Many of us hail from /r/conspiracy due to dissatisfaction with some of the things over there, so what problems did/does /r/conspiracy suffer from which /v/conspiracy can learn from and deter?
What could moderators do to make this a more effective community hub for uncovering, organizing, sharing, and discussing information about conspiracies and secret agreements and all the related things that go into that?
What can non-moderators do to achieve the same goals?
Beyond the goals of sharing and discussing conspiracies and conspiracy theories, are there any other things that we would like to see on this subverse?
Are there any other questions we could ask ourselves and seek to answer with the aim of making the subverse and community excellent?
Is this too many questions for one post? :P
Please share your thoughts in the comments - even if you don't subscribe but have ideas or suggestions!
Edit: 14 days later and I'm now a moderator here. I'm stickying this post so anyone who missed it before can participate.
edit2: followup discussion here: [Meta] Brainstorming Thread #2: What could vconspiracy do to better itself? Take a look at this summary of ideas from the previous discussion, and share your thoughts!
view the rest of the comments →
Mumberthrax ago
Something that I've kind of toyed with in the past on reddit was the idea of community-driven projects (see: /r/conspiracyprojects). Things like consolidated vocabularies of all the different terms, characters, theories that are popular or significant in the conspiracy theory world. Or a process through which theories are reviewed, indexed, information compiled and organized, from an open-minded and skeptical viewpoint. Or some sort of timeline project. Basically things that help those trying to learn, trying to piece things together for themselves, but all of it sort of crowdsourced with community involvement, promoting a sense of pride in each other and familiarity. None of this is really fleshed out, just ideas.
Recently @catechuman and a few others and I talked briefly about something like this. Might be interesting to read if this idea sounds appealing.
Dysnomia ago
I approve. Reminds me of why I like rationalwiki so much. That even why I might disagree with their consensus view sometimes, they do a very good justice to alternative views with comprehensive references and attention to detail.
Edit: I'm less swayed by the ranking scale though. Never did like ranking things. I find comparing them more than sufficient for my purposes. I find ranking systems invite bullying. My 2¢.
Mumberthrax ago
I like rationalwiki too, except when it gets a bit scoffing at things that don't meet the status quo. I seem to recall adding an image to their page on crop circles back in the early days of one of the more famous and large elegant designs to have been found, while the the text on the page said something to the effect of "crop circles are areas of flattened wheat made by two guys with boards and rope". The image is gone now, replaced with a cartoon of aliens playing tic-tac-toe. So definitely not as unbiased or objective as I would personally prefer. But yes, the general idea is similar.
Would you be willing to elaborate on your concerns about the rating system? I think it's useful to be able to distinguish between groups of theories like hollow earth, reptilians morphing on news broadcasts, and tinfoil hats versus theories like CIA killing JFK, Monsanto seeking global food supply control, 9/11 controlled demolitions, and versus theories like operation mockingbird, the nariyah incubator lie, and gulf of tonkin.
It's just a tool, from my perspective, for categorizing things to make discussion easier, not neccesarily a universal definitive objective "This theory is definitely batshit insane!" and "This theory shall always be in the class 3 section, will never be deemed essentially proven!" sort of deal.
Dysnomia ago
Monsanto is a willing patsy for Bayer, Dupont, Pfizer, the list goes on. Take a look at the size of those other corporations and their investment in the conspiracy. Monsanto is just the tip of the iceberg.
Hollow earth is still pretty compelling to me. As are perception fields failing during live broadcasts. Neither of my positions on those subjects implies I wear tinfoil hats. ~~Besides, everyone knows a steel colander is 800% more effective at shielding mind control rays.~~ Struckthru bit was sarcasm.
Nriyah incubator lie is news to me. More info on what that is would be nice.
I don't oppose you using that system to help you, I simply don't endorsing that system as a function of /v/conspiracy's rules or anything. I feel it would be prone to abuse, and that these ratings would be subjective rather than objective, and thus treat the fringe of the fringes unfairly.
Edit: oh yeh, that Nariyah girl who was caught lying barefacedly to start a war. Did anyone ever prosecute that psycopath?
Mumberthrax ago
I don't see anything about it in the wikipedia article on the subject https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_%28testimony%29 so I'm assuming she and those who put her up to it pretty much endured no repercussions.
Yeah I get what you're saying about the idea of a group deciding on some sort of official determination on a theory. I'm not saying that it is impossible for the hollow earth theories to be true, nor that it is impossible for peter jennings to actually be an alien or demon or something accidentally shapeshift on TV. I just think it makes sense to be able to classify these things based on the amount of evidence supporting them. There are mountains of evidence that 9/11 was a controlled demolition, and even more solid evidence that MKULTRA and operation Mockingbird were real projects, compared with minimal evidence for hollow earth, flat earth, and shapeshifting tv correspondents. A lack of sufficient evidence doesn't mean the theories are not worth investigating, doesn't mean they aren't true, just means that more investigation is required for those in order to convince a neutral or skeptical person.