come to expect from you. history.stackexchange.com/a/10353/63 – Lennart Regebro Sep 30 '13 at 21:40
  • @LennartRegebro - you are ridiculous. Adds nothing? The QUESTION ITSELF is about EXACTLY THAT!-. My remarks were directly relevant to the question. – user2590 Sep 30 '13 at 21:43
  • @Vector: You said the question is explicitly about personality cults, which means that you now state that Obama is not only a communism and a Marxist, but also creating a personality cult. And you claim that you aren't partisan, and keep your politics out of your answers? – Lennart Regebro Sep 30 '13 at 21:53
  • @LennartRegebro - ROFLMAO. Your ignorance and obfuscation of the issues is so ridiculous I can't help but laugh. I waste far too much time on you - no more food fights. Goodbye. – user2590 Sep 30 '13 at 21:56
  • Arguments is obfuscation and being non-partisan is ignorant, then. OK. Then we know where you stand. – Lennart Regebro Sep 30 '13 at 22:01

IMO moderators should be vigilant about such matters

No. It's the community that should be vigilant, not the moderators.

We can't seriously expect our three diamonds to know everything about everything. If an answer is attempting to answer the question, the moderators have no business going anywhere near it1, however bad the answer might be. They are not arbiters of correctness, we (the community) are.

If you feel the answer is "partisan bluster", feel free to:

  1. Edit it without changing its general intent2, and/or
  2. Downvote it, and/or
  3. Comment explaining what you think is wrong with it (constructively),
  4. Vote to delete it, if you have the privilege.

That's it. Others may or may not agree with your assessment of the answer. C'est la vie.

As for why it's accepted: Only the asker gets to decide which answer they'll mark as accepted. That's how it works, and it's been like that forever. Neither the moderators nor the wider community has any say in which answer will get the shiny green checkmark. Personally, I strongly doubt the helpfulness of the whole "accepted answer" concept, but that's a whole different story. Right now it is what it is.

1 Except, of course, as regular users. If they feel knowledgeable enough about the topic of the answer, they are welcome to (up/down)vote it as is everyone else who has earned the relevant privileges.
2 Small edits to rephrase overly editorializing sentences here and there are ok. Your edit, on the other hand, is borderline vandalism. Please take some time to review our editing guidelines, paying special attention to the "clarify the meaning of a post without changing it" guideline.

  • The accepted answer concept makes perfect sense on StackOverflow. There people (at least used to) post with actual problems they are having with actual computer code/hardware. While certian answers may look better than others to other readers, only the question's author has the environment to try out answers to see which one actually ends up fixing their problem. However, this stack doesn't exactly work that way, so I could see an arguement for "acceptences" not meaning much on softer stacks like this one. – T.E.D. Aug 9 '13 at 14:44
  • @T.E.D. Agreed, it makes sense on Stack Overflow, but not so much on the more subjective sites. I didn't really have SO in mind when I was writing this, I don't really participate there (only reason I keep my SO account is to flag questions that have been cross posted on Programmers). – yannis Aug 9 '13 at 17:05

You must log in to answer this question.