Changes to the Richard Dawkins Forum

[pftest]

Anyone notice that the Richard Dawkins forum has suddenly been terminated? Not only has posting been disabled, but the whole thing will be deleted within 30 days. It has almost the same number of posts as physicsforums. Its causing quite some anger among its members.

Heres the story:
http://realityismyreligion.wordpress.com/2010/02/23/locked-entry-will-open-soon/

Dawkins forum: Threads: 85,842 • Posts 2,271,827 • Members 84,659 • Avg posts per dag 2,834
Physicsforums: Threads: 319,346 • Posts: 2,420,591 • Members: 188,706

^ i can see the start of a drop in traffic. Will be interesting to see how far down it goes.

 

[arildno]

That is sad.

I'm sorry to say I didn't read the whole of peter harrison's post, but I know him as a very conscientious forum admin.

I don't think J.T. would have this arrogance unless he knew that Mr. Dawkins himself was indifferent to the forum community.

Possibly, R.D. is showing signs of age, and do not understand the value virtual communities can have.

 

[Evo]

The truth is that the forum is being revamped and will be open soon. Apparently this will reduce the number of crackpots flooding his forum, I say an excellent decision.

Dear forum members,

We wanted you all to know at the earliest opportunity about our new website currently in development. RichardDawkins.net will have a new look and feel, improved security, and much more. Visits to the site have really grown over the past 3 1/2 years, and this update gives us an opportunity to address several issues. Over the years we've become one of the world's leading resources for breaking rational and scientific news from all over the net and creating original content. We are focusing on quality content distribution, and will be bringing more original articles, video and other content as we grow.

The new RichardDawkins.net will have a fully-integrated discussion section. This will be a new feature for the site, similar to the current forum, but not identical. We feel the new system will be much cleaner and easier to use, and hopefully this will encourage participation from a wider variety of users.

We will leave the current forum up for 30 days, giving regular users an opportunity to locally archive any content they value. When the new website goes live, you are welcome to submit these posts as new discussions. The forum will then be taken down from the web. You will not loose your username on the new system.

The new discussion area will not be a new forum. It will be different. We will be using a system of tags to categorize items, instead of sub-forums. Discussions can have multiple tags, such as "Education", "Children", and "Critical Thinking". Starting a new discussion will require approval, so we ask that you only submit new discussions that are truly relevant to reason and science. Subsequent responses on the thread will not need approval—however anything off topic or violating the new terms of service will be removed. The approval process will be there to ensure the quality of posts on the site. This is purely an editorial exercise to help new visitors find quality content quickly. We hope this discussion area will reflect the foundation's goals and values.

We know that this is a big decision. We know some of you will be against this change. We ask that you respect our decision and help make this transition as smooth as possible.

We're confident that these changes will improve the site experience and we look forward to seeing what you do with the new system.

Many thanks again.

http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?f=60&t=110356

 

[pftest]

Evo that message you posted should be read in the context of the full story here:
http://realityismyreligion.wordpress.com/2010/02/23/locked-entry-will-open-soon/

He says "The new discussion area will not be a new forum.". Also the posts of the forum will not be migrated to the new thing and will be gone in 30 days time. I am not exactly sure what the new thing will be, but it sounds a bit like a comment section one sees in blogs.

 

[arildno]

Evo:

I don't think the old forum has been overly burdened with crackpottery, although to be frank, I haven't looked too much.

It is not sciforums-standard, anyway..

 

[Evo]

Evo:

I don't think the old forum has been overly burdened with crackpottery, although to be frank, I haven't looked too much.

It is not sciforums-standard, anyway..

It sounds pretty bad to me

A Message from Richard Dawkins about the website updates

Imagine that you, as a greatly liked and respected person, found yourself overnight subjected to personal vilification on an unprecedented scale, from anonymous commenters on a website. Suppose you found yourself described as an “utter twat” a “suppurating rectum. A suppurating rat’s rectum. A suppurating rat’s rectum inside a dead skunk that’s been shoved up a week-old dead rhino’s twat.” Or suppose that somebody on the same website expressed a “sudden urge to ram a fistful of nails” down your throat. Also to “trip you up and kick you in the guts.” And imagine seeing your face described, again by an anonymous poster, as “a slack jawed turd in the mouth mug if ever I saw one.”

What do you have to do to earn vitriol like that? Eat a baby? Gas a trainload of harmless and defenceless people? Rape an altar boy? Tip an old lady out of her wheel chair and kick her in the teeth before running off with her handbag?

None of the above. What you have to do is write a letter like this:

Dawkins has every right to have the forum run the way he sees fit.

 

[arildno]

Oops, I hadn't read that one!

 

[pftest]

Dawkins has every right to have the forum run the way he sees fit.

The owner of PF also has the right to suddenly remove it from the web. But the members wouldn't like it.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Dawkins has every right to have the forum run the way he sees fit.

It seems, though, there was a huge disconnect between Dawkins, the guys who were paid to run and maintain the server (basically Josh), and the 'in the trenches' volunteer staff:

But it wouldn’t surprise me if Richard has no idea how disrespectful, rude and offensive Josh has been during this whole incident. I’m sure Richard will be thrilled to know that thousands of previously happy members no longer want to have any connection with the website or the Foundation. People are unhappy about what they have lost, and equally unhappy about what they are apparently to gain in the future. Who wants to use a website where community spirit is discouraged, where admins deliberately refrain from website maintenance, where voluntary staff are kept out of the loop and treated like crap?

http://realityismyreligion.wordpress.com/2010/02/23/locked-entry-will-open-soon/

The moderators couldn't get the guys running the servers to take care of any problems and they ran themselves ragged trying to keep the forum together for the members. Dawkins was not running the forum at all: he'd delegated all authority to Josh, who wouldn't communicate with the moderators.

 

[MotoH]

This is obviously a plot by the Papacy to destroy atheism across the internet.

 

[Borek]

We know only one side of the story, so it is hard to tell what have happened. RD for sure can do whatever he likes with his own site, but if the community was treated the way they tell they were treated, something was wrong.

 

[Evo]

It seems, though, there was a huge disconnect between Dawkins, the guys who were paid to run and maintain the server (basically Josh), and the 'in the trenches' volunteer staff:

Did you read the rest (or any) of the letter from Dawkins? Here's the rest

You will notice that the forum has in fact been closed to comments (not taken down) sooner than the 30 days alluded to in the letter. This is purely and simply because of the over-the-top hostility of the comments that were immediately sent in. Note that there is no suggestion of abolishing the principle of a forum in which commenters can start their own threads. Just an editorial re-organization, which will include a change such that the choice of new threads will be subject to editorial control. Editorial control, mark you, by the person who, more than any other individual, has earned the right to the editor’s chair by founding the site in the first place, then maintaining its high standard by hard work and sheer talent. The aim of the letter is to describe an exciting new revamping of our site, one in which quality will take precedence over quantity, where original articles on reason and science, on atheism and scepticism, will be commissioned, where frivolous gossip will be reduced. The new plan may succeed or it may fail, but I think it is worth trying. And even if it fails, it most certainly will not deserve the splenetic hysteria that the mere suggestion of it has received.

Surely there has to be something wrong with people who can resort to such over-the-top language, over-reacting so spectacularly to something so trivial. Even some of those with more temperate language are responding to the proposed changes in a way that is little short of hysterical. Was there ever such conservatism, such reactionary aversion to change, such vicious language in defence of a comfortable status quo? What is the underlying agenda of these people? How can anybody feel that strongly about something so small? Have we stumbled on some dark, territorial atavism? Have private fiefdoms been unwittingly trampled?

Be that as it may, what this remarkable bile suggests to me is that there is something rotten in the Internet culture that can vent it. If I ever had any doubts that RD.net needs to change, and rid itself of this particular aspect of Internet culture, they are dispelled by this episode.

If you are one of those who have dealt out such ludicrously hyperbolic animosity, you know who should receive your private apology. And if you are one of those who are as disgusted by it as I am, you know where to send your warm letter of support.

Richard

 

[elect_eng]

In my humble opinion, it was a bad idea for Dr. Dawkins to try to establish a public forum in his own name. It basically becomes a no-win situation from day one. I think he must have realized this at some point and is now taking the course of action to correct his original mistake. Being a no-win situation from the beginning, the act of correction will be a loss, in a certain sense. It's damaging to his reputation, at least in some people's eyes. However, a man of his credentials can take a lost battle or two, and still win the war.

I wasn't part of that forum because I have no interest in mixing religion and science. They are separate entities to me. That's one thing I like about this Physics Forum. It does a good job of avoiding stupid conflicts and unresolvable debates. I'll check out the new forum to see if it is something worth keeping an eye on. If it isn't, I'll keep reading Dawkin's books to learn good science. I remember using "The Selfish Gene" as a basis for a project in an undergraduate zoology class in 1983. That was an eye-opener. In recent years I read his "The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution" which is truly an amazing book. Again, an eye-opener that moves your eye along a new and unique perspective.

 

[pftest]

Whats so important about reputation?

I don't really understand why RD is surprised by a few vile comments. It shouldn't be anything new to him. It also shouldn't have any to do with closing down the forum, especially since mods there remove such things. Imagine PF getting shut down because a member posts an insult.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Did you read the rest (or any) of the letter from Dawkins? Here's the rest

Yes, I read the whole thing the first time. He's addressing a troll reaction to the recent decision to overhaul.

The problems cited by the moderator are a different issue. You said he could run his forum as he saw fit. I'm not disagreeing with that. What I'm observing is that he doesn't seem to have been running the forum at all, nor was his delegated authority running it properly as he was refusing to have any dialog with the moderators.

 

[rootX]

Whats so important about an atheist forum? I agree with that religion and science are separate entities.

 

[elect_eng]

Whats so important about reputation?

Well, reputation is important to most people for many reasons involving practicality and principle. Why do you ask this question with such an obvious answer?

I don't really understand why RD is surprised by a few vile comments. It shouldn't be anything new to him. It also shouldn't have any to do with closing down the forum, especially since mods there remove such things. Imagine PF getting shut down because a member posts an insult.

Who said that vile comments have something to do with closing down that forum?

 

[Evo]

Whats so important about reputation?

I don't really understand why RD is surprised by a few vile comments. It shouldn't be anything new to him. It also shouldn't have any to do with closing down the forum, especially since mods there remove such things. Imagine PF getting shut down because a member posts an insult.

Maybe they weren't doing a good job of cleaning up such stuff. Another problem seems that some of the mods were inciting the members to try to intimidate Dawkins from making changes. Ultimately moderators are supposed to do the bidding of the forum owner, even if they disagree. They are free to leave if they don't feel the forum is the right place for them due to whatever reason. The members are guests that the owner allows into his forum. While the guests and their opinions are valued, if they start burning holes in the carpet, and refuse to leave then try to push you out of your own house, it's time to make changes.

Luckily, as elect_eng stated "Physics Forum. It does a good job of avoiding stupid conflicts and unresolvable debates". We get excellent guidance from Greg and we do feel like more of a family here. I can't imagine trying to control a forum with such heated arguments as were happening at DR's forum. It's sounds like the new format will help to keep the forum under better control.

 

[pftest]

Whats so important about an atheist forum? I agree with that religion and science are separate entities.

The RD forum had lots of different sections, so its not just an atheist forum. Its like physics forums:it has sections too and isn't just a forum about physics.

 

[pftest]

Maybe they weren't doing a good job of cleaning up such stuff. Another problem seems that some of the mods were inciting the members to try to intimidate Dawkins from making changes. Ultimately moderators are supposed to do the bidding of the forum owner, even if they disagree. They are free to leave if they don't feel the forum is the right place for them due to whatever reason. The members are guests that the owner allows into his forum. While the guests and their opinions are valued, if they start burning holes in the carpet, and refuse to leave then try to push you out of your own house, it's time to make changes.

Luckily, as elect_eng stated "Physics Forum. It does a good job of avoiding stupid conflicts and unresolvable debates". We get excellent guidance from Greg and we do feel like more of a family here. I can't imagine trying to control a forum with such heated arguments as were happening at DR's forum. It's sounds like the new format will help to keep the forum under better control.

The mods got angry after being told the forum would shut down. Its not the other way around.

I don't know how bad the mod inciting got so i can't comment on that. But either way, it seems either RD or that Josh guy did about as poor a job as could be done. Any decent IT specialist knows that implementing a new system requires user involvement, even if just for the simple reason of allowing them to get used to it and avoiding resistance.

 

[Evo]

The mods got angry after being told the forum would shut down. Its not the other way around.

I don't know how bad the mod inciting got so i can't comment on that. But either way, it seems either RD or that Josh guy did about as poor a job as could be done. Any decent IT specialist knows that implementing a new system requires user involvement, even if just for the simple reason of allowing them to get used to it and avoiding resistance.

It's not so much a new system as a new policy. New threads will go into a moderation que and will need to be approved before showing up. Sounds like an excellent idea for such a heated subject.

If Greg decided to shut this forum down, I wouldn't try to incite the members to send hate mail, I'd thank Greg for allowing me the opportunity to work for him for free, [STRIKE]heck I'd pay him to let me work here[/STRIKE]. Hope he can't see that. And then I'd by 50 pounds of dark chocolate, go to bed and cry for a week.

 

[Borek]

Things can be done in many ways. As I have stated earlier - we know only small parts of the story, so it is hard to say what really happened. I guess one thing - there was no flow of information and the decisions were made without trying to explain them to moderating team. That's the sure way of getting people angry and making enemies and that was a bad idea.

 

[zomgwtf]

Why does it matter at all what the mods think or what the former forum community says?

It's his website and if he decides it's going in the wrong direction he can change it to be anything he wants... he could even sell it to a pornographic website promoting beastiality under his name if he wanted.

If the forums here started getting out of control and the team of mentors we have weren't effectively dealing with situations or the situations were getting way out of hand and Greg had decided to shut down physicsforums or change the format... or do whatever. SURE people would be like 'what the f---' and it would suck because people would have to go find a new forum for their science/general/homework/politics etc. needs but in the end it's still his.

The way I see it is the internet is FULL of resources and if you don't like the way something is happening then GO SOMEWHERE ELSE. If you think you have a novel idea and others won't help you with it or you can't find a successful place for it to occur THEN DO IT YOURSELF.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Why does it matter at all what the mods think or what the former forum community says?

Ultimately it may not, but if RD wants to have a sense of community ever again it certainly matters. Given the succession of problems he may directly and indirectly have burned important bridges with mods and fan base. Question, was there much warning? Members hate a quick drastic change.

The way I see it is the internet is FULL of resources and if you don't like the way something is happening then GO SOMEWHERE ELSE. If you think you have a novel idea and others won't help you with it or you can't find a successful place for it to occur THEN DO IT YOURSELF.

Of course and this makes sense for the casual visitor, but forums are known for creating a sense of family and belonging. It's somewhere that feels safe and reliable. Like a Cheers bar where everyone knows your name and are interested in the same things you are. These are emotional connections that get severed. Obviously RD doesn't get it or care. And of course that is his prerogative. But he should now know it will be difficult in starting fresh.

 

[Borek]

Why does it matter at all what the mods think or what the former forum community says?

As a first approximation - it doesn't. But it also doesn't make sense to make enemies, and I suppose with some effort, or at least with a clear explanation WHY things are changing, he could avoid it.

If memory serves me well discussion between Gould and Dawkins on the punctuated equilibrium lead creationists to the conclusion that Darwin's theory is simply wrong (when the discussion was just over minor details, not about the theory itself). I think Dawkins described the story in one of his books. Seems to me like he repeated the situation now - his antagonists will use the story as an argument against him and his views. Allowing it to happen was not a wise move.

Edit: obviously Greg knows what I mean. I fell better now

 

[zomgwtf]

Yeah but why should Dawkins care at all about the people who are complaining since they are most likely people involved in the problems anyway. I mean his letter clearly outlines that the forums will be operational again the threads will just go through an approval process... that doesn't seem bad at all.

As far as I know he did give them warning, it was the letter. Which caused great anger apparently. For what though?

 

[ideasrule]

A tightly-moderated forum might be appropriate for something like PF that's intended to educate people on relatively controversy-free science, but would never work for an atheist forum. The minute certain ideas are barred from discussion, the forum cannot claim to be any better than the churches that demand people accept dogmas without question. Intellectual freedom is an important component of atheism, while "frivolous gossip" and "irrelevant discussions" are vital to any close-knit community.

 

[Borek]

As far as I know he did give them warning, it was the letter. Which caused great anger apparently. For what though?

Doesn't matter "for what". What matters in a long run is that obviously he has not read the community correctly if he was surprised by the effect. And the effect - apart from the angry mails - is that many members of the community added him to the list of their enemies. That's why he should care.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I mean his letter clearly outlines that the forums will be operational again the threads will just go through an approval process... that doesn't seem bad at all.

Full moderation will kill the community. It will take way too much energy and slows the pace of a forum to a crawl.

 

[ideasrule]

As far as I know he did give them warning, it was the letter. Which caused great anger apparently. For what though?

Did you even read the blog post mentioned in the first post of this thread? The letter was NOT a warning; it was a reaction.

 

[arildno]

Whats so important about an atheist forum? I agree with that religion and science are separate entities.

Indeed.
One concerns reality, the other is, only, much ado about nothing.

 

[Borek]

I would not call science ado about nothing

 

[zomgwtf]

Did you even read the blog post mentioned in the first post of this thread? The letter was NOT a warning; it was a reaction.

The letter was not a warning... interesting proposal you bring here to the table. Begs the question then doesn't it, what was the reaction to? You think that suddenly forum members started expressing their outrage towards Dawkins for changing the forum set-up prior to knowing that the forum set-up was going to be changed! I am sure that since the majority of the people there are skeptics they would be highly skeptical of claims that certain members FORESAW WHAT WAS COMING!

Alas, it didn't go down like that. What a shame. What a shame.

Dear forum members,

We wanted you all to know at the earliest opportunity about our new website currently in development. RichardDawkins.net will have a new look and feel, improved security, and much more. Visits to the site have really grown over the past 3 1/2 years, and this update gives us an opportunity to address several issues. Over the years we've become one of the world's leading resources for breaking rational and scientific news from all over the net and creating original content. We are focusing on quality content distribution, and will be bringing more original articles, video and other content as we grow.

The new RichardDawkins.net will have a fully-integrated discussion section. This will be a new feature for the site, similar to the current forum, but not identical. We feel the new system will be much cleaner and easier to use, and hopefully this will encourage participation from a wider variety of users.

We will leave the current forum up for 30 days, giving regular users an opportunity to locally archive any content they value. When the new website goes live, you are welcome to submit these posts as new discussions. The forum will then be taken down from the web. You will not loose your username on the new system.

The new discussion area will not be a new forum. It will be different. We will be using a system of tags to categorize items, instead of sub-forums. Discussions can have multiple tags, such as "Education", "Children", and "Critical Thinking". Starting a new discussion will require approval, so we ask that you only submit new discussions that are truly relevant to reason and science. Subsequent responses on the thread will not need approval—however anything off topic or violating the new terms of service will be removed. The approval process will be there to ensure the quality of posts on the site. This is purely an editorial exercise to help new visitors find quality content quickly. We hope this discussion area will reflect the foundation's goals and values.

We know that this is a big decision. We know some of you will be against this change. We ask that you respect our decision and help make this transition as smooth as possible.

We're confident that these changes will improve the site experience and we look forward to seeing what you do with the new system.

Many thanks again.

 

[zomgwtf]

Full moderation will kill the community. It will take way too much energy and slows the pace of a forum to a crawl.

I agree at the moment, since there isn't really a major outline of the proposed editorial process I can't say for certain. All that is stated is that only the original post for the thread will go through the process, all other posts after that do not go through the process and are moderated as would be done in a regular forum.

I don't think that it really matters if Dawkins 'creates enemies'... however few there will be because of this.

I think that this will bring the level of discussion up more. The level of moderation that needs to occur in a forum on religion is FAR greater than that of a forum on science. (my assumption) Clearly they want to try this out and see how it goes. If people don't like it well then, it seems they have a problem now don't they?

It's clear that he wants discussions to move towards a more 'quality articles' than post whatever you want whenever you want.

 

[arildno]

I would not call science ado about nothing

It is not?

What existed before the Big Bang, then?