Many members, including myself sometimes cry "unfairness" when we are down voted in RG, especially when we feel that the reason for such is not based on an authoritative source but simply non-conformance to our answers.
I take Upvoting to be a like, an 'agreement' or strong agreement. But a downvote may mean disagreement with the idea being expressed on RG discussion. For a thesis defense, the evaluator should give a reason for downvoting, by pointing out the errors. If the same is done on RG, wouldn't it reflect our objectivity, that we downvote for a reason? In fact, we can still disagree on RG without having to downvote? As we know, our knowledge is relative and at times, imperfect.
I take Upvoting to be a like, an 'agreement' or strong agreement. But a downvote may mean disagreement with the idea being expressed on RG discussion. For a thesis defense, the evaluator should give a reason for downvoting, by pointing out the errors. If the same is done on RG, wouldn't it reflect our objectivity, that we downvote for a reason? In fact, we can still disagree on RG without having to downvote? As we know, our knowledge is relative and at times, imperfect.
I believe that if your suggestion/comment is considered by our colleagues in RG who have the propensity of down voting, that is, pointing out what is erroneous, without hiding in anonymity, but stating the reason, down voting would be accepted as a "critical" evaluation, not as a personal, biased, action. Thanks MIranda.
No straight answer to this. Not everybody who voted you up or down, did meticulously read or review your work.
I have seen in RG people who disagree for very good reasons. The idea of "debate" is based on disagreement. In fact, there is no debate without disagreement. In theory, downvoting would not be necessary if people voiced their disagreements for all to see. Shielding behind anonymity to cast a negative vote without explaining why has nothing to do with a critical stance and does not add to the discussion. I am totally baffled by the anonymity of downvoting here. I cannot understand why RG has this flaw!
Best regards, Lilliana
In my opinion there should not be downvoting on the said ground
If we are to tally the opinions of the RG members, almost all of us here opine the unnecessariness of down voting. In fact, even in the discussions, down voters are still in anonymity (meaning they are not confident of their vote). Perhaps this statistic could serve as a message to the RG Administrators to reconsider their policy on down voting/ upvoting.
Of course down voting serves as a "spice" to our fora.
I completely agree with you Wolfgang F. Schwarz. "A scientific forum living by arguments" will encourage participants to deliver their best arguments and/or provide authoritative sources/literature.And this will enhance the quality of the participants' contributions to the discussion, which will be positive to RG.
Do the upvoters / downvoters in RG reflect the objectivity/bias of evaluators in actual thesis/dissertation defense?
Agreed with the point shared by Miranda that during viva, the examiner needs to explain why s/he "downvotes" / critiques certain points of the thesis (the examiner can't getaway scot-free like the anonymous RG downvoters). Moreover, during viva face to face session, the examiner can ask further questions on the spot to qualify or gain further clarifications before critiquing the points that s/he disagreed with. But in RG we can't do that, hence RG should provide a mechanism to get the downvoter to open up / clarify their "downvotes".
yes i fully agree with sir Eddie Seva. i still dont understand downvoting has some strong base to it, we just do it if one is not agreeing the views which should not be there.manytimes people are appreciating your articles they are reading and no reason you have downvotes. i think it should be changed.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Philosophy Of Science
- Reasoning