News coverage

[klr]

So who thinks that the RDF will be greatly depleted? Will it?

Most of the active membership posted only on the forum, not on the "Front Page" area. The current Front Page area seems to be the template for the future unified discussion area. It's hard to envisage anything other than a massive fall-off in posting activity and active user numbers. Although the forum catered for more than just serious discussions relating to science, reason and Richard Dawkins, the majority of forum posts were in fact in those areas. So even discounting less "important" content, the forum activity dwarfed that of the Front Page. And people valued the sense of community that they had on the forum, which allowed them to freely converse with like-minded people on not just serious issues.

[virphen]

Here are two examples of people coming for advice that touched some of us over the last days of the forum

http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtop ... 35&start=0
http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtop ... 2&t=109935

Obviously the people concerned just got cut off like everyone else.

[Chris Wilkins]

That is, if this dimishes his reputation and his support base, surely it has to impact the message that "evolution is real", that the flintstones is not a documentary?

Er, no. Richard Dawkins and his staff behaving badly on the internet is briefly thrilling, but it isn't actually powerful enough to stop evolution. I hope that isn't your angle on this story? Some people will go back to the old forum, some will find new ones, some will get over their anger, some will never buy a Dawkins book again... but I don't think anyone is going to say, "That's it, I'm going to stop thinking evolution happens! That'll show him!" That would just be stupid. Like ceasing to believe in gravity because I'm pissed off that I dropped my sandwich.

Er, that's not quite what I meant. I mean will it lesson the strength of his arguments to the general public.

Put it this way. You grew up in backwoods Alabama. You really don't know what to believe. All those around you say creationism is the bee knees, and the right thing to believe in. But then you here about a book called, "The God Delusion" and this travelling English professor who has a different view. And you begin to wonder.

Then you hear about how this same man, or his organisation, treated their supporters badly.

This is going to sow a seed of doubt in such a person's head. And it this I was referring to.

[Harmless Eccentric]

Er, that's not quite what I meant. I mean will it lesson the strength of his arguments to the general public.

Put it this way. You grew up in backwoods Alabama. You really don't know what to believe. All those around you say creationism is the bee knees, and the right thing to believe in. But then you here about a book called, "The God Delusion" and this travelling English professor who has a different view. And you begin to wonder.

Then you hear about how this same man, or his organisation, treated their supporters badly.

This is going to sow a seed of doubt in such a person's head. And it this I was referring to.

thanks for clarifying; that makes more sense. I don't think it'll have that much impact of that sort; people outside the science/skepticism community aren't that likely to even care. Big fish... little pond.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

PZ summed it up. "I run a blog, not an open forum, and I'm reminded once again why I prefer the former." That's where RDF is headed.

[RPizzle]

So who thinks that the RDF will be greatly depleted? Will it?

Will this have a bad impact on the discussions that Richard Dawkins has formed over the last few years? That of a scientific and athiest stand against religion and creationism?

That is, if this dimishes his reputation and his support base, surely it has to impact the message that "evolution is real", that the flintstones is not a documentary?

I think the RDF will go about its business as usual. From what it seems, the site is going to aspire toward more high brow intellectual discussion. That is their decision.

Numerous people have come to the forum planning to stamp out atheism once and for all, only to be led to reason after dealing with their various misconceptions over and over. As a student myself, I've learned so much from the professionals in the forum during my time as a member. I think that while things could get silly, heated, and troll infested now and then, the vast amounts of scientific knowledge dispensed was greatly underestimated.

I would say that my opinion of Dawkins and the RDF has diminished somewhat. Though, as far as the scientific consensus is concerned, that won't change at all. If Dawkins was the worst person on the planet, it would do nothing to the evidence for evolution. I doubt this decision will have any effect on a large scale.

[Weaver]

Er, that's not quite what I meant. I mean will it lesson the strength of his arguments to the general public.

Put it this way. You grew up in backwoods Alabama. You really don't know what to believe. All those around you say creationism is the bee knees, and the right thing to believe in. But then you here about a book called, "The God Delusion" and this travelling English professor who has a different view. And you begin to wonder.

Then you hear about how this same man, or his organisation, treated their supporters badly.

This is going to sow a seed of doubt in such a person's head. And it this I was referring to.

I think the Internet drama will likely blow over soon, and won't turn people away from Richard Dawkins or his message.

However, a very many people came to the old forum seeking more information, and reasoned discussion with fellow travellers. Some were dedicated atheists, but many more were wrestling with their religious convictions and scientific understanding. These people won't have the ability to discuss life matters any more - they won't be able to connect with others who had travelled down those roads before. They won't have the same ability to question and argue about news, science, religion, parenting, politics, or a myriad of other topics - and thus won't be able to LEARN as well or as quickly.

This is the real failure inherent in converting to a blog-style format, in my opinion.

[Spearthrower]

Hi Guys,

Introducing myself. I am Chris Wilkins, and a journalist, that DanDare mentioned in a previous post. I have to say up front I was never a member of the RDF, but DanDare, a good friend of mine, was and informed me of this situation.

Since then I have written about it (http://www.casualravings.com) and done some of my own investigations, including contacting the mainstream media who, as a consequence, may be thinking about taking a look at this situation. When they publish something I will post it back here (assuming they do).

Thus this post. I also wish to state I am not taking sides in this.

I can say that the "other side's" perspective, whether you disagree with it or not, is that they had to do this for technical reasons and then you all behaved badly, especially due to the language used. They also are of the opinion (now don't get mad at me. I am only the messenger) that this is a small matter which will blow over, that you have overstated your importance to RDF, and that basically if you all leave RDF will not suffer one jot as in time others will replace you. Again, please don't get mad at me.

So to get some concrete facts about this is from all of you; how many of there are you that feel this strongly about what has happened? Does anyone have any numbers? And, this is a difficult one to measure, how will the RDF be affected by your departure? Will it continue on its merry way without you, or will it indeed be greatly diminshed?

I have other questions for you but I daresay this will do for now.

Cheers,

Chris.

For my part; I was a member.... I live in Bangkok..... I went to bed with the forum working just fine..... woke up 6 hours later and it was already read-only. 'Knee-jerk reaction' doesn't even remotely cover such ridiculous behaviour from Josh Timonen. Had he not been so downright rude to the forum moderators, staff who gave their free-time willingly to the forums and foundation, they would not have felt obliged to make the regular members aware that they were not directly responsible. Josh was rude enough to delete the accounts, including 13,000 posts on scientific topics with responses from numerous other people, of moderators who had given their time for years to make that foundation operate.

I wasn't awake, so I can't comment on the language used; however, Josh et al would most certainly have expected the announcement of change in 30 days to cause some friction. They could simply have left it to the moderators to deal with - the people who had actually been running the site for the last few years. Instead, he went power mad, knocking down the tower of reason of which he was only a single brick.

Richard Dawkins, I am sorry to say, seems blithely unaware of much that occurred in his absence. His response makes that crystal clear. Unfortunately, it seems he places so much trust in Josh that he would actively alienate himself from hundreds of his foundation's most supportive members.

In my opinion, this has been a massive blow to the stated principles of the foundation. Zero transparency, irrational decision making, aggressive responses to criticism, actively stifling a secularist community that he has repeatedly stated is hard to come by, then nailing the coffin by burning all the records. By this, and we have evidence for this, that Josh or the IT guy has gone through the forum posts, deleted users and their entire posting records, deleted threads from much further back including Richard Dawkin's own posts, then actively deleted the admin records to cover his tracks. Something fishy is afoot there, without a doubt.

That's not all - burning all the records gets a little more literal than that when they pull the plug on millions of threads, a fair percentage of which present excellent explanations for scientific topics from diverse academic areas, political commentary on the last few years of current affairs (a historical record, Richard!), legendary posts known throughout the internet like Robert Byers' Why Polar Bears are White thread, or the monstrously comprehensive Great Flood Debunked thread..... I want to know which one of those gentlemen involved with this decision is prepared to make a public explanation of why they intend to delete it.

Quite simply, how can Richard permit this to occur and still stand and face an audience promoting rational thinking? It would be rank hypocrisy!

[Peter Brown]

Regrettably what Prof Dawkins has done is nothing new to me and I can expect billions of people can remember a favourite community place which the owner closed and redeveloped. My practical experience of such happenings over the years has been after the facelift the establishments tried to attracted new cliental and were eventually sold off as they failed to achieve a new market. So it is hard to have feelings other than typical here we go again.

[Chris Wilkins]

For my part; I was a member.... I live in Bangkok..... I went to bed with the forum working just fine..... woke up 6 hours later and it was already read-only. 'Knee-jerk reaction' doesn't even remotely cover such ridiculous behaviour from Josh Timonen. Had he not been so downright rude to the forum moderators, staff who gave their free-time willingly to the forums and foundation, they would not have felt obliged to make the regular members aware that they were not directly responsible. Josh was rude enough to delete the accounts, including 13,000 posts on scientific topics with responses from numerous other people, of moderators who had given their time for years to make that foundation operate.

I wasn't awake, so I can't comment on the language used; however, Josh et al would most certainly have expected the announcement of change in 30 days to cause some friction. They could simply have left it to the moderators to deal with - the people who had actually been running the site for the last few years. Instead, he went power mad, knocking down the tower of reason of which he was only a single brick.

Richard Dawkins, I am sorry to say, seems blithely unaware of much that occurred in his absence. His response makes that crystal clear. Unfortunately, it seems he places so much trust in Josh that he would actively alienate himself from hundreds of his foundation's most supportive members.

In my opinion, this has been a massive blow to the stated principles of the foundation. Zero transparency, irrational decision making, aggressive responses to criticism, actively stifling a secularist community that he has repeatedly stated is hard to come by, then nailing the coffin by burning all the records. By this, and we have evidence for this, that Josh or the IT guy has gone through the forum posts, deleted users and their entire posting records, deleted threads from much further back including Richard Dawkin's own posts, then actively deleted the admin records to cover his tracks. Something fishy is afoot there, without a doubt.

That's not all - burning all the records gets a little more literal than that when they pull the plug on millions of threads, a fair percentage of which present excellent explanations for scientific topics from diverse academic areas, political commentary on the last few years of current affairs (a historical record, Richard!), legendary posts known throughout the internet like Robert Byers' Why Polar Bears are White thread, or the monstrously comprehensive Great Flood Debunked thread..... I want to know which one of those gentlemen involved with this decision is prepared to make a public explanation of why they intend to delete it.

Quite simply, how can Richard permit this to occur and still stand and face an audience promoting rational thinking? It would be rank hypocrisy!

Is saying this is akin to "book burning" too strong? Obviously that conjurs up all sorts of nasty images.

[Chris Wilkins]

Regrettably what Prof Dawkins has done is nothing new to me and I can expect billions of people can remember a favourite community place which the owner closed and redeveloped. My practical experience of such happenings over the years has been after the facelift the establishments tried to attracted new cliental and were eventually sold off as they failed to achieve a new market. So it is hard to have feelings other than typical here we go again.

So you are in effect saying that, yes, this this will blow over, but in time this may be the beggining of the end of the forum? And thus have a great impact on the RD Foundation?

Do I understand you correctly?

[klr]

Regrettably what Prof Dawkins has done is nothing new to me and I can expect billions of people can remember a favourite community place which the owner closed and redeveloped. My practical experience of such happenings over the years has been after the facelift the establishments tried to attracted new cliental and were eventually sold off as they failed to achieve a new market. So it is hard to have feelings other than typical here we go again.

So you are in effect saying that, yes, this this will blow over, but in time this may be the beggining of the end of the forum? And thus have a great impact on the RD Foundation?

Do I understand you correctly?

27 days from now will be the end of the forum, unless there is a massive change of heart. A much-restricted discussion area will remain. Impact on the foundation: Harder to assess. Those closer to the atheist movement are more likely to be affected (alienated, fractured, whatever) than those farther away, never mind those on the "other side". I think that point has already been made by others.

Incidentally, Richard had frequent cause to call on the forum membership for advice, information, etc., or sometimes even to call them to action. This will be largely lost once the site constricts and changes tack. I assume he has factored this into his decision.

[95Theses]

Oh my Good lord.

Times Online:

Dawkins unleashes tirade against fans :



http://timesonline.typepad.com/science/ ... -fans.html

[Apollonius]

Chris;

Cliff Notes version-

Big-time science author Dawkins starts a site to promote his books and work, and includes a forum. His web guy is a punk that is in over his head.

The forum, as forums do, took on a life of it's own and became much busier and more popular than the front of the site.

The forum is maintained by a relatively large and loyal group of mods. It took a lot of people to keep it on track.

The forum became a home and a community for a lot of people. They are loyal to Dawkins pretty much, but he seems a bit uncertain about providing a web home for such a large group.

They have trouble keeping the site running smoothly, and punk web kid doesn't like the forum as much as he does his own stuff (the front part).

They decide to re-do the site, and make it where posts must be approved to start.

Anyone that knows forums knows this is going to defeat the purpose of having an open forum. The mods find out they are not going to be mods soon, because the punk web kid will take care of things when the new site is done. Its going to become a sanitized, moderated blog, like a magazine would have.

Dawkins wants his site to focus on his work and projects, and get away from the free-for-all forum thing.

If he didn't want a forum, he should not have started one. We all know they grow and take on a life of their own, become a community, and people feel attached to their masterpieces (posts and arguments).

The news that everything is going away pissed off the mods and the community.

Dawkins now looks like a dickhead to thousands of people that were loyal to him and his work. His "brand" won't be hurt in intellectual circles, but online he will be seen as just stupid.

If he had a clue, he would put a muzzle on his punk web kid, and figure out a way for the community to organize something else, like a forum-only site that they could develop and make a transition to. Instead, the community migrated to forums like this one to recover and vent.

Life on the net can be strange, and things happen quickly.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Oh my Good lord.

Times Online:

Dawkins unleashes tirade against fans :



http://timesonline.typepad.com/science/ ... -fans.html

He kinds of confuses cause and effect there.