# how to verify answers for accuracy



## raymondaliasapollyon

I don't know if this is the right place to discuss this matter, but a post of mine that requested a forum member to support his answer by reference to a dictionary was recently deleted. The reason for the deletion was, "Most people answer out of their experience with the language; they are not required to a cite a source."

But then I found the following forum rule:

Answering:
Make a reasonable attempt to verify accuracy. If you are unsure of the accuracy of your information or translation, please say so.

How do we ensure that an answer given by a forum member has been verified? If a forum member is a well-educated native speaker of a language we are studying, then we can often take his or her intuitive judgment as evdience that a certain account is reasonable (factually speaking, though not always analytically speaking). However, when a forum member that has posted an answer is NOT a native speaker, then things become tricky. How do we know his or her answers have been verified? Many questions raised in the forums do not have answers in standard study materials. Are answers based on non-native speakers' limited experience or (inadequate) understanding reliable enough to be counted as "verified for accuracy"? How do moderators ensure members post responsibly?


----------



## Andygc

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> How do we ensure that an answer given by a forum member has been verified?


Who is "we"? The forum rule you quote puts the onus on the person posting the answer, not on "we". There are no "verification police" in the forums. It is left to other members to agree or disagree with an answer. Perhaps you should also read the forum's explanation of the role of the moderators FAQ about Moderators


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Andygc said:


> Who is "we"? The forum rule you quote puts the onus on the person posting the answer, not on "we". There are no "verification police" in the forums. It is left to other members to agree or disagree with an answer. Perhaps you should also read the forum's explanation of the role of the moderators FAQ about Moderators



By "we," I refer to all parties concerned. If there is no one or no way to enforce the rule, then it is vacuous and is inappropriately called a "rule."

If the person posting an answer does not verify it, what will happen? A rule should specify some response.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> By "we," I refer to all parties concerned. If there is no one or no way to enforce the rule, then it is vacuous and is inappropriately called a "rule."


If the moderators believe that some users are deliberately and systematically posting careless and inaccurate replies, they will  have a word with them.
That's exactly what happens when people refuse to comply with rule #3 - *Be clear and provide context.*
What happens next depends on the users' willingness to comply.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Paulfromitaly said:


> If the moderators believe that some users are deliberately and systematically posting careless and inaccurate replies, they will  have a word with them.
> That's exactly what happens when people refuse to comply with rule #3 - *Be clear and provide context.*
> What happens next depends on the users' willingness to comply.



Rule #3 has more to do with question posters than with answer posters.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Rule #3 has more to do with question posters than with answer posters.


You asked what happens when people give inaccurate answers and I've pointed out that the way moderators deal with those issues is the same, that is, they get in touch with those foreros.


----------



## User With No Name

From my perspective, a more common problem, especially in the English-Only forum, is when someone posts a question, receives a solid answer from one or several English speakers, and then proceeds to question, argue, debate and insist that the given answer is somehow inadequate in post after post.

I mean, it's fine to ask for clarification and even debate a little, but asking a question and then arguing endlessly when you don't like the answer is just rude. And I don't see how these round-and-round discussions contribute much to the forums' oft-stated purpose as a supplement to the dictionaries.

AN ADDED COMMENT: Also, when I ask questions in these forums, the subjective opinions of educated native speakers are, in general, exactly what I'm looking for. Of course, if someone can answer my question with a reference to a recognized authority, that's great. But for the most part, I can find information in dictionaries and reference books on my own. What I'm usually really looking for is guidance from natives about whether a particular word or a particular construction seems natural in a given context. What I'm hoping for is that two or three natives, ideally people I know from the forums and perhaps from different regions, will say something like "sounds good to me"  (or, conversely, "that sounds silly").

That is valuable information, and it's not always easy to get it elsewhere.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Paulfromitaly said:


> You asked what happens when people give inaccurate answers and I've pointed out that the way moderators deal with those issues is the same, that is, they get in touch with those foreros.



Have you seen any answer posters who have their posts removed for failing to abide by the rule "Make a reasonable attempt to verify accuracy"?

I haven't.



User With No Name said:


> From my perspective, a more common problem, especially in the Enlglish-Only forum, is when someone posts a question, receives a solid answer from one or several English speakers, and then proceeds to question, argue, debate and insist that the give answer is somehow inadequate in post after post.
> 
> I mean, it's fine to ask for clarification and even debate a little, but asking a question and then arguing endlessly when you don't like the answer is just rude. And I don't see how these round-and-round discussions contribute much to the forums' oft-stated purpose as a supplement to the dictionaries.



Some questions are just so difficult that no satisfactory answers can be given.  Endless debates are common in academia. 

But that's outside the realm of the thread.



User With No Name said:


> AN ADDED COMMENT: Also, when I ask questions in these forums, the subjective opinions of educated native speakers are, in general, exactly what I'm looking for. Of course, if someone can answer my question with a reference to a recognized authority, that's great. But for the most part, I can find information in dictionaries and reference books on my own. What I'm usually really looking for is guidance from natives about whether a particular word or a particular construction seems natural in a given context. What I'm hoping for is that two or three natives, ideally people I know from the forums and perhaps from different regions, will say something like "sounds good to me" (or, conversely, "that sounds silly").



My question has to do with the (frustrating) situation where a non-native says a certain word has such-and-such a usage, or a sentence is analyzed in such-and-such a way, when in fact no such usage is recorded in dictionaries or found in standard reference works, nor can they provide independent examples.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Have you seen any answer posters who have their posts removed for failing to abide by the rule "Make a reasonable attempt to verify accuracy"?


Yes I have, when some people were carelessly and systematically giving wrong answers.
Anyone can make mistakes now and then and in general it is not one of the moderators' tasks to assess the accuracy of answers and consequently remove the wrong ones. However when a reply is blatantly wrong, there's always someone who steps in and points it out.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Paulfromitaly said:


> Yes I have, when some people were carelessly and systematically giving wrong answers.
> Anyone can make mistakes now and in general it is not one of the moderators' tasks to assess the accuracy of answers and consequently remove the wrong ones. However when a reply is blatantly wrong, there's always someone who steps in and points it out.



Maybe you could send me a private message describing what you saw.


----------



## Sowka

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> My question has to do with the (frustrating) situation where a non-native says a certain word has such-and-such a usage, or a sentence is analyzed in such-and-such a way, when in fact no such usage is recorded in dictionaries or found in standard reference works, nor can they provide independent examples.


I think in these cases you should wait for the opinions of other forer@s.

One main characteristic of the WordReference forums is that *they go beyond* the rules and examples given in dictionaries. This is the additional value that the forums provide to the WordReference dictionaries. This value is obtained by the discussion among participants with different backgrounds.

In the discussion, you can see where people agree and where they disagree. The decisive aspect is the discussion as a whole, not a single contribution.

By the way, some non-native speakers of German have a far better understanding of German grammar than I, as a native speaker of German, do. It's the cooperation between all the members with different backgrounds that counts.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Sowka said:


> One main characteristic of the WordReference forums is that *they go beyond* the rules and examples given in dictionaries. This is the additional value that the forums provide to the WordReference dictionaries. This value is obtained by the discussion among participants with different backgrounds.
> 
> In the discussion, you can see where people agree and where they disagree. The decisive aspect is the discussion as a whole, not a single contribution.



The problem is that many "insights" that come from non-natives are on an ad hoc basis; they cannot be applied to other sentences. The problem is easy to spot when you ask for independent examples. (Well, to be fair, even natives have this problem, but at least they have their reliable judgmens that could prove useful.)


----------



## Peterdg

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> The problem is that many "insights" that come from non-natives are on a ad hoc basis


Is that true? Can this be verified? Can you prove this?

Even if this is true, are there instances where the, according to you, incorrect answers, are not corrected by other participants in the threads?

Aren't you just a little bit frustrated because one of your posts has been deleted?

As a number of other forum participants have already pointed out, there is no requirement for a participant to back up his/her contributions with references to scientific sources. He could do that if he wants to or if he feels the need to do that, but you cannot just expect that he does it because you would like him to. If you don't want to trust him, then don't trust him. It's as simple as that.

EDIT:

By the way, there is nothing wrong in giving an answer that only applies to a specific sentence. In fact, that is actually what the forum rules require: the original poster should give a specific sentence and that is what the answer should focus on.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Peterdg said:


> Is that true? Can this be verified? Can you prove this?
> 
> Even if this is true, are there instances where the, according to you, incorrect answers, are not corrected by other participants in the threads?



I cannot post it here because to do so would result in my post (or thread) being deleted.
But you could send me a private message asking for an example.



Peterdg said:


> As a number of other forum participants have already pointed out, there is no requirement for a participant to backup up his/her contributions with references to scientific sources. He could do that if he wants to or if he feels the need to do that, but you cannot just expect that he does it because you would like him to. If you don't want to trust him, then don't trust him. It's as simple as that.



That is exactly what makes the said forum rule vacuous. There's no way to enforce it. The said rule is more like a suggestion.



Peterdg said:


> By the way, there is nothing wrong in giving an answer that only applies to a specific sentence. In fact, that is actually what the forum rules require: the original poster should give a specific sentence and that is what the answer should focus on.



There is something wrong with that, I'm afraid. The purpose of a grammar rule (or rules in other fields of study) is to be predictive and generative, i.e., allow an infinite number of similar sentences to be produced and understood. Failure to do that simply means the rule is questionable or useless.


----------



## Andygc

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> There is something wrong with that, I'm afraid.


No, there is not. The purpose of these forums is explained by the FAQs and the rules of the various forums.


raymondaliasapollyon said:


> The purpose of a grammar rule is to be predictive and generative,


If that is what you believe - that grammar should be prescriptive and not descriptive - you are asking your questions in the wrong forum.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Andygc said:


> No, there is not. The purpose of these forums is explained by the FAQs and the rules of the various forums.



What is wrong is NOT giving an explanation about a specific senence, but the belief that it's okay to provide no general account that applies to other sentences of the same structure.

An ideal answer should be something like post #9 in the following thread. Uncle Jack not only explained the use of the simple past that a learner suspected was an error, but also offered an independent example, i.e., the dialogue between a detective and his/her assistant.

If the first vampire came into existence



Andygc said:


> If that is what you believe - that grammar should be prescriptive and not descriptive - you are asking your questions in the wrong forum.



I suggest that you check your understanding of prescriptivism vs. descriptivism as well as whether terms like "predictive power" and "generative" are associated with prescriptivism or descriptivism.


----------



## Andygc

These forums are provided by Mike Kellogg as an adjunct to dictionaries. Contributors contribute because they wish to be helpful. They are unpaid. The moderators exist for specified purposes. They too are unpaid. Members who ask questions pay nothing but get much free advice. If you don't like the way it works, go elsewhere.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> What is wrong is NOT giving an explanation about a specific senence, but the belief that it's okay to provide no general account that applies to other sentences of the same structure.


That's NOT wrong, it's personal choice.
Some people may be occasionally willing to spend some of their free time posting very detailed answers. They don't have to, they choose to.
Some others prefer to give brief answers, assuming that whoever is really interested in that subject will follow it up.
You can't demand and not even expect that those  foreros who are kind enough to help you and answer your questions must then be under the obligation to provide a thorough grammar lecture on the subject so that you don't need to make any further personal effort.


----------



## User With No Name

Andygc said:


> These forums are provided by Mike Kellogg as an adjunct to dictionaries. Contributors contribute because they wish to be helpful. They are unpaid. The moderators exist for specified purposes. They too are unpaid. Members who ask questions pay nothing but get much free advice. If you don't like the way it works, go elsewhere.


I think this is important to keep in mind. Perhaps especially in the case of members who reply to questions. I have long noticed that especially (but by no means exclusively) in the English Only forum, there is a relatively small group of very knowledgeable English speakers who consistently dedicate a lot of time and effort to answering the questions of English language learners and non-native speakers. They give a lot of good advice, and they do it out of their own generosity. I don't know of anywhere else on the internet where students can get such high-quality advice from such knowledgeable people without charge. The owner of this site, all the site's users, and most especially the posters who take advantage of their expertise should all be grateful to them.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Andygc said:


> These forums are provided by Mike Kellogg as an adjunct to dictionaries. Contributors contribute because they wish to be helpful. They are unpaid. The moderators exist for specified purposes. They too are unpaid. Members who ask questions pay nothing but get much free advice. If you don't like the way it works, go elsewhere.




I appreciate their unpaid service, but adherence to the forum rule in question and its value are a different matter from their dedication.
I think no one really takes the rule seriously now. The situation has led to an amount of misinformation (including but not limited to a mistaken understanding of prescriptvism vs. descriptivsm), which defeats the purpose of the website.



Paulfromitaly said:


> That's NOT wrong, it's personal choice.
> Some people may be occasionally willing to spend some of their free time posting very detailed answers. They don't have to, they choose to.
> Some others prefer to give brief answers, assuming that whoever is really interested in that subject will follow it up.
> You can't demand and not even expect that those  foreros who are kind enough to help you and answer your questions must then be under the obligation to provide a thorough grammar lecture on the subject so that you don't need to make any further personal effort.



A helpful answer does not need to have the length and scope of a grammar lecture.  And that fact does not justify the failure to verify an answer. 

Some answers are brief but verfiable. And if they contain reliable judgments, they are still helpful in that I can arrive at my own conclusions based on them.  Answers that concern me are those which not only fail to provide a generalization but also fail to provide reliable factual evidence.

Is  the forum rule in question ("verify your answer") a mere decoration to make the forums appear more respectable? If not, how is it actually enforced?



User With No Name said:


> I think this is important to keep in mind. Perhaps especially in the case of members who reply to questions. I have long noticed that especially (but by no means exclusively) in the English Only forum, there is a relatively small group of very knowledgeable English speakers who consistently dedicate a lot of time and effort to answering the questions of English language learners and non-native speakers. They give a lot of good advice, and they do it out of their own generosity. I don't know of anywhere else on the internet where students can get such high-quality advice from such knowledgeable people without charge. The owner of this site, all the site's users, and most especially the posters who take advantage of their expertise should all be grateful to them.



Yes, I do recognize and appreciate certain members' answers, but what I'm concerned about is answers that not only lack an adequate generalization but also lack factual basis.




Paulfromitaly said:


> That's NOT wrong, it's personal choice.



Do you mean personal choice can override a rule? Why do we need that forum rule if that's the case?


----------



## Paulfromitaly

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> What is wrong is NOT giving an explanation about a specific senence


That's what you said.
It's up to the posters to decide how detailed their answer is, that is, it's a personal choice. They are free to frame their reply as they so wish, as long as it's helpful, on topic and polite. You are free to ignore answers that you deem incomplete or inaccurate.



raymondaliasapollyon said:


> I think no one really takes the rule seriously now.


We do. Do you? 
Have you ever heard of the "clean hands doctrine"?


> _Clean hands_ is the legal _principle_ that only a party that *has done nothing wrong* can come to a court with a lawsuit against the other person


You keep insisting that some people don't abide by the WR rules because "_they don't support their answer by reference to a dictionary_"
Are your hands "clean", so to speak? Do you always comply with the WR rules?


> *Be clear and provide context.*
> *Asking questions:*
> Be descriptive, specific, and succinct in your posts, to avoid misunderstandings.
> Provide complete sentences and background information every time you ask  a question. This allows us to understand your question and to help you better.  Questions or answers with non-WR links must have a brief summary of the link's content—do not post "bare" links to external sites.
> Thread titles must include all or part of the word/phrase being discussed.  (Avoid phrases like "translation please", "how do I say this", "I'm new" and  similar expressions.)


It's almost impossible to provide very good answers to context-free, source-free questions.
Pull your own weight first and you will definitely receive better answers.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Paulfromitaly said:


> That's what you said.
> It's up to the posters to decide how detailed their answer is, that is, it's a personal choice. They are free to frame their reply as they so wish, as long as it's helpful, on topic and polite. You are free to ignore answers that you deem incomplete or inaccurate.



Yes, posters can decide how detailed their answer is, but the bottom line is that it has to be VERIFIED, or demonstrates a reasonable effort toward the goal, if we truly abide by the rule. Don't you see what the issue is?




Paulfromitaly said:


> Have you ever heard of the "clean hands doctrine"?
> 
> You keep insisting that some people don't abide by the WR rules because "_they don't support their answer by reference to a dictionary_"
> Are your hands "clean", so to speak? Do you always comply with the WR rules?



First, the thread is only about one particular rule: Make a reasonable attempt to verify accuracy. 
As far as other rules are concerned, I have no objection when I am penalized for offending any of them. Therefore, I see nothing wrong in having my posts deleted when I fail to provide contexts or sources.

Second, you have conveniently left out an important part of the clean hands doctrine:

An equitable defense that bars relief to a party who has engaged in inequitable behavior (including fraud, deceit, unconscionability or bad faith) related to the SUBJECT MATTER of that party's claim.  (Consider this scenario: a female thief was raped by a man, who is later charged with rape. The man cannot invoke the so-called clean hands doctrine and escape punishment for his crime.)

What is the subject matter in our case? Ans: The forum rule "Make a reasonable attempt to verify accuracy. "

By the way, you have demonstrated what a red herring is:

anything that diverts attention from a topic or line of inquiry (from The Collins English Dictionary)


----------



## Paulfromitaly

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> when I fail to provide contexts or sources.


That's likely to be one of the reasons why people can't or don't feel like spending too much time giving you detailed answers.


raymondaliasapollyon said:


> What is the subject matter in our case? Ans: The forum rule "Make a reasonable attempt to *verify* accuracy. "


It says VERIFY, not prove in writing each time one posts an answer.
The rule's rationale is that people should make the effort to verify beforehand any potentially misleading or controversial piece of information they are going to post.
No matter how hard you are trying to misinterpret that rule to your own advantage, it doesn't in any way require people to always "_support their answer by reference to a dictionary_". These are language forums and most of the WR members are just people who love languages, want to expand their proficiency or simply enjoy helping language learners by sharing their knowledge as native speakers. They are not language teachers and they are under no obligation to back up every single word they write by posting a link to a dictionary or a grammar book.
As I've already said before, if and when users' advice is questionable, someone else will step it and point it out and eventually the OP will be given realiable advice.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Paulfromitaly said:


> That's likely to be one of the reasons why people can't or don't feel like spending too much time giving you detailed answers.



The problem I described occurred even in threads where contexts and sources were provided, so that's not the reason.



Paulfromitaly said:


> It says VERIFY, not prove in writing each time one posts an answer.
> The rule's rationale is that people should make the effort to verify beforehand any potentially misleading or controversial piece of information they are going to post. No matter how hard you are trying to misinterpret that rule to your own advantage, it doesn't in any way require people to always "_support their answer by reference to a dictionary_".



True, "verify" does not mean "prove in writing," but there must be some way to show the effort. Otherwise, anyone could lie to anyone else that they have verfied their information. Providing evidence from a dictionary or independent examples (created by themselves or others) is a manifestation of the effort. If you think verification in the brain is sufficient, it only shows the rule is vacuous, as I said upthread.



Paulfromitaly said:


> These are language forums and most of the WR members are just people who love languages, want to expand their proficiency or simply enjoy helping language learners by sharing their knowledge as native speakers. They are not language teachers and they are under no obligation to back up every single word they write by posting a link to a dictionary or a grammar book.



Note that I have specified the particular problem as related to certain non-natives (and I've said even if natives provide no detailed accounts, their reliable judgments are still useful). Second, no matter how hard you are trying to gloss over the problem, it does not in any way change the fact that you are ignoring that particular rule and trying very hard to justify the failure to abide by it, so much so that you have resorted to a strawman, a red herring, and misinterpretation of the clean hands doctrine.

If you think it's okay to ignore it, then why not admit the rule is vacuous?


----------



## Myridon

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Providing evidence from a dictionary or independent examples is a manifestation of the effort.


My answers to you from now on will be "Google it yourself."


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Myridon said:


> My answers to you from now on will be "Google it yourself."



Some answers won't be found on Google. If every answer were available on Google, we would not need a forum like WR.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> there must be some way to show the effort.


Those who are kind enough to spend some of their time to reply to your questions _don't need to make any further effort!_
You are the one who should make the effort to research more thoroughly into the subject if you are interested, not them.
When I read through a thread I judge people's posts, regardless of whether they are native speakers or not. Perhaps you should do the same.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Paulfromitaly said:


> Those who are kind enough to spend some of their time to reply to your questions _don't need to make any further effort!_



Translation into plain English: Those who answer questions don't need to care about the rule! 

Are you saying the rule is vacuous, in a way?



Paulfromitaly said:


> You are the one who should make the effort to research more thoroughly into the subject if you are interested, not them.



Sure, I typically research more than most answerers to my questions, but whether I research more thoroughly or not has no bearing on the forum rule in question: Make a reasonable attempt to verify accuracy (which is a requirement on answerers).

That's another red herring on your part, isn't it?



Paulfromitaly said:


> When I read through a thread I judge people's posts, regardless of whether they are native speakers or not. Perhaps you should do the same.



Considering the subject matter of this thread, it seems you're saying, "Regardless of whether they are native speakers or not, they do not need to care about the forum rule."

Is that what you are really saying?


----------



## Myridon

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Some answers won't be found on Google. If every answer were available on Google, we would not need a forum like WR.


And when those answers can't be found on the Internet, how are we supposed to prove that we are correct as you insist?


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Paulfromitaly said:


> they are under no obligation to back up every single word they write by posting a link to a dictionary or a grammar book.


To me that's plain English and I think you understand what it means. That rule is not "wrong" or "vacuous" (to use your own words)  just because it doesn't require people to give you a free lecture every time they decide to answer your questions. You're just being overly and pointlessly confrontational and if you carry on with this attitude many people will end up ignoring your threads altogether. When that happens, don't blame it on us.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Myridon said:


> And when those answers can't be found on the Internet, how are we supposed to prove that we are correct as you insist?



I check the independent examples and judgments you and others provide against those from multiple sources to ensure those examples are most probably correct. The process also allows me to detect potential regional differences.



Paulfromitaly said:


> To me that's plain English and I think you understand what it means. That rule is not "wrong" or "vacuous" (to use your own words)  just because it doesn't require people to give you a free lecture every time they decide to answer your questions. You're just being overly and pointlessly confrontational and if you carry on with this attitude many people will end up ignoring your threads altogether. When that happens, don't blame it on us.



I'm sorry, but that's another strawman.  Verification does not mean giving a free lecture. Second, do you believe that providing independent examples is equal to giving a free lecture? Also, quoting a dictionary and a grammar book is by no means the only way to verify accuracy. Independent examples are also helpful. However, judging from your statements, somehow you seem to be limiting verification to free lectures, posting a link to a dictionary or a grammar book to suit your purpose.


----------



## jann

You will forgive me for dropping in after only a precursory reading of this thread, but it seems me that there are two underlying issues here.

1. First, you seem upset by the reason for deletion of your post:


raymondaliasapollyon said:


> a post of mine that requested a forum member to support his answer by reference to a dictionary was recently deleted. The reason for the deletion was, "Most people answer out of their experience with the language; they are not required to a cite a source."


Perhaps a less diplomatic reason for deletion would have satisfied you?  For example, "Please leave moderation to the moderators (rule 12)."  If your complaint stems from frustration about a particular discussion that you feel has gone off the rails, or about a member who seems to provide misinformation on a regular basis, the Report feature is the tool to use. And you can always reach out to the moderator who deleted your post to discuss privately (rule 15).

2. Second, you seem to assert that each element of the _WordReference Forums Mission Statement and Guidelines_ is without value unless it is enforced universally to the letter:


raymondaliasapollyon said:


> If there is no one or no way to enforce the rule, then it is vacuous and is inappropriately called a "rule."





raymondaliasapollyon said:


> I think no one really takes the rule seriously now. The situation has led to an amount of misinformation [...] which defeats the purpose of the website.


And yet, your own continued participation over nearly a decade is testament to the interest and value of at least some of the discussion threads on the WR forums under the more flexible style of moderation applied here.

The so-called "rules" establish both guiding principles for behavior and expectations about the way things are done. They provide grounds for moderator action when a situation is becoming problematic, not a blueprint for a system that has to be built to spec. The choice to intervene or not, and the degree of public visibility if intervention is deemed necessary, reflect the training and best judgement of the moderators about how to keep the forums running smoothly... not a police-state mentality about rule enforcement.

The wording you have focused on, a sub-statement of rule 3, asks users to make a good-faith effort to avoid posting misinformation, and to disclose any doubts they may have. If you doubt the utility of this rule, maybe that's because it's doing its job: helping folks who bother to read the rules to understand the culture of WR (prevention), and providing a clear justification when the mods need to remove certain types of problematic posts from view (remediation).

You generally won't see the remediation process unless you post problematic content yourself, or happen to stumble across it before the mods have dealt with it. I'm talking about things like replies from students who submit nonsense to inflate their postcounts after their teachers assign forum participation as homework, answers from well-intentioned but clueless new users who suppose their wild guesses at translations to be helpful, and the like. The rule is also a basis for mod intervention in the case of users whose _repeated _attempts to make WR into a soapbox for their pet theory about a given language topic are proving detrimental to the quality of discussion on the forums. Those are real examples, stated in the generic, since public discussion of specifics is obviously inappropriate out of respect for the members involved.  I see nothing vacuous about this rule or how it is applied.

Here's what the rule isn't: an exclusionary standard of lexicographical perfection for silencing non-experts, a debating tool for catching someone you disagree with on a technicality, or a bludgeon for beating other users into submission when their views differ from yours.

P.S. Please learn to use the multi-quote and edit features of the forum software to avoid posting multiple times in a row.  You may observe that the moderators have quietly merged some of your sequential posts from earlier in this thread.


----------



## Myridon

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> I check the independent examples and judgments you and others provide against those from multiple sources to ensure those examples are most probably correct. The process also allows me to detect potential regional differences


My whole context was that these things do not exist. You cannot check them.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Myridon said:


> My whole context was that these things do not exist. You cannot check them.



Those sources are not limited to published data online; they can be living people like you. When the former, i.e., pre-existing data, does not contain answers to a question, I consult real people.


----------



## djmc

As a native speaker of English (British variety) if I say something like "Yes that sounds reasonable", this means that I think the usage is unremarkable or something I would use myself. With respect to another language I would either be  more circumspect and say something like "I see it frequently here" if talking about French. For historical examples I would refer to a respected example. If talking about Latin, Cicero or Caesar are the best example. If trying to write Latin, to claim the authority of Cicero is a trump. If I were talking about Elizabethan poetry, to be able to quote Shakespeare or Spenser would be similar. It is not that they were never ambiguous or unclear, but they are well respected writers of the language in question. If the grammar books say something else they are wrong. Grammar is descriptive of the language in question.


----------



## Myridon

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Those sources are not limited to published data online; they can be living people like you. When the former, i.e., pre-existing data, does not contain answers to a question, I consult real people.


Now you're saying I am allowed to be the verification of what I say.  You're talking in circles.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Myridon said:


> Now you're saying I am allowed to be the verification of what I say.  You're talking in circles.



Obviously, there are other native speakers. They can be your verification. If you were the only native speaker in the world, I'd agree with your assessment.


----------



## djmc

That a native speaker of a language uses an expression is prima facie evidence that it is useable, even if not all speakers of the language might use it. For example it may be thought to belong to a dialect, or be too coarse. Some consideration should be given to the function  of usage of the language. If one is translating from a language into ones own, the competance needed is less than that needed to to read or write it. Many people who can speak a language cannot read or write it, and the inverse: people who can read and write a language cannot speak it at all, or if they can not like a native speaker.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

djmc said:


> That a native speaker of a language uses an expression is prima facie evidence that it is useable, even if not all speakers of the language might use it. For example it may be thought to belong to a dialect, or be too coarse. Some consideration should be given to the function  of usage of the language. If one is translating from a language into ones own, the competance needed is less than that needed to to read or write it. Many people who can speak a language cannot read or write it, and the inverse: people who can read and write a language cannot speak it at all, or if they can not like a native speaker.



Usable in the individual's idiolect or dialect, that is.

But if someone is researching on the mainstream variety of a language, verification involving more than one person is necessary. Those who claim to speak the standard variety could still unknowingly use regionalisms or idiolectisms. Besides, humans are subject to temporary mental lapses that might affect their judgment.


----------



## Roxxxannne

From the OP:


raymondaliasapollyon said:


> But then I found the following forum rule:
> 
> Answering:
> Make a reasonable attempt to verify accuracy. If you are unsure of the accuracy of your information or translation, please say so.


From #39:


raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Usable in the individual's idiolect or dialect, that is.
> 
> But if someone is researching on the mainstream variety of a language, verification involving more than one person is necessary. Those who claim to speak the standard variety could still unknowingly use regionalisms or idiolectisms. Besides, humans are subject to temporary mental lapses that might affect their judgment.


Are you asking native speakers to consult with several other native speakers before posting a reply to a question, or are you asking native speakers to include a disclaimer of some sort describing their background?  It seems to me that people already do the latter, in the English Only section at least.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Roxxxannne said:


> From the OP:
> 
> From #39:
> 
> Are you asking native speakers to consult with several other native speakers before posting a reply to a question, or are you asking native speakers to include a disclaimer of some sort describing their background?  It seems to me that people already do the latter, in the English Only section at least.



If they are offering an analysis or mini-theory, it'd be helpful if they could verify it by consulting something or providing independent examples that the analysis makes predictions on. But as far as judgments on acceptability are concerned, I myself would be interested in seeing the range of variaiton and the extent of convergence displayed among native speakers in threads. I think a thread could be a place where the verification is done. And I don't necessarily view such contributions as "answers," but rather as data on which I can base my own theory.


----------



## Roxxxannne

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> I myself would be interested in seeing the range of variaiton and the extent of convergence displayed among native speakers in threads.


It seems to me that people do this pretty regularly.  Can you please give some examples of situations where you are sure there are variations among native speakers that do not come out in the comments?


----------



## Myridon

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Obviously, there are other native speakers. They can be your verification. If you were the only native speaker in the world, I'd agree with your assessment.


Now I can't post unless I have another poster to agree with me at exactly the same time.  Neither of us can post first because that post wouldn't be verified.


----------



## Hermione Golightly

You seem to be suggesting that we might not know the difference between the regional or dialect language we are familiar with, and the standard English that as highly educated people we all use here as our reference point.
Such an idea is preposterous.

You believe that we might have "temporary lapses of judgement" that impair our understanding without us realising.
Such an idea is ridiculous.

Sir, you are insolent.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Myridon said:


> Now I can't post unless I have another poster to agree with me at exactly the same time.  Neither of us can post first because that post wouldn't be verified.



I distinguish between "answers" and "data." See post #41.
Not every post is an answer.



Hermione Golightly said:


> You seem to be suggesting that we might not know the difference between the regional or dialect language we are familiar with, and the standard English that as highly educated people we all use here as our reference point.
> Such an idea is preposterous.
> 
> You believe that we might have "temporary lapses of judgement" that impair our understanding without us realising.
> Such an idea is ridiculous.
> 
> Sir, you are insolent.



Speakers of any language might think some usages from their own dialect/idiolect are the norm unless they have experienced other dialects/idiolects.  Even then some subtle differences might not be acquired. Even when they are acquired, some dialectal or idiolectal forms might still creep in. Don't you agree? Don't you also agree humans are fallible and do make mistakes under particular circumstances, for example when they are exhausted?



Roxxxannne said:


> It seems to me that people do this pretty regularly.  Can you please give some examples of situations where you are sure there are variations among native speakers that do not come out in the comments?



Yes, there is a thread where only one participant is a native, and the sentence, "Think of a fun-sized liquid metal T-1000 from 'Terminator 2,' if it was built to help rather than harm" seems unremarkable to him, whereas two people from another website think it is "not good" or "a little awkward."


----------



## User With No Name

Hermione Golightly said:


> Sir, you are insolent.




As numerous people (regular forum members as well as moderators) have told you repeatedly, your expectations of people who reply to your posts are simply not reasonable. And many of us find the expectation that everyone who replies to a post of ours should provide extensive documentation to be, frankly, absurd, if not downright insulting.

With all respect, please just stop already.


----------



## Myridon

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> I distinguish between "answers" and "data." See post #41.
> Not every post is an answer.


Good. Then just consider all posts as being data and then we don't have to worry about proving any individual post.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Myridon said:


> Good. Then just consider all posts as being data and then we don't have to worry about proving any individual post.



Some posts are analyses or mini-theories. They are not data. That's where the issue of verification is relevant.




User With No Name said:


> As numerous people (regular forum members as well as moderators) have told you repeatedly, your expectations of people who reply to your posts are simply not reasonable. And many of us find the expectation that everyone who replies to a post of ours should provide extensive documentation to be, frankly, absurd, if not downright insulting.
> 
> With all respect, please just stop already.



That accusation is founded on a careless reading of the posts. Obviously, you haven't read post #41.



Myridon said:


> Now I can't post unless I have another poster to agree with me at exactly the same time.  Neither of us can post first because that post wouldn't be verified.



Maybe I should remind you of the following remark of mine:



raymondaliasapollyon said:


> I check the independent examples and judgments you and others provide against those from multiple sources to ensure those examples are most probably correct. The process also allows me to detect potential regional differences.



Isn't it obvious that it is I, not you, the data provider, that do the verification of your judgments?


----------



## heypresto

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Isn't it obvious that it is I, not you, the data provider, that do the verification of your judgments?


No.


raymondaliasapollyon said:


> If *they *are offering an analysis or mini-theory, it'd be helpful if *they* could verify it by consulting something or providing independent examples that the analysis makes predictions on. But as far as judgments on acceptability are concerned, I myself would be interested in seeing the range of variaiton and the extent of convergence displayed among native speakers in threads. I think a thread could be a place where the verification is done.


My boldening. 




raymondaliasapollyon said:


> And I don't necessarily view such contributions as "answers," but rather as data on which I can base my own theory.


What exactly are you wanting from WR? Are you wishing to learn good, natural English that you can use (which judging by your writing is already pretty good), or are you working on some sort of grand theory of language? We can help you with the former, but I don't think many of us are equipped, willing, or have the time to help with the latter. Remember that we are all volunteers here, and that there are many other learners who we are keen to help.


----------



## Myridon

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Isn't it obvious that it is I, not you, the data provider, that do the verification of your judgments?


Again, now you're saying that you will verify all our posts so there's nothing for us to do here.  In performing these verifications, you will find the answer to your own question which is basically saying that we could have just posted "research it yourself."


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

heypresto said:


> No.
> 
> My boldening.



The parts you put in bold refer to analyses or mini-theories, which the forum rule in question is concerned with.

It seems that you have missed the keyword in post #41, where the difference between JUDGMENTS and answers is explicitly made.

Please allow me to capitlize the keyword of the post to which you have replied:



raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Isn't it obvious that it is I, not you, the data provider, that do the verification of your JUDGMENTS?






heypresto said:


> What exactly are you wanting from WR? Are you wishing to learn good, natural English that you can use (which judging by your writing is already pretty good), or are you working on some sort of grand theory of language? We can help you with the former, but I don't think many of us are equipped, willing, or have the time to help with the latter. Remember that we are all volunteers here, and that there are many other learners who we are keen to help.



I post for both purposes. Remeber that upthread, I said I appreciate and recognize native speakers' judgments, which are different from analyses or mini-theories.



Myridon said:


> Again, now you're saying that you will verify all our posts so there's nothing for us to do here.  In performing these verifications, you will find the answer to your own question which is basically saying that we could have just posted "research it yourself."



I'm sorry, but that's a straw man. In my quoted sentence, I only said I will verify JUDGMENTS you and others provide. If an analysis or mini-theory is offred, like those provided by non-natives, then the forum rule is relevant.


----------



## heypresto

Just so we are all talking about the same things, can you please give us a couple of examples of what you mean by "analyses", "mini-theories" and "judgments", and clearly explain how they differ from straightforward 'answers'.

I don't relish the thought of simply being a "data provider", I'd far rather offer helpful answers to genuine questions.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

heypresto said:


> Just so we are all talking about the same things, can you please give us a couple of examples of what you mean by "analyses", "mini-theories" and "judgments", and clearly explain how they differ from straightforward 'answers'.
> 
> I don't relish the thought of simply being a "data provider", I'd far rather offer helpful answers to genuine questions.



A question seeking judgments often takes the form: Is the following sentence OK? Which of the following sentences is OK?
After a partiular response has been given, the discussion may proceed to this question: Why is A OK? Why is B incorrect? Such questions call for an analysis, or mini-theory (a term I use informally). It should have predictive power in the sense that it makes predictions on whether a given sentence  is OK. It should also be general enough to cover other sentences with the same grammatical features. 

Very few native speakers can offer an analysis (except in the case of questions the answers to which we can find in a textbook). A lot of analyses come from non-natives. 

Note that I am not seeking a highly abstract theory here, as that would go beyond the scope of the forum. (In this connection, maybe I should retract my remark, "I post for both purposes" in a previous post, as a "grand theory of language" may strike people as being a highly abstract, philsophical theory of language.)


----------



## Kelly B

Setting aside for a moment the value of such an analysis or mini-theory, I question its desirability. 

I really prefer concise answers, where possible. If a few members I trust offer decisive opinions, however brief, I am perfectly satisfied. If they disagree, or express uncertainty, I am happy to research the question further on my own, newly armed with ideas to use as a foundation.

Frankly I'd rather not feel obliged to read walls of text simply because people spent their valuable time writing it all.

 I believe I am not alone in that.


----------



## Glasguensis

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> The parts you put in bold refer to analyses or mini-theories, which the forum rule in question is concerned with.


I assume you can provide a reference which backs up this assertion? As @Paulfromitaly said earlier, the moderation team do not interpret it in this way. It is basically asking people not to just guess without saying so. All of the rules are there to allow the moderators to take action against problematic users without them saying “but it’s not in the rules that I can’t do that”. You would be hard pushed to find concrete examples of the rules being enforced because the moderators in general tidy up and, so the offending posts are no longer visible. I can assure you that this rule is enforced and action has been taken against users who didn’t adhere to it. Certainly it’s more frequently used in the translation forums than in EO, but even in EO it is used. I don’t want to discuss the particular incident which prompted this thread, but I can assure you that we are well aware of it, and if we thought that the post you objected to or the poster in question was posting private theories inconsistent with generally accepted English usage, action would have been taken long ago. 

This forum provides answers from well educated speakers of English, whether native or not. It does not provide answers from scholars who have spent their long and distinguished academic career studying English grammar in every variety and dialect of English, if indeed such academics exist. I think you should assume that in this day and age no reasonably educated native speaker has not had considerable exposure to speakers of other varieties of English. Whilst we frequently see examples of things which some people haven’t previously come across, they are generally aware when some word, phrase or structure is unique to their variety of English.

To answer the original question, the rule is enforced by the moderators, aided by members who report problematic posts. When someone posts a theory or a general rule, who is to judge that it is less valid or valuable than someone who has published their theory? Indeed many published theories have precisely the problem you complained about, in that they have a limited scope which is not stated.


----------



## velisarius

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Yes, there is a thread where only one participant is a native, and the sentence, "Think of a fun-sized liquid metal T-1000 from 'Terminator 2,' if it was built to help rather than harm" seems unremarkable to him, whereas two people from another website think it is "not good" or "a little awkward."


Just to put the record straight about that thread, I noted that the original sentence was badly written.
I agree that my post didn't contribute much to the thread, but I too am a native speaker.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

velisarius said:


> Just to put the record straight about that thread, I noted that the original sentence was badly written.
> I agree that my post didn't contribute much to the thread, but I too am a native speaker.



Thank you for bringing that to my attention. Somehow I missed it.



Kelly B said:


> Setting aside for a moment the value of such an analysis or mini-theory, I question its desirability.
> 
> I really prefer concise answers, where possible. If a few members I trust offer decisive opinions, however brief, I am perfectly satisfied. If they disagree, or express uncertainty, I am happy to research the question further on my own, newly armed with ideas to use as a foundation.
> 
> Frankly I'd rather not feel obliged to read walls of text simply because people spent their valuable time writing it all.
> 
> I believe I am not alone in that.



An analysis or mini-theory need not be a "wall of text"; it can be concise and, at the same time, yield predictable consequences and allow us to produce and understand sentences with the same grammatical features in question.

The requirements are what grammar is all about.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Glasguensis said:


> I assume you can provide a reference which backs up this assertion? As @Paulfromitaly said earlier, the moderation team do not interpret it in this way. *It is basically asking people not to just guess without saying so.* All of the rules are there to allow the moderators to take action against problematic users without them saying “but it’s not in the rules that I can’t do that”.



That's the second part of the rule, repeated below for ease of reference. What about the first part? Do you know of any criteria for determining whether a proposed analysis has been verified?

Make a reasonable attempt to verify accuracy. If you are unsure of the accuracy of your information or translation, please say so.


Glasguensis said:


> I think you should assume that in this day and age no reasonably educated native speaker has not had considerable exposure to speakers of other varieties of English. Whilst we frequently see examples of things which some people haven’t previously come across, they are generally aware when some word, phrase or structure is unique to their variety of English.



Nevertheless, there are subtle or lesser-known grammatical phenomena speakers of one variety might find odd. For example, I have the idea that many AE speakers profess shock at "The house needs some work doing on it."



Glasguensis said:


> Indeed many published theories have precisely the problem you complained about, in that they have a limited scope which is not stated.



Just so we are talking about the same issue, could you elaborate on that assertion?


----------



## Glasguensis

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Just so we are talking about the same issue, could you elaborate on that assertion?


EO is littered with examples of learner guides and grammar books which make definitive-seeming statements without mentioning that there are exceptions. The guidance on article use or conditional sentences are prime examples : actual English usage is too complex to exhaustively describe, so learners are confused when they come across something which doesn’t fit into the tables proposed by their reference material.



raymondaliasapollyon said:


> That's the second part of the rule, repeated below for ease of reference. What about the first part? Do you know of any criteria for determining whether a proposed analysis has been verified?
> 
> _Make a reasonable attempt to verify accuracy. If you are unsure of the accuracy of your information or translation, please say so._


_Make a reasonable attempt to verify accuracy_ means _don’t guess_. It doesn’t mean _ensure that you can quote an authoritative source_. If someone asks what the BE equivalent of AE _sidewalk_ is my verification process is simply asking myself if I’m sure of my answer. I don’t need to consult the OED (luckily, since I don’t have access). Similarly when someone asks about backshifting in reported speech I just answer the question without consulting some usage guide. Rereading my posts and trying to think of other examples is the « reasonable attempt ». Can you tell if I did this? No. You can only tell if it’s blatantly obvious that I didn’t - and *that’s how this rule is enforced. *Just like « search first », « respect intellectual property », and so on. If we deleted all posts which didn’t prove that they had rigorously respected all the rules there would only be one or two posts per day. It’s a balance.



raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Nevertheless, there are subtle or lesser-known grammatical phenomena speakers of one variety might find odd. For example, I have the idea that many AE speakers profess shock at "The house needs some work doing on it."


That’s precisely why we ask people to state the variety of their native language. And there are so many members who systematically go through all the threads that if someone does answer in a way which is « local », this will soon be pointed out. Since there is nobody who is familiar with all varieties of English, nobody would be able to answer anything if they had to be sure that their answer was universally true.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Glasguensis said:


> EO is littered with examples of learner guides and grammar books which make definitive-seeming statements without mentioning that there are exceptions. The guidance on article use or conditional sentences are prime examples : actual English usage is too complex to exhaustively describe, so learners are confused when they come across something which doesn’t fit into the tables proposed by their reference material.



Then we are talking about different issues. What I'm talking about is the lack of generality in many analyses in the forums.  Granted, traditional rules about conditional sentences have exceptions, but they achieve some degree of generality and often serve as a point of departure for a more fine-grained analysis. On the other hand, many analyses here are like paraphrases of individual sentences, with no predictable consequences or independent examples.



Glasguensis said:


> _Make a reasonable attempt to verify accuracy_ means _don’t guess_. It doesn’t mean _ensure that you can quote an authoritative source_. If someone asks what the BE equivalent of AE _sidewalk_ is my verification process is simply asking myself if I’m sure of my answer. I don’t need to consult the OED (luckily, since I don’t have access).



The issue I'm concerned with has more to do with grammatical issues than with lexical ones, which tend to be more straightforward. 

Although I agree attempting to verify accuracy is not equal to quoting an authoritative  source, the two stand in a subset relation. More specifically, the latter is a manifestation of the former, but there are certainly other ways to verify accuracy, including independent examples, which many analyses fail to provide.



Glasguensis said:


> Similarly when someone asks about backshifting in reported speech I just answer the question without consulting some usage guide. Rereading my posts and trying to think of other examples is the « reasonable attempt ». Can you tell if I did this? No.



You are talking about judgments, and I certainly agree native speakers' intuition alone determines whether a sentence is OK (although judgments sometimes need to be taken with caution), but I'm talking about analyses. 

That said, I agree that "trying to think of other examples is a reasonable attempt," which many analyses fail to do.



Glasguensis said:


> That’s precisely why we ask people to state the variety of their native language. And there are so many members who systematically go through all the threads that if someone does answer in a way which is « local », this will soon be pointed out. Since there is nobody who is familiar with all varieties of English, nobody would be able to answer anything if they had to be sure that their answer was universally true.



Since you acknowledge that sometimes local (or ideolectal) usages do creep in, I stand by my belief that it's a good idea to check judgments supplied here against those from other sources.


----------



## Glasguensis

It depends on whether you’d rather have an answer to your question. People tend to answer the most recent questions, so if you want an analysis which is hard to do, the chances are your question will never get an answer if everyone applies that standard. On the other hand someone making a good faith attempt is likely to provoke debate, which often results in a more robust analysis, or occasionally a failure to agree (which is valuable in itself). I can assure you that the overwhelming majority of users want a rapid answer to their questions, rather than one which is rigorously researched.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Glasguensis said:


> It depends on whether you’d rather have an answer to your question. People tend to answer the most recent questions, so if you want an analysis which is hard to do, the chances are your question will never get an answer if everyone applies that standard. On the other hand someone making a good faith attempt is likely to provoke debate, which often results in a more robust analysis, or occasionally a failure to agree (which is valuable in itself). I can assure you that the overwhelming majority of users want a rapid answer to their questions, rather than one which is rigorously researched.



So most of the time I am content with the availability of judgments.
But we should return to my question about the verification of analyses. Do you know of any criteria for determining whether a proposed analysis has been verified? Are you saying a debate is a sort of verification?


----------



## Glasguensis

An answer has been verified if the poster states how it has been verified. In the absence of this we have to look for an absence of verification : if the answer is blatantly wrong, for example, or if it fails to stand up to other examples, or if it contradicts readily available analysis. A debate is not verification, but it can be a refinement of an initially flawed analysis.


----------



## elroy

The rule that is being discussed is the following: 

*Make a reasonable attempt to verify accuracy. If you are unsure of the accuracy of your information or translation, please say so.*

If any member suspects that somebody has posted in violation of this rule, by either (1) failing to make a reasonable attempt to verify accuracy, (2) failing to say that they are unsure of the accuracy of their information or translation, or (3) both, they are invited to signal this to the moderators by reporting the post and/or contacting one or more moderators privately; and to give their reasons for suspecting that the rule has been violated.  The moderators will take action if they determine that such action is warranted.

All nuances of this rule have been thoroughly covered in this thread.

This thread is closed.


----------

