Changes to the Richard Dawkins Forum

[Evo]

Saving entire forums as .html files or copying plaintext isn't going to work. If they had access to the database and could replicate the forum scripts they might be able to make an almost exact copy. I don't think its going to happen unless RD.net allows it.

I think copying the text is all anyone needs.

 

[Zantra]

This isn't what had happened AFAIK. What had happened was Dawkins (and whoever else he had discussed this with... apparently not most of the staff) had decided to change the format of the forum so that the quality of the threads being posted and the content within them was higher. It reminds me of just being an open 'journal' except it'll all happen in real-time. You post your comment about it, you get a response. No mailing to this journal who talks to this editor who looks up this article etc. and no more flame wars or posts which he clearly think are not up to his standards.

The insults came after he had announced that these changes were going to be taking place.

Right.. and at some point he should have done damage control by somehow justifying the changes, if he was unable or unwilling to retain the existing format. It costs advertising dollars by alienating the customer base. And even if they do have justifiable reasons for the changes, their actions are costing them revenue, so I can't see how these choices are a good decision in either case. Even it's a sound business decison it had very poor execution. Public relations is important to a web site.

What if Toyota's response to the recent brake issue was to just ignore things until they went away, then when people complained about the breaks, and responded with "well you called me a name, and I don't appreciate that- btw, I've decided not to fix the breaks, and I'm shutting down the Toyota website,customer service, and not responding to any calls.

How long would Toyota be in business after that?

As far as I can tell from what I've read(am I missing something?) that's the reaction of the business folk running this site. It's unprofessional, childish, not a very wise course of action.

But then, maybe they're not doing it for profit, and they've decided that this site isn't important enough to maintain anymore. We can't say what's really going on becase only they know the reasoning behind their actions, which is why they're alienating everyone. And since they've chosen not to explain themselves, this is the result

Incidentally, I've never even been to this site, so I have no vested interest in this..I'm just curious whether they run it as a non-prof or a for profit business.

Interesting tactics.

 

[zomgwtf]

It's assumed that he did do 'damage control' or that he just doesn't care what some people think.

Your Toyota argument makes for a great example of ignoratio elenchi I think...

 

[sylas]

Check out the new article http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5165 at richarddawkins.net, and the comments with it.

Things are looking better. I have no involvement with the forum, but for those who do, I would advise patience (it takes time for things to get fixed) and an assumption of good faith all around.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[elect_eng]

Check out the new article http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5165 at richarddawkins.net, and the comments with it.

Things are looking better. I have no involvement with the forum, but for those who do, I would advice patience (it takes time for things to get fixed) and an assumption of good faith all around.

Cheers -- sylas

-An apology worthy of this great man. I'm happy to see it. I like the idea of editorial restrictions which limit the starting of threads to those on science and reason. I know what science is, but I'll have to see how the word "reason" is interpreted to see if I would want to participate in this new forum. On person's "reason" can be another's dogma. Either way, it's a good development.

 

[Borek]

No doubt that this message goes in a much better way. I just wonder what filtering out small talk will do to the community itself - from what I see on many forums socializing helps build the community and glues people together. It may be an interesting sociological experiment.

 

[zomgwtf]

No doubt that this message goes in a much better way. I just wonder what filtering out small talk will do to the community itself - from what I see on many forums socializing helps build the community and glues people together. It may be an interesting sociological experiment.

The thing is that Dawkins doesn't want to filter out small talk. He wants to direct the 'small talk' in based on reason and science. He wants to build a community strictly of 'reason and science' and he would like people to post things that are reasonable or scientific.

 

[Borek]

Important part of the community here is built around things like gardening, taking pictures, cooking or eating, loving pets, not to mention stupid comments during chat. Some of the important threads (see here, here and here - take a look at number of posts and how long these threads run) would never start under new RD.net rules. Could be I am wrong and such things are not necessary, but I see it working in community building is several places, and I also know forums where there is no such discussions and these forums are half boring, half dead.

 

[zomgwtf]

Regardless of what your opinion is you have no evidence to support your view that discussion of gardening and cooking is important for a community. Not even these forums will support that view in fact.

There are plenty of members on these forums who only post in one part of the forum, rarely venturing out and posting elsewhere. Why is this? Because they are only interested in the specific scientific aspect maybe... or maybe it's because they are here to merely help others with homework. Regardless I believe they are just as much a part of the PF community as those who come here to discuss life and current events etc.

 

[Aquafire]

One of the dangers Richard Dawkins faces & that has not been discussed is Libel.

English Law is the toughest, (some would say draconian) in all of Europe.

If you besmirch someones reputation online, chances are you will be on the end of a writ.

By appending his name to the forums, many a lawyer could argue quite successfully, that Prof Dawkins would be liable for any libelous comments posted under his name.

He would be called upon to show a duty of care to prevent such material being posted.

One need only look at the imbroglio swamping Simon Singh to see the consequences of this matter.

[PLAIN]http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/jul/29/simon-singh-science-chiropractic-litigation

[/PLAIN]

 

[zomgwtf]

One of the dangers Richard Dawkins faces & that has not been discussed is Libel.

English Law is the toughest, (some would say draconian) in all of Europe.

If you besmirch someones reputation online, chances are you will be on the end of a writ.

By appending his name to the forums, many a lawyer could argue quite successfully, that Prof Dawkins would be liable for any libelous comments posted under his name.

He would be called upon to show a duty of care to prevent such material being posted.

One need only look at the imbroglio swamping Simon Singh to see the consequences of this matter.

[PLAIN]http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/jul/29/simon-singh-science-chiropractic-litigation

[/PLAIN]

What are you talking about? Are you saying people are saying things about Dawkins or that Dawkins is saying things about others?

 

[Aquafire]

What are you talking about? Are you saying people are saying things about Dawkins or that Dawkins is saying things about others?

Sorry if my meaning is not clear.

Under English Libel law, Professor Dawkins is taken to be party to any comments that posters to his forums may make in relation to other persons.

So for instance if one of Professor Dawkins supporters were to post comments against a living person & that person were to read those comments and take offence : then Professor Dawkins would have to explain why he allowed such comments to be posted.

Naturally, if the moderators catch such libelous comments and delete them within a minute or two of them being posted, then that is a defence .. but not a complete one.

If the moderators / admistrators allowed those comments to stay online to be read by all and sundry, then it would be argued by a prosecutor that Professor Dawkins is complicit in that he did nothing to remove such comments.

Likewise, if someone makes libelous comments about Mr Dawkins, then he is well within his legal rights to sue for libel as well.

The injured party is relative to the injury.

If your the one being injured by libelous comments, comments that are untrue, or a fabrication, then you have the right to appeal to the courts of the land to have those comments / remarks removed.

Failure to do so, leaves the perpetrator or supporter of those libelous actions open to court remedies.

 

[zomgwtf]

Under English Libel law, Professor Dawkins is taken to be party to any comments that posters to his forums may make in relation to other persons.

We require citing sources here.

 

[Aquafire]

We require citing sources here.

Here is a list of ten things you might want to consider.

http://www.website-law.co.uk/resources/website-libel.html"

And of particular interest to this thread.

The professor (Richard Dawkins) accepted that companies and individuals had a right to redress if they were maliciously attacked.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/sep/20/richard-dawkins-libel-laws"

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,4343,Libel-laws-silence-scientists,Richard-Dawkins---guardiancouk,page2"

You don't think that Richard Dawkins has taken legal advice ?

Or do you seriously think he lives in a bubble...?

 

[zomgwtf]

First off there's no need for you to be coming at me hostilely.

Here is a list of ten things you might want to consider.

http://www.website-law.co.uk/resources/website-libel.html"

No where in this article on '10 things webmasters should know about... libel' does it back up your claim. Specifically:
"Under English Libel law, Professor Dawkins is taken to be party to any comments that posters to his forums may make in relation to other persons."

The closest it comes to is the 'hosting' part. However Dawkins is presumably not hosting the material on his website. I'm pretty sure he pays for hosting by another company, which I believe is Slice Host located in Saint Louis. Regardless, there is something called the ToS which you have to accept in order to join or post at such a forum community.

And of particular interest to this thread.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/sep/20/richard-dawkins-libel-laws"

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,4343,Libel-laws-silence-scientists,Richard-Dawkins---guardiancouk,page2"

You don't think that Richard Dawkins has taken legal advice ?

Or do you seriously think he lives in a bubble...?

Who ever claimed that Dawkins hadn't taken legal advice or that he lived in a bubble? This is very dishonest of you and it's taking a lot of will power for me to refrain from saying many rude things to you.

By the way, neither of those stories have anything to do with Dawkins seeking 'legal advice' in regard to the posting on the forums... or anything to do with the forums...