2011-11-02 17:05:20Continuously updating myth rebuttals with the latest data and research
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
130.102.158.12

Launch of our rebuttal archive feature:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Continuously-updating-myth-rebuttals-with-latest-data-research.html

Note - I've made one change to the "Edit Rebuttal" form - there's now a check box giving you the choice to archive the previous version. This is unnecessary if you're just fixing a link or adding a comma.

How I hope this will work is all rebuttal updates (apart from minor tweaks) should happen on the forum in the Basic/Intermediate/Advanced forums. Once the suggested update is approved with enough green thumbs, the author then updates the rebuttal and archives the previous version.

Comments? Both on the blog post and the archiving system. My goal is to establish SkS as the go-to repository for misinformation rebuttals, so we need to be perceived as the most comprehensive and up-to-date set of rebuttals, constantly being updated with the latest data, so that's what I'm trying to communicate in the blog post. Build the brand, so to speak.

2011-11-02 20:19:29
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.120.220

It looks like the new rebuttal links to the old comments. This is misleading and is an invitation to the controversy we had with WUWT before. The old comments should only be linked to the old version.

2011-11-03 07:34:44Oh man, that's a can of worms
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
58.170.57.120

That would mean every time we tweak a rebuttal, change a paragraph or update a graph, we'd have to wipe clean the comments. Not happy about this option either.

2011-11-03 07:49:59
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.120.220

If we don't separate them, we walk right back into the booby-trap: "SkS is changing history AGAIN! Look at how they edit the text to make the questioners look stupid!"

2011-11-03 07:54:34
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

How about keeping the comments as is, but at the end of the updated version of the rebuttal, have a green box with the note:  "Comments 1 - _____ were made against the previous version of this rebuttal, which can be found here: (link)."

 

If deemed necessary, a placeholder comment in the comments section of the thread can be also inserted to demarcate the version change.

2011-11-03 15:54:25Daniel's suggestion
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
58.170.57.120

Hey, that's not bad. I can program it to look for the moment of archiving and if it lies between comments, it displays the message. Brilliant! Get the best of both worlds, keep the comments but also keep the dogs at bay and all with just a bit of extra code. A very elegant solution, thanks, Daniel!

Anyone got any problems with this or additional comments before I start coding?

P.S. - I love this forum :-)

2011-11-03 17:52:05
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.118.247

Might be a good idea to put a comment in the stream,noting that the text has changed, as well. So if I'm reading the comments, I won't miss the transition.

2011-11-04 01:48:23The 500 pound gorilla
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

SkS needs to develop and implement a mechnaism for refreshing rebuttal arguments in a systematic manner. given the backlog of stale rebuttals, a suggested first step would be for John Cook to appoint a task group to triage the exisitng set of rebuttals. Once the set of rebuttals that need immediate attention are identified, responsible parties and timeleines would be establsihed.

What I sketched above are only the initital steps in a more comprehenisve process that needs to be developed, implmented, and institutionalized.

In my opinioon, SkS cannot afford to continue flying by the seat of its collective pants.