do you think there should be an option to flag answerer's?

Question

as untrustable / idiots / brainless that carries with them from answer to answer?
So that way we (the people who ask questions) can more readily set a limit of the credibility to those that answer our questions.
I am so tired of the 'copy and pasters' wikipedia quoters who think that wikipedia is the only credible source of info (it's not. its rife with errors and opinion)
And the schmucks with persistent dumb off topic or completely brainless responses.

well, I am impressed with the answers so far. I was really expecting to be flamed for being pompous. Thank you guys for taking the time. And also thank you for pointing out the glaring folly that it would also be.

Answer 1

Too much a matter of opinion. Remember that there's a brigade of conspiracy question askers who think that giving enough thumbs-downs will make what they're saying true. There's nothing to stop them (and their supporting answerers) from flagging sensible answers.

I get irritated when people waste time and space with silly stuff, but I then remember that I'm unlikely to change their opinion on this forum, let alone the amount of either ignorance or plain smug nastiness that there is across the world.

The main thing is to do what you can (and nothing more can you do) to ensure that idiocy doesn't multiply. Give your answer as best you can, and use the thumb ratings. Then count to ten slowly and go to the next question.

Answer 2

I'd pretty well agree with mercury. But the problem with your idea is illustrated by a recent question / statement that Charles Darwin recanted from "evolution" just before he died. I read up on this several months ago and it is a frequently repeated lie. I said so, using the word "lie". So the asker, who clearly is a creationist and possibly a troll could then "flag" me as being a brainless idiot. The fact that I called creationists frauds or fools might also get me flagged. However it is my opinion and is not based on thin air.

As for Wikipedia, it has been compared with Britannica and has come out looking OK. I have looked at a number of articles where I have detailed knowledge and Wikipedia looks pretty good. My attitude is - use with caution. Saves you typing out reams of information that is already tabulated or listed.

But it is not the only site that I cite.

Answer 3

yes I agree we should have option that could be flagged, but we don't want to over do it. I could see onl saughts from equally judgmental people as stupid people flagging victims.

wiki quoting is not all that bad.
Its bad when people "copy and paste" the WHOLE article and don't state that it is straight from wiki.

wiki's not the only source of opinion and mistakes. The WHOLE internet is practically peoples written opinion.
or stats that only reflect certain aspects of study.

the only reason wiki is on the top is because it is ONE source that stays fairly balanced. They are well governed. (more than any other sites)

even nasa has links to pages that show different results/numbers of the same issue.

I wish people here could sign up to be "true experts" (as yahoo describes in their advertisements) and carry a badge similar to top contributer or official.

thats the one thing the really gets me. I don't feel there are many "experts" at all here. I mean sure, we understand a little bit about some subject, but over all, where are the pros? there are no pros, just regular people trying to help or act stupid.

guess we've just got to make the best of it.

Answer 4

I must agree with you on every count. Though this site is supposed to help share knowledge, what we get more often than not, are opininons unsupported by any logic or reasoning{there is a difference, you know}.In order to make flippant answwers unwelcme to serious discussion, it may be a good idea to devise a scale of acceptance by making suitable symbols. Many thanks