Site Policies Regarding Links and URLs

Here is the place for your suggestions, comments, or questions regarding the Philosophy Forums.
User avatar
Carol
New Trial Member
Posts: 10
Joined: October 30th, 2016, 1:24 pm

Re: Site Policies Regarding Links and URLs

Post by Carol » October 31st, 2016, 5:04 pm

Wow, this forum looks as controlled as the church of old. I am reminded of a forum I drop out of because I have a phobic reaction to being confined by too much control. Kind of makes me think about what our reality would be if the church had managed to main control?

User avatar
Venryx
New Trial Member
Posts: 0
Joined: August 15th, 2017, 5:30 am

Re: Site Policies Regarding Links and URLs

Post by Venryx » August 15th, 2017, 9:21 am

This is pretty disappointing. I've spent a good amount of time over the years on various forums, and being able to link freely to relevant information is really helpful.

I don't understand why there is so much fear about people linking to "non-credible sources". If it's a bad source, people can demonstrate that by pointing out its flaws; it doesn't need hand-holding by mods to designate what sources they find acceptable or not.

For example, many people find Wikipedia to be a powerful starting place for understanding a topic, and I agree. I respect that the owners disagree on this, though would urge them to rethink the decision, and ask: even if they don't consider Wikipedia and such reliable, is it really to such an extreme that discussions get *damaged* by it? At worst, I believe it would just not contribute much. And in the absence of a solid danger, censorship tends to just reduce community interaction. I know that on the personal level, sadly, the strict linking policy has reduced my likelihood of engaging here much. (which is a shame since it seems to have quality conversations)

Also, I am sad because they declined my first post, which linked to a page I spent 5+ hours creating specifically for one of the threads, because they said it was self-promotion. :'(

User avatar
Empiricist-Bruno
Queue Moderator
Posts: 330
Joined: July 15th, 2014, 1:52 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Berkeley
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: Site Policies Regarding Links and URLs

Post by Empiricist-Bruno » August 17th, 2017, 5:28 pm

Venrix, no links are allowed for new people until they have made 10 posts, and this could mean 10 posts in the on topic sections...
All you need is love- (But not the one from narcissists)

Gertie
Posts: 402
Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am

Re: Site Policies Regarding Links and URLs

Post by Gertie » August 18th, 2017, 1:29 pm

Venryx wrote:This is pretty disappointing. I've spent a good amount of time over the years on various forums, and being able to link freely to relevant information is really helpful.

I don't understand why there is so much fear about people linking to "non-credible sources". If it's a bad source, people can demonstrate that by pointing out its flaws; it doesn't need hand-holding by mods to designate what sources they find acceptable or not.

For example, many people find Wikipedia to be a powerful starting place for understanding a topic, and I agree. I respect that the owners disagree on this, though would urge them to rethink the decision, and ask: even if they don't consider Wikipedia and such reliable, is it really to such an extreme that discussions get *damaged* by it? At worst, I believe it would just not contribute much. And in the absence of a solid danger, censorship tends to just reduce community interaction. I know that on the personal level, sadly, the strict linking policy has reduced my likelihood of engaging here much. (which is a shame since it seems to have quality conversations)

Also, I am sad because they declined my first post, which linked to a page I spent 5+ hours creating specifically for one of the threads, because they said it was self-promotion. :'(
I agree it's a pain.

Once you grind your way through your first 20 posts, if you can be bothered, it's much looser. After a couple of rejections for annoying reasons I ended up making a lot of short inane posts I wasn't much invested in to get past the 20 post barrier.

Post Reply