While I don't think this necessarily invalidates all of the information and points in the article, I think some important context on the shortcomings can be found in the authors. I didn't know who they were so I did a quick google search. One of them is on twitter blaming "wokeness" for our issues and criticizing if we should have had lockdowns during the height of the pandemic, and the other got in trouble in 2013 for saying "Dear obese phd applicants, if you lack the discipline to diet, you lack the discipline for a phd program", and has an online 'suggested reading' list with some absolutely terrible books on it.
yikes, thanks for the context
As admins, how do we want to handle submissions (posts) in light of what was uncovered by @MicholasMouse@beehaw.org?
The authors are both incredibly suspect here and, IMHO, should be rejected from any mention on this instance. Questioning the prevailing science around a pandemic with human lives at stake? Egregious, insulting and harmful statements directed at certain individuals?
I think @MicholasMouse hits on a lot of the same thoughts I have on the issue. There is ultimately a potential good that can come from an article like this. Pointing out the problems with the authors is a good practice which can help to frame what's here better and can help people to learn where the authors fall flat or what they didn't consider when writing this article.
A blanket rejection isn't warranted, I don't think, especially when the poster attempts to frame that it's a problematic article. I think that @thursday_j did a great job giving this an appropriate title for the downsides/problems with the article. I also think this discussion we've been having is a good example of how to discuss problematic content, without removing it from the server.
Agreed. If we don't call out the problems, isn't it tacit approval?
While I don't think this necessarily invalidates all of the information and points in the article, I think some important context on the shortcomings can be found in the authors. I didn't know who they were so I did a quick google search. One of them is on twitter blaming "wokeness" for our issues and criticizing if we should have had lockdowns during the height of the pandemic, and the other got in trouble in 2013 for saying "Dear obese phd applicants, if you lack the discipline to diet, you lack the discipline for a phd program", and has an online 'suggested reading' list with some absolutely terrible books on it.
yikes, thanks for the context
As admins, how do we want to handle submissions (posts) in light of what was uncovered by @MicholasMouse@beehaw.org?
The authors are both incredibly suspect here and, IMHO, should be rejected from any mention on this instance. Questioning the prevailing science around a pandemic with human lives at stake? Egregious, insulting and harmful statements directed at certain individuals?
I think @MicholasMouse hits on a lot of the same thoughts I have on the issue. There is ultimately a potential good that can come from an article like this. Pointing out the problems with the authors is a good practice which can help to frame what's here better and can help people to learn where the authors fall flat or what they didn't consider when writing this article.
A blanket rejection isn't warranted, I don't think, especially when the poster attempts to frame that it's a problematic article. I think that @thursday_j did a great job giving this an appropriate title for the downsides/problems with the article. I also think this discussion we've been having is a good example of how to discuss problematic content, without removing it from the server.
Agreed. If we don't call out the problems, isn't it tacit approval?