There is a world somewhere between reality and fiction. Although ignored by many, it is very real and so are those living in it. This forum is about the natural world. Here, wild animals will be heard and respected. The forum offers a glimpse into an unknown world as well as a room with a view on the present and the future. Anyone able to speak on behalf of those living in the emerald forest and the deep blue sea is invited to join.
08-26-2020, 06:53 PM( This post was last modified: 08-27-2020, 03:26 AM by peter )
ALL
In spite of the title, this thread didn't developed quite as planned (accumulation of good information). This post is an attempt to analyse the situation and get to a conclusion.
1 - Fact or fiction
Wildfact is a public forum about the natural world. Here, those inhabiting the natural world are heard and respected. The aim is good information. Good information is based on research. This means a thread dedicated to baleen whales has to offer information based on research. This is what visitors expect and this is what they will get.
Good information is different from, say, a debate. If a thread is created to debate, it has to be made clear before you start reading. The best way to get there is to announce it. The title has to be loud and clear, that is.
The title of this thread is 'Baleen whales'. Not 'A debate of a speculative nature about the relation between baleen whales and sharks, mixed with information about the relation between sharks and orcas'. As this didn't happen, the result is confusion.
2 - Focus
The aim of Wildfact is to concentrate information about a species in a limited number of threads. One reason to do it this way is to prevent dispersion of information. Another is we don't want visitors losing their way.
A debate on interaction between different species in a thread dedicated to one of them is not what we want. We also don't want the debate to move from one thread to another. Same for redirections. The reason is it results in a loss of information. Another is it often results in confusion.
3 - Proceedings
As a result of the issues discussed above, Shadow, a moderator, decided to intervene. At first, the intervention resulted in a few questions. When these did not have the intended effect, the problem was discussed in the mod thread. A day later, Guate, a member who knows a few things about (the interaction between) whales, sharks, orcas and megalodon, joined the debate. Conclusionwise, he and Shadow agreed.
4 - Conclusion
The intention of this thread is to get to good information, not debates. Our proposal is to conclude the debate on baleen whales, sharks, orcas and megalodon. We also decided to merge this thread with the white shark thread.
5 - Bornean Tiger
Your contributions range between very interesting (we, for instance, like the contributions in the landscape thread you recently created) and dubious. Our proposal is to focus on good information from now on. If you want to start a debate and add a bit of pepper (referring to speculative remarks), make sure all of us know before we enter the thread. Remember you need permission to start a thread of this nature.
As to your habit regarding 'redirections'. Although it can serve a purpose at times, it isn't appreciated. One reason is it often results in confusion. Another is it enables you to direct a debate. Debates, however, should be directed by mods.
The last remark is about the tendency to get involved in something most of us (referring to the mods) consider as speculation.
Your posts say you're educated and well-spoken. For this reason, we assume you know the internet today is often used as a means to spread misinformation. The main result is confusion.
Wildfact is a public forum about the natural world. Our main aim is to collect and present reliable information about (the ecology and habits of) those inhabiting that world.
Although many assume people today are better educated and, if you will, 'smarter' than, say, a few generations ago, research suggests this is not quite the case.
Example. Not seldom, I'm contacted by people who, regarding animals, seem to lack information we would consider as basic. This although they're (well) educated and know how to find information on the internet. The problem is the information they're offered not seldom is incomplete, if not outright incorrect. I'm not saying sites like Wikipedia are unreliable (far from it), but it is a fact some of them sometimes offer incorrect information. One example is the story on the large skull of a leopard shot near Ootacamund a century ago. There's no question it was the skull of a young adult tigress, but many still think it was the skull of an exceptional leopard. There's a lot more where that came from.
What we're saying is there is a need for forums offering reliable information about wild animals. They really serve a purpose. We don't mind starting a debate in order to find answers to unsolved problems, but there's a difference between asking questions and trying to find answers using reliable sources (a) and using the opportunity to enter the realm of speculation in general terms (b). The difference is the first method often results in a clear answer (yes, no or unclear), whereas the second often results in heated debates, confusion and zero answers.
Our proposal is to resist the temptation to enter the realm of speculation and focus on good information. We know you're very capable in that department.
