The title is self explanatory.
(is forum a democracy? agree with everyone else, fine, disagree, out)
This is a forum for iNaturalist users to discuss iNat-related topics, report bugs, and request new features.
https://forum.inaturalist.org/about
iNaturalist created this forum as a place for members of the iNaturalist community to have constructive discussions about iNaturalist-related issues, provide feedback, and nerd out about nature-related topics.
If you want a meaningful vote, shouldnât there be two options to vote for?
No. Unfortunately, the iNat Forum is not a democracy. See:
If we step back and take a broader perspective, very few places (including Facebook groups, Reddit groups, etc) online are a true democracy. For logistical reasons (allowing the group to achieve its purpose), there are usually moderators with god-like powers, whose decisions are absolute, and who are difficult or impossible to question.
This is not ideal, and Tony is aware of it:
Itâs no fun to be censored. But for practical reasons, this is what we agree to when we participate on the internet!
If you keep your comments civil, donât go too far off-topic, and donât call out any other individual inatters about something you think is wrong, your comments wonât be blocked. And youâre free to disagree with others as much as you like. A reasonable free-speech arrangement, I think.
It is for bragging about seeing cool bugs.
Isnât that completely normal and expected? Every time a politician puts themselves up for election, they either get voted in, or they get voted out. Thereâs usually no mystery as to why: the ones who are good at selling their vision tend to get (re-)elected, whilst the others donât. Thatâs why so much money is spent on campaigning.
Itâs always much easier to blame âthe systemâ, or indulge in conspiracy theories, than accept that, sometimes, what one says, and how one says it, just isnât very convincing.
Well that but also this.
the purposes of the biggest internet forums are generally to sell ads targeted to its users. I tend to be grateful that isnât the case here.
Itâs not clear what you mean by a âdemocracyâ, but the forum isnât a democracy. The forum is run by iNaturalist staff, who have control over whatâs posted, and can remove content or restrict access. There are also volunteer moderators who are not staff who have most of the powers that iNat staff have here.
We try to be as transparent as possible when it comes to moderation decisions and base them on the forum guidelines, and are open to feedback and changing moderation decisions based on civil, legitimate appeals, but there isnât a way to vote out someone, or to overturn a moderation decision via a vote. Note that flags are also not âvotesâ, they are a way for someone to bring content to the attention of moderators.
Note that if a piece of content is flagged by three accounts, it will be hidden immediately. For example, if someone posts pornography, or a hateful screed, or something along those lines, and moderators donât catch it right away, three flags from community members will hide it from public view. Discourse also weights flags based on oneâs history of flagging, basically a trust score. If someone has a history of flagging content that moderators donât think should have been flagged, their flags may not be weighted as much. Someone with a high trust score, who has a history of flags that have been confirmed to be legit flags by moderators, may be able to hide a post with just one flag. See more at https://meta.discourse.org/t/understanding-post-flags-in-discourse/275
As for chain of command and accountability: currently I supervise volunteer forum moderators, and if someone has a private complaint about a volunteer moderator, they can send it to me. If someone has a private complaint about me, my supervisor is Carrie Seltzer.
But itâs intended to be egalitarian, though, right? Within the guidelines, everyone should have an equal say. I could be wrong, but the OP appears to be claiming that this may not be true; that disagreeing with the established âinâ crowd could somehow entail unfair or impartial treatment.
The purpose of the forum (i.e. the use to which itâs actually put) seems an entirely separate matter from the mechanics of how it is run. Again, I could be wrong, but the OPs parenthetical remark would seem to be a non sequitur if this wasnât the correct interpretation. (Unless, that is, theyâre suggesting the moderators/staff in particular have an overbearing influence on the course of most discussions).
Does the established culture of the iNaturalist forum stifle contrary, unpopular, misunderstood, or just plain daft ideas? This may seem like a funny question to ask about an internet forum (we all know what those bears do in the woods) - but I suppose Count Binface would say it doesnât hurt to ask.
Personally: I try my best not to allow my friendships - nor my personal distastes, anger, annoyance etc. - to dictate how I make moderation decisions. Iâve definitely made mistakes. But I ask others to call me out on bad behaviour. Whether or not I consider the feedback helpful and productive depends partially on the other personâs standing â how much I trust them and how much the community trusts them. But thatâs true in any social context.
I (and other mods) been accused a few times of âabusing my dictatorial powersâ but these accusations have largely come from people who were already hostile or inflammatory.
I am not one to blindly follow rules or leaders. But I do respect the necessity of rules to maintain the cohesion and character of a social group. When I feel a rule or ruling is harming the community or an individual, I usually say something in protest, privately or more rarely publicly.
No, it is not a democracy, although it masquerades as one. (Whether it should be a democracy is another matter entirely).
Iâm not going to try and parse the OPâs meaning unless theyâre able to be more specific.
I think youâll find plenty of criticism of iNat and a wide variety of opinions here. I also think itâs important to separate the opinion from how itâs expressed. Unless itâs a clearly hateful opinion, or one thatâs off-topic, in general itâs OK as long as itâs expressed civilly and abides by the guidelines. But that doesnât mean others canât disagree with it or argue against it. Some opinions are going to be less popular than others.
I canât speak for that OP means, but in my experience, those in a democracy with unpopular opinions tend to view the lack of support for their ideas itself as an indication that the democracy is unfair or not egalitarian. i.e. if I declare that iNat ought to stop accepting observations of chickens, and I really think thatâs an awesome idea, Iâd be allowed to express that opinion- but every person to respond will tell me thatâs a bad idea. That doesnât mean the forum lacks equity, it means I have an unpopular opinion. I have the right to say what I think, everyone else has the right to then tell me they disagree. I know so many people who are convinced theyâre being oppressed because any time they express their unpopular views, people tell them theyâre wrong. Thatâs just how free expression of ideas works though; the undemocratic thing to do is to tell everyone they need to give special deference to those with unpopular opinions to appease them.
Hereâs my own potentially unpopular view: if the purpose of democracy is to give everyone a say and then select the most popular opinion, then democracy literally is âstifling contrary, unpopular, misunderstood, or just plain daft ideasâ by another name. If Iâm free to say a thing and then everyone else is free to tell me Iâm wrong if they disagree then the system is working.
IMO, the forum is a hegemony run by an elite group of forum monitors with absolute power to control, guide or restrict conversation. Mostly their power used use benignly. Sometimes it is heavy handed and uncalled for. The rigid control of what they perceive as âon topicâ is what, again IMO, gives this forum the rather dull air of a high school study hall that limits the participation of more than a tiny, tiny handful of the 4,000,000+ users of iNaturalist. But in their defense, internet forums have a limited lifespan before trolls eventually destroy the community. By never really letting the community flourish, iNaturalist eliminates the potential for trolls to destroy it. As it is, it performs what I see as the purpose of this forum, to provide users with a place they can provide feedback, ask questions, and promote iNaturalist without letting any messy conversations get in the way.
Oh, and a place to beat dead horses. This forum is the king of beating dead horses.
The forum is the place to share in-jokes.
Personally I also find that if my opinion seems to be getting nearly universal disagreement in a community of people who are otherwise generally reasonable and intelligent, it is a often signal that maybe I need to step back and reflect on my opinion and whether maybe I need to consider other perspectives. Not because everyone else is automatically right, but because sometimes I am wrong or because my view is not the only valid way of seeing things.
At the same time, there is undeniably a tendency in the forum for the people disagreeing with a minority opinion to repeatedly and emphatically express this. In addition, many of us are highly educated people for whom debate can be sort of an intellectual sport; we may also enjoy an advantage in such discussions if English happens to be our first language. I get that this may sometimes feel like a pile-on to the person holding a minority opinion. I have probably been guilty of contributing to such pile-ons on occasion.
I find the forum interesting for seeing different work flows. Why DO you do that ? Why donât you âdo it my wayâ ? From that I may often find a better way to achieve what I want. At very least, I walk away understanding that there is (obvs) a good reason for why you choose to do that your way. We can walk away and agree to differ. I have been on iNat for 8 years, iNat has changed and I have learnt a bit more.
With the split between, I observe, but expect you to ID vs I ID and then grumble about your obs. And the whole spectrum across that range.
How many of our Forum threads are âhow do Iâ ?
Or âwhy doesnât this workâ ?
âIs this a bugâ ?
Overall the Forum is useful, but I regret the people who have sadly and silently left.
âEverything in moderation, including moderationâ, as Oscar Wilde said. Good advice.