Can we have a place where we dispose of misinformation and posts?

[diadromous mermaid 36]

It's been bothering me for some time, but the volume of misinformation being bandied about on VJ of late is astonishing. What could we do with a forum, if it became clutted with threads containing information shared as true, when not at all factual and could lead so many astray?

As it stands right now, someone could stumble upon a discussion, read it, think it accurate and depend upon it to their detriment. This is especially so, if some newbie (name withheld) shuts down the line of discussion where a member is trying to get facts out there.

If we had such a disposal system, then when members came across clearly inaccurate information they could inform moderators of the location of the diabolic stuff, and the moderator could simply deposit the post, or quite possible the entire thread, as in the case with christinejohn in this thread, in the "Trash compactor" never to be seen again ?

[*Snowdrop* 604]

It is hard sometimes to wade through a thread with several people contradicting each other and not knowing who is right and wrong.

Although with some subjects where it's not black and white, debate is good.

Couldn't the report post feature be adapted for this?

[Otto 83]

It's been bothering me for some time, but the volume of misinformation being bandied about on VJ of late is astonishing. What could we do with a forum, if it became clutted with threads containing information shared as true, when not at all factual and could lead so many astray?

As it stands right now, someone could stumble upon a discussion, read it, think it accurate and depend upon it to their detriment. This is especially so, if some newbie (name withheld) shuts down the line of discussion where a member is trying to get facts out there.

If we had such a disposal system, then when members came across clearly inaccurate information they could inform moderators of the location of the diabolic stuff, and the moderator could simply deposit the post, or quite possible the entire thread, as in the case with christinejohn in this thread, in the "Trash compactor" never to be seen again ?

I think if you (or anyone) feel(s) a thread/topic (or post) is totally out of line - all one needs to do is report it and let Ewok take care of it in an appropriate manner.

[diadromous mermaid 36]

It's been bothering me for some time, but the volume of misinformation being bandied about on VJ of late is astonishing. What could we do with a forum, if it became clutted with threads containing information shared as true, when not at all factual and could lead so many astray?

As it stands right now, someone could stumble upon a discussion, read it, think it accurate and depend upon it to their detriment. This is especially so, if some newbie (name withheld) shuts down the line of discussion where a member is trying to get facts out there.

If we had such a disposal system, then when members came across clearly inaccurate information they could inform moderators of the location of the diabolic stuff, and the moderator could simply deposit the post, or quite possible the entire thread, as in the case with christinejohn in this thread, in the "Trash compactor" never to be seen again ?

I think if you (or anyone) feel(s) a thread/topic (or post) is totally out of line - all one needs to do is report it and let Ewok take care of it in an appropriate manner.

"out of line" and wholly inaccurate are different, and reporting a post only alerts Ewok to the fact that there is some debate. While I can't say for sure, but there might be cases where Ewok doesn't know if the information is correct. No offense Ewok...but unless you work with the information on a daily basis, who could be expected to know. What can't be contraverted is if there is a source from USCIS (in date of course) or some other agency that clearly sets the matter straight.

When a post is reported, it doesn't remove it from onther's eyes. I am not proposing that the thread be removed entirely...just references to information that is clearly not accurate. A notation could be made within a post that material was deleted and sent to the trash compacter, due to its erroneous content.

[Krikit 1,164]

I must admit I feel the same frustration from time to time. Most of the time I let it go because this isn't a professional legal services site. It should come with a "User Beware" warning. Maybe the erroneous posts could be tagged with a " contains inaccurate information" indicator. I'm not sure that trashing them would be helpful because some parts of a post may be wholly correct. Plus I find that reading discussions on a topic where members are thrashing it out is quite a useful learning experience. Conflicting information actually helps to bring out the wherefores and whys of a particular law or regulation which, in turn, provides clarification to my understanding of a process.

Edited February 23, 2008 by Crikey!

[Lansbury 19]

I think as you did in the post that resulted in this request you correct the incorrect information.

I for one wouldn't want these posts or threads removed as I am quite capable of reading them and understanding who is right or wrong. Also none of us is beyond being wrong and I find it just as helpful if I post information which is incorrect when someone takes the time to correct it. If I hadn't of posted it I would have never know I was misinformed on that matter, others reading the post might also realise they had wrong information as well.

Just a shame some people can't point out others errors without ramming it down their throat

[Krikit 1,164]

Just a shame some people can't point out others errors without ramming it down their throat

And also a shame that some can't accept that their information is flawed.

Edited February 23, 2008 by Crikey!

[diadromous mermaid 36]

I think as you did in the post that resulted in this request you correct the incorrect information.

I for one wouldn't want these posts or threads removed as I am quite capable of reading them and understanding who is right or wrong. Also none of us is beyond being wrong and I find it just as helpful if I post information which is incorrect when someone takes the time to correct it. If I hadn't of posted it I would have never know I was misinformed on that matter, others reading the post might also realise they had wrong information as well.

Just a shame some people can't point out others errors without ramming it down their throat

I was feeling a bit frustrated this morning, when I began this thread, so perhaps I could flesh my thoughts out a bit better.

I wasn't recommending that we take threads and simply make them disappear, rather that we could indicate somewhere within the discourse, that some "content" might have been removed because it was wholly inaccurate. That way the discussion is preserved and any potentially misleading information is not stressed upon. Maybe, instead, rather than placing the content in a compacter, it might be possible to place a 1/2 tone background to it, with a notation that the low-lighting has been added because there is a question as to its accuracy?

Edited February 23, 2008 by diadromous mermaid

[Lansbury 19]

I wasn't recommending that we take threads and simply make them disappear, rather that we could indicate somewhere within the discourse, that some "content" might have been removed because it was wholly inaccurate.

I think both are equally as bad, either removing the whole thread of the "wrong" bit. I have seen wrong information given in threads which until someone pointed out it was wrong and said why I thought was right. Therefore by leaving the incorrect content in place it gives others the opportunity to learn from it.

The way you did it in the other thread was a good way. Point out the errors and post evidence from the USCIS or other official site to support the correct version.

The idea of greying out or marking incorrect information has considerable merit.

[rebeccajo 14]

I like the idea of 'greying out' questionable information.

The only problem with this idea, or any where we are moderating information, is who is going to handle the task?

[*JG* 2]

I like the idea of 'greying out' questionable information.

The only problem with this idea, or any where we are moderating information, is who is going to handle the task?

Exactly. I would also add that sometimes the information is not exactly black and white. From reading on here, I've found that there is a grey area most times. What we as a concensus believe to be the facts are sometimes not so in some individual cases.

I find it harder to stomach some VJ "God" deleting and/or greing areas. I like the fact that people on here say "well, this is what happened to us" and we all are then able to take what we read and adjust it to our own situations.

[Marilyn. 340]

that is my problem too... who decides if the info is "correct" or not...???

[Captain Ewok 1,891]

I have to agree. There is no one person probably here that can determine those things and presume to be correct all the time. Open shared discussion at least allows for a community effort to derive proper information. I could enable the rating tool for posts that allow people to rate posts however that also leads sometimes to people rating based on various opinions.

Another idea I had is below topics there is the similar topics area. I could code something that lists "similar FAQ's" or "similar Guides" to help people find information.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Captain,

A message board format, by its very nature, will have misinformation. Anyone who relies solely on information gathered here deserves what they get.

Maybe a disclaimer message at the top or bottom telling people to do their own sanity checks?

[diadromous mermaid 36]

I have to agree. There is no one person probably here that can determine those things and presume to be correct all the time. Open shared discussion at least allows for a community effort to derive proper information. I could enable the rating tool for posts that allow people to rate posts however that also leads sometimes to people rating based on various opinions.

Another idea I had is below topics there is the similar topics area. I could code something that lists "similar FAQ's" or "similar Guides" to help people find information.

Indeed, but I don't think it would really involve someone having anything more than a keen eye.

What I was proposing was not someone to make decisions for or against, but, to see when there is obvious conflicting information. Conflicting in the sense that it is diametrically opposed to what the regulations state. Take for example, last night the thread that got my blood boiling, was the one about the I-130. Not to make an issue over any one member, but there was a person on there claiming that if an OP's wife were to choose to remain in the US and adjust, she would be doing so at great risk, and likely subjected to deportation. Someone else chimed in and said, that it is ok to file, but to leave before the I-94 expires.

Better yet. Member A asks how long does he or she have to marry a K-1 and not violate the terms of the visa. Member B answers 150. Member C corrects and says 90, and attaches a quote from USCIS to corroborate that fact. Member B continues to affirm that the correct answer is 150. Should that reference be low-lighted out, with a notation that says something like, "removed from discussion. Members should please check sources for veracity".

Now, I realise there is noone on here that is in right mind going to tell anyone *what* to do, nor am I suggesting that...but if you can place reference to a body of work that is either the CFR or the INA, and the member continues to ignore what is plainly written...then, in my opinion, that is being irresponsible.

We all know we are not to offer advice (not for UPL reasons, although that can be a consideration), but because we are not familiar with the specifics of anyone's case but our own, and there is too much at stake.

I guess my furor is over the fact that I hve been active on this and several other sites for a period of 6 years now. It's one thing to say don't give advice, but a personal opinion is AOK. It's another to permit "opinions" to remain that are not accurate. I am simply saying that there are two ways to skin a cat. One is to offer advice when one does not have either the qualfications to do, one has not assumed the liability for it, nor does one have enough information about the case to render advice. The other issue is also to give information out that is inaccurate, cloaked as an "opinion" that could cause an individual to make a wrong choice.