I propose adding :
Rule #2 : Posts have to include scientific stuff with a related credible source.
I’m not sure I agree, as that would turn it into an exclusively science news community. A more general science discussion forum is admittedly much more demanding to moderate, but also opens things up for more activity.
Like, what if someone finds a funny clip from some flat earther or something, and wants to post it here for general amusement value, knowing it’d probably not do any actual harm here?
Either keep it more general, or split out popsci / science news community. Personally I’d only do that if there’s a lot of content posted.
Good idea in principle. Do peer-reviewed journals only count as credible? If not, what is your proposed criteria?
I mean, using peer teviewed journals and „credible“ in the same sentence these days is quite gutsy, ngl. Source: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/feb/03/the-situation-has-become-appalling-fake-scientific-papers-push-research-credibility-to-crisis-point
Until traffic becomes unmanageable, we shouldn’t fracture communities too much. In fact, we should do the opposite, to drive discoverability and discussion. If the community grows to a hundred posts per day, and there are non-stop pseudoscience articles posted, then adapt.
As of now, /c/science has five posts that are less than a day old. When the community starts to get more crowded, then we should worry about making it more selective.
