Linking to crank or crackpot sites is prohibited. , discussion.

  • Suggestion
  • Thread starter mesa
  • Start date
In summary, linking to "crank" or "crackpot" sites is prohibited on the PF forums. This is an important rule to maintain the forum's focus on real empirical science and to prevent it from becoming overrun with pseudoscience. While discussions about pseudoscience may be valuable, they are not welcome on the PF and the moderators have come to this conclusion. Links to debunking materials are allowed as a way to educate others, but providing links to pseudoscience can inadvertently promote and support these ideas. Therefore, it is best to avoid such links and keep the discussions focused on real science.
  • #1
mesa
Gold Member
695
38
"Linking to "crank" or "crackpot" sites is prohibited.", discussion.

Linking to obviously "crank" or "crackpot" sites is prohibited.

We have many rules for posting on PF and I believe they give a valuable working framework for keeping the forum on topic in order to provide good science to those who wish to learn it.

The guideline listed above I believe to be one of many integral parts of our forum rules as it prevents the site from becoming over run with pseudo science, I do however disagree with this being enforced when the topic of a thread is about 'pseudo science' itself. If a link is provided to support a dialogue about this topic and not to support the 'link' itself then why is it not acceptable?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
mesa said:
We have many rules for posting on PF and I believe they give a valuable working framework for keeping the forum on topic in order to provide good science to those who wish to learn it.

The guideline listed above I believe to be one of many integral parts of our forum rules as it prevents the site from becoming over run with pseudo science, I do however disagree with this being enforced when the topic of a thread is about 'pseudo science' itself. If a link is provided to support a dialogue about this topic and not to support the 'link' itself then why is it not acceptable?

Because discussions about crackpottery lead to the same crap discussions as does crackpottery itself. The whole topic is not science.

I DO understand you point, but I think the whole topic is a waste of time and I believe Greg and the moderators have come to the same conclusion.

There are several web sites that give good definitions of, and sometimes discussion of, crackpots and crackpottery. I can't find the links to my two favorites, but here's one:http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html
 
  • #3
I'm no web-whizz, but isn't linking to crackpot sites giving them better ranking on google?
Then there's extra hits on youtube or whatever, and you end up unwittingly supporting them, and promoting whatever snake oil they're selling.
 
  • #4
We don't discuss or debunk pseudoscience or crackpottery here, which is the main reason we do not allow links to them, we aren't going to discuss them. I should have deleted/locked your entire thread, to be honest. I was overly nice.
 
Last edited:
  • #5
mesa said:
I do however disagree with this being enforced when the topic of a thread is about 'pseudo science' itself. If a link is provided to support a dialogue about this topic and not to support the 'link' itself then why is it not acceptable?

As Evo says, we do not discuss or debunk pseudoscience here on the PF. Instead, if you look in the list of forbidden topics in the Rules link at the top of the page (under Site Info), there will be a list of links that folks can follow if they want to read such debunking materials. Providing those links is a way we can help folks get educated about pseudoscience, but not clutter up the PF and waste other people's time with the debunking discussions.
 
  • #6
phinds said:
Because discussions about crackpottery lead to the same crap discussions as does crackpottery itself. The whole topic is not science.

I DO understand you point, but I think the whole topic is a waste of time and I believe Greg and the moderators have come to the same conclusion.

I understand that point of view, I have a YT profile that gets bombarded with these guys, most times I can keep a cool head but sometimes it gets frustrating... There have been moments where efforts have been fruitful and I believe that makes it worth it. For those that are not so easily persuaded I simply send them a link to here :) (with my apologies to the forum)


phinds said:
There are several web sites that give good definitions of, and sometimes discussion of, crackpots and crackpottery. I can't find the links to my two favorites, but here's one:

http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html

It is funny you posted this link, I happen Warren Siegel's website open on my browser, ha ha!
 
  • #7
Bandersnatch said:
I'm no web-whizz, but isn't linking to crackpot sites giving them better ranking on google?
Then there's extra hits on youtube or whatever, and you end up unwittingly supporting them, and promoting whatever snake oil they're selling.

I have thought about that. It is amazing how quickly Google can pick up on topics from the forum. The flip side is it would provide a link to a counter point of view as opposed to just that of the crackpots.

Evo said:
...We don't discuss or debunk pseudoscience or crackpottery here, which is the main reason we do not allow links to them, we aren't going to discuss them...

I am usually inclined to agree with your posts however I can not align myself with this statement as discussion is paramount to understanding and working solutions.

berkeman said:
As Evo says, we do not discuss or debunk pseudoscience here on the PF. Instead, if you look in the list of forbidden topics in the Rules link at the top of the page (under Site Info), there will be a list of links that folks can follow if they want to read such debunking materials. Providing those links is a way we can help folks get educated about pseudoscience, but not clutter up the PF and waste other people's time with the debunking discussions.

I can see how a person trying to promote 'crackpottery' on PF would clearly cause issues but that is no where near the point of that thread. Discussion of a controversial subject is not a waste of time.
 
  • #8
-The link would have caused discussion.
-Discussion would have been about the 'crackpottery' in the link.
-That discussion is NOT welcome.
-The discussions should be limited to real empirical science and not psuedoscience.
-Allowing discussions debunking (or promoting) psuedoscience paints a red target around the fora which all crackpots will attempt to hit.
-Therefore best way is to remove the link.
Anyway psuedoscience was not the issue of the thread- it was the rise of psuedoscience- and without the link it got better focus on the main topic.
 
  • #9
mesa said:
I am usually inclined to agree with your posts however I can not align myself with this statement as discussion is paramount to understanding and working solutions.
No, it's not. You don't learn science by studying people who have intentionally ignored the science you are trying to learn. You learn science by learning the science. You are not going to learn one thing by looking to crackpots.

The number one reason that we do not discuss crank science at this site is because the owner, administrators, mentors, science advisors, and most of our other members don't want to do so. We think that our rules that prohibit discussions of crackpottery and non-mainstream science dramatically improve the quality of the site.

There are lots of other sites on the internet that do not have these rules. You are free to go there. Why do we have to be just like everyone else?
 
  • #10
D H said:
No, it's not. You don't learn science by studying people who have intentionally ignored the science you are trying to learn. You learn science by learning the science.

Limiting discussion does not serve Science.

D H said:
You are not going to learn one thing by looking to crackpots.

We are not 'looking to crackpots' for ideas, we are having a discussion about them, their tactics, and how people are being influenced by them.

D H said:
There are lots of other sites on the internet that do not have these rules. You are free to go there. Why do we have to be just like everyone else?

I thought this was the one place where we could have open discussion of any topic so long as we adhere to reasoning, critical thinking and keep it to what is known, apparently I was wrong in my assessment. Most of you consider yourselves to be Scientists, as such I find many of your 'reactions' here startling.
 
  • #11
mesa said:
Limiting discussion does not serve Science.
We are not 'looking to crackpots' for ideas, we are having a discussion about them, their tactics, and how people are being influenced by them.
I thought this was the one place where we could have open discussion of any topic so long as we adhere to reasoning, critical thinking and keep it to what is known, apparently I was wrong in my assessment. Most of you consider yourselves to be Scientists, as such I find many of your 'reactions' here startling.
If you had read our guidelines you would have known it was not acceptable.

First part of our rules is very clear
Our mission is to provide a place for people (whether students, professional scientists, or others interested in science) to learn and discuss science as it is currently generally understood and practiced by the professional scientific community.
Our rules then go into more specifics. No where do our rules state that we discuss and/or debunk pseudoscience.

The question in this thread has been answered, so thread closed.
 

1. What qualifies as a "crank" or "crackpot" site?

A crank or crackpot site is one that promotes pseudoscience or false information, often without any credible evidence or scientific backing. These sites may also make claims that go against well-established scientific principles or consensus.

2. Why is linking to crank or crackpot sites prohibited in discussions?

Linking to crank or crackpot sites can give the false impression that the information being presented is scientifically valid or supported. This can lead to the spread of misinformation and harm the credibility of the discussion.

3. Can I still reference information from a crank or crackpot site in my discussion?

It is not recommended to reference information from a crank or crackpot site in a scientific discussion. If necessary, it is important to thoroughly fact-check the information and provide credible sources to support any claims.

4. What if I am not sure if a site is considered a crank or crackpot site?

If you are unsure about the credibility of a site, it is best to err on the side of caution and not include it in your discussion. You can also consult with other scientists or do further research to determine the validity of the information.

5. Are there any exceptions to the prohibition of linking to crank or crackpot sites in discussions?

In some cases, a discussion may specifically be about a pseudoscience topic or the debunking of false information. In these cases, it may be necessary to reference a crank or crackpot site for the purpose of refuting it. However, this should be done with caution and the site should still be clearly labeled as unreliable or unscientific.

Similar threads

  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
1
Views
262
  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
14
Views
4K
Replies
11
Views
6K
Back
Top