On Chemistry Stack Exchange, we have a policy against questions that exists only to promote unconventional theories (see What topics can I ask about here?):
Some kinds of questions aren’t allowed here:
(…)
- Pitches for your own personal theories or work: We deal with mainstream chemistry here. Anything that couldn’t be published in a reputable journal is probably not appropriate at this site.
(…)
In particular, such theories may include (but are not limited to) the chemical aspects of conspiracy theories (such as water fluoridation, chemtrails, World Trade Center controlled demolition, or Holocaust denial), pseudoscientific theories (such as homeopathy, water memory, perpetual motion, water-fuelled car, cold fusion, or alkaline diet), and other personal ideas that are not accepted by the scientific community.
Sometimes we also get answers that give the impression that they mainly exist to promote an unconventional theory that is not accepted by the scientific community. An example of such an answer can be found here. Such answers usually attract some downvotes and a few flags. Generally, downvotes are appropriate for answers that are wrong (i.e. not in accordance with accepted theories and experiments), and flagging is a suitable way of bringing inappropriate content to the attention of the community or moderators. However, moderator intervention needs to be based on site policies or needs the backing of the community, and the current formal policy only covers questions but not answers. Hence, I feel it preferable to have community consensus before moderators act upon flags and delete answers.
Therefore, I am asking for proposals for a community guideline that clarifies how we should identify and handle answers that exist mainly to promote unconventional theories that are not accepted by the scientific community, assuming that the question tries to answer the question (i.e. “not an answer” flags are not applicable) and is not blatant spam.
Some preliminary thoughts:
- Should the existing policy for questions be extended to answers?
- Are the definitions of mainstream chemistry and reputable journal clear enough?
- Should the guideline be limited to unconventional theories or be generalized for any answers that are considered extremely wrong?
- Should such answers be deleted, or wouldn’t it be more to the point if they stay – with downvotes that clearly indicate the assessment of the community?
- Would users prefer to delete answers because downvotes on answers remove 1 reputation from the voter?
