Timeline for Modernizing curation: A proposal for The Workshop and The Archive
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 18, 2025 at 12:38 | comment | added | Lundin | @NoDataDumpNoContribution The solution is probably, as suggested by this answer: moderation should be done by those who care about moderation and are good at it. And no, score does not necessarily mean that the answer is good or useful. That's what you like to think that voting should mean but it does not work that way in practice. There are countless of 50+ upvoted posts on the site that are low quality or just plain incorrect. Voting does not work as intended, period. | |
| Dec 18, 2025 at 12:33 | history | edited | Lundin | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited body
|
| Dec 18, 2025 at 12:11 | comment | added | NoDataDumpNoContribution | I agree with the observation, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the idea in this question is a better alternative. It's a kind of extreme change to the opposite. Before doing that we could for example simply abolish close votes and clamp scores to 0 from below. That was also never tried. I don't understand how "no moderation" would be the answer to "moderation is faulty". I think there are at least some questions that cannot be answered meaningfully. And the relative score of answers typically indicates well which ones are more useful than others. | |
| Dec 18, 2025 at 10:11 | history | answered | Lundin | CC BY-SA 4.0 |