My reaction to the overreaction
I think a lot of people currently have a lack of perspective. My tiny little blog has had tens of thousands of visitors in a few days, I’ve had phone calls and emails from The Times and Channel 4, and offers to write articles for magazines. I’m shocked that so many people are discussing this. It’s right up there with the adventures of Tiger’s penis. I think people need to step back and have a reality check.
The closure of the forum, especially in such a distasteful way, is pretty bad news for the people who used it. This is undeniable. Those people weren’t offered an honest explanation as to what happened regarding the locking of the forum, and they were left unable to communicate with their friends, or even enemies. It seems to be getting ignored by everyone despite me saying it countless times, but my blog entries were to explain to the RD forum members what really happened, and to allow them to find each other for contact details and finding new fora to use. That’s it. People think this is about making Dawkins look bad, or moaning that we should be able to do whatever we want even though it’s his website. I wonder how many times I’ll have to state the same facts. The only reason I wrote anything at all, was so that some of the members could get in touch with each other, and find out what happened, rather than come to the site confused and read the misleading official announcement. I feel like I’m going to have to write that sentence another ten times in this entry in the hopes that some people understand it.
Now the ex-members of the forum have an account of what happened, and many have got in touch with others and found new fora to haunt. Mission complete. My job is done. Because this is all I had in mind, that is why I wrote the entry here, on my little blog. I’m not the most popular blogger in the world, and I’ve admitted in several entries that I know I’m not a great writer. It’s just a small blog were I can vent about things that interest me. Hell, the blog has only existed for a few weeks. If I thought that what happened was really newsworthy, I wouldn’t have posted here. I would have contacted bigger blogs or websites, maybe even newspapers etc.
So I have to admit, I’m a bit baffled. Sure, this has been huge news for the ex-members. It means a lot to them. They really needed more information. And it’s important to the mods, since they were blamed unjustly. For anyone who used the forum on a daily basis, this is news, just like if you’re favourite TV show vanished, you may want to know why. But for anyone else, it’s just a forum that was closed down. So for 99% of the people actually discussing this right now on various websites, it isn’t news. That’s why I’m baffled. I understand that Dawkins is a public figure, but surely this news is only important to the ex-members. The site techs went about it in a very heavy-handed way. They provided information that wasn’t accurate, so I’ve corrected them. Beyond that, where is this story supposed to go? There are truly fascinating stories we could be discussing right now, like Libel Reform or the House of Commons requesting that the UK government stops NHS funding into homeopathy. These matter to everyone. I cringe at the thought of turning on the TV and seeing the two main headlines, one about Tiger Woods’ sexual activity and another about an online forum that closed.
Anyway, I’m glad I’ve helped some of the ex-members find new homes online, and we explained that we aren’t behind those insults. Good stuff. The blog entry served its purpose. For everyone else obsessed with this story about a forum they never even visited, especially news reporters wanting more information, please step back and look at the bigger picture. It’s a forum. It only matters to me because I was involved. Instead, please run a special 30-minute programme on your news stations or a multipage article in your magazines about Simon Singh and English Libel Law… Something that affects not an involved minority online, but our whole society.
Please visit:
http://www.libelreform.org/
Posted on February 26, 2010, in Atheism and tagged bad news, dawkins, edrama, forum, overreaction. Bookmark the permalink. 34 Comments.
Peter Harrison
I think you make a great point here, though I think I understand the reaction.
The issue seems to be one of closure and justice. Those of us who were involved in this, even peripherally (I only had 700 or so posts on the boards), feel that we have been villified for offences that we didn’t commit. These supposed offences have now been used as an excuse by a person with significant public exposure to justify the closing of a resource in which many had significant investment. Of particular note was the reference to people being upset of something that was referred to as “trivial” or “insignificant”. If someone has invested thousands of hours of time, at their own expense, for the good of a given cause only to be told that their effort is regarded as trivial they are likely to take offense.
The sense of injustice leads people to seek retribution, and here lies the problem. Those that acted against the community have at their disposal far greater access to channels by which they can express their point of view. It is my contention that the anger being expressed throughout the atheist community, as it stands right now, is exaggerated because to a man we feel somewhat impotent. We feel that we have been accused of crimes that we have not committed and yet are not being given our day in court to express that point of view.
Your blog post has given people without a voice, it gives people the reassurance that they do have a voice. As you mentioned you have been contacted by various news outlets for a comment. Rightly or wrongly this gives people, myself included, the feeling that we might just be able to get a fair and balanced hearing.
I think ultimately this boils down to one of respect. People have not been given any and feel a need to express their point of view. When they are prevented from doing so they get angry, and the result is clear for all to see.
Is this matter big news? Of course it isn’t, in the grand scheme of things it is a small issue. But to the people involved it is a big deal, and 20,000 active members are not an insignificant number. When those involved are cut off and villified they want their side of the story heard, and a blog such as yours has served that purpose.
I have lost any respect I had for the site admins, and my respect for Dawkins has diminished. I respected him previously as a communicator of science and as a man of reason. I can now only subscribe to the former. The latter is gone, the result of his inability to assess the situation before offering an appropriate response to those that he has offended.
Individuals may have had reactions that were over the top, but of all people Professor Dawkins should understand that. The feelings of the community as a whole are entirely predictable and their actions understandable in my opinion. The simple fact that your blog has become a rallying point is at least a victory for reason, the majority wanting an unbiased account of events rather than one with spin.
Yes, because nothing says ‘reasonable reaction’ like conducting interviews and issuing a press release full of furious rhetorical questions aimed at, apparently, the entire world, in an apparent attempt to ensure that everybody is absolutely clear that one’s feelings were hurt by stuff people said on the internet.
It would be over now if he hadn’t fed the press a line of BS about quotes that never appeared on his website, or anywhere at all until after the purge. If Richard Dawkins screwed you over and then repeatedly went well out of his busy way to tell the press that you and all your friends were scummy losers based on a total fabrication which could be taken apart with five minutes’ worth of Googling, and you took the (apparently drastic and incredible) measure of talking about that on the internet, do you truly believe you’d be overreacting?
Hey, has anyone heard about this ‘Blake-Feyerabend Hypothesis’? It’s by some Australian Philosopher called Timb Hoswell. It’s meant to put an end to the Religion vs Atheist debate and begin some sort of new age of ‘Post-Atheism’.
Does anyone know how to get a copy? Like I wanna read it.
Wait. So this Blake-Feyerabend guy is against Religion and Atheism? You can’t be against them both, it’s an either or logical disjunction. There either is a god or there isn’t? I don’t understand.
How can there be a Post Atheism? I don’t understand.
How did you find out about this book?
Look there is some sort of Post-Atheism debate going on about some sort of ‘Blake-Feyerabend Hypothesis’ and I wish someone would fill me in on it instead of all these annoying comments.
Is this supposed ‘Blake-Feyerabend hypothesis’ for or against atheism? If it’s for, then what is post-atheism about? If it is against, then is it just some new attempt by the Creationists to take a cheap shot at science?
“I’m shocked that so many people are discussing this.”
I’m not in the least surprised nor shocked. It’s been a bit of a slow-burner in fact. I was more expecting it to reach a number of online newspapers Tuesday or Wednesday at the latest.
Dawkins is more than a bit of a publicity-hound for previously honourable reasons. He just succeeded in burning himself this time with very unprofessional and indeed incompetent handling of the matter. Even so, he was succeeding and maybe still is in ensuring his completely tendacious version of events prevails on account of his “celebrity” and name-recognition.
… Simon (7.5k posts to RD.net forum)
This is important outside those directly affected as having one of the leading proponents of reason and rationality display so little of of those traits sets the whole cause back and supplies it’s enemies with ammunition.
Richard Dawkins wants to galvanise public opinion but it now appears he also wants to vet those who answer the call.
Let’s hope it was all down to his website cardinals as otherwise he’s in danger of losing integrity, as old fashioned a notion as that is.
There is a wider issue here: how to create interesting forums which remain civil and friendly without huge amounts of moderation. I don’t think we’ve discovered how yet.
Game theorists and biologists might have ideas about how to build a reputation system (karma rating system) which helps towards this end.
Peter, thank you for this.
These are my thoughts exactly.
For anyone else interested there are more than a few alternatives on the web, and most RDF regulars can be found at the following two places:
http://www.rationalia.com
http://www.rationalskepticism.org
Peter I understand what you’re trying to say however you did set the record straight. While some of the news sources portrayed exactly what they wanted in their inimitable factoid fashion, your blog served to provide inside information in a thorough and respectful way.
This blog is invaluable as a source for any media hounds who might actually want to present a balanced perspective.
- Online forums are a growing phenomena and not culturally or politically insignificant.
- Few journalists are going to resist the lure of a story containing a suppurating rat’s rectum, especially one combined with a skunk and a dead rhino, a celebrity, religion and the unruly online unwashed.
- It’s not also surprising that professional opinionators have latched onto a story which, at first sight, diminishes the credibility of their organized, unpaid, online competition, many of whom spend their time picking said opinionators’ often ill-informed articles to bits!
Thanks Peter, succinct as always. I’m shocked it made it in to the “real world”, so to speak. Sure, the noise was deafening here in cyberspace but I wouldn’t have thought it would cause a ripple outside of that. Oh well. Terrible article – unbalanced and incorrect (including attributing comments specifically directed at Josh as being directed at Dawkins).
Meh.
I hope everyone enjoys their new forum hangouts.
This, too, shall pass
Cheers.
Another fantastic post yet again, Peter!
In some respects, you’ve missed how it worked. If you’d taken it to the papers, they’d have ignored you. It was precisely because you were low key, you were given the respect you’re actually due. Little hyperbole, straight and pithy. It may not be what is accounted ‘good’ writing in an age where ‘good’ isn’t recognised if it bites somebody’s arse, if I were you, I’d live with ‘effective communication of fact’ (which in my book IS good writing, but I’m an atavism from a different age)
You may not have set out to make Ricardo look a dill, but it seems he can do that all on his own, or with a little assistance from the hired help (his HR skills stink, as does his communication in any forum other than lecture of polemic).
Over all, I’d not be surprised that media are contacting you. Salt the leeches for all you can, old dear.
I was a semi-regular visitor to the Dawkins main page, and very occasional viewer of the forum, and I’m still extremely interested in these developments.
It’s the sense of injustice at the bad treatment and subsequent whitewashing of events by those with all the power. Removing user accounts with thousands of posts, just because they dare to criticise, is unbelievably harsh. They aren’t even my posts and I am really, really angry at the injustice of it, because I can imagine how I would feel in the same situation.
It’s not fair and has seriously changed my opinion of Dawkins at this point. I’ll keep an open mind and watch out for subsequent updates from him to see any clarifications are made, but after his “Outrage” post it will take pretty significant backpedalling and apologies to fix the damage in my eyes.
It will certainly make the upcoming convention in Melbourne more interesting…
Thanks for sharing all this data. I think you’re handling it wonderfully.
To add to my last comment, I think people should be giving interviews to papers and the like about this, because all of the stories so far seem to be swallowing the line that the Outrage post ran with. That being that the whole mess is over the changes to the forums, NOT to the way the moderators were treated and the shameful actions of Josh. Dawkins, seemingly dishonest, but possibly just misinformed, quote mining needs more attention.
Peter, I recommend you go for it. This is news not least because of Dawkins status as essentially THE atheist celebrity. What happens with all of this could and probably will effect his public image for years to come.
Your side of this story, your facts, also represent something else the media is probably looking for: a pro-Dawkins bent. You are under the impression (and I share it, by the way) that Dawkins was duped… he’s a victim in this. The media coverage thus-far is anti-Dawkins, and there are always media people looking for an opposite side. You presented that opposite side.
Just my $0.02 USD…
“But for anyone else, it’s just a forum that was closed down. So for 99% of the people actually discussing this right now on various websites, it isn’t news. That’s why I’m baffled. I understand that Dawkins is a public figure, but surely this news is only important to the ex-members.”
I’m one of the “anyone else”. This is why it is important :
1. you don’t need to be affected by injustice to feel the need to show solidarity with those affected by it.
2. It’s just incredibly damaging to have one of the foremost organisations of non believers being run in such an autocratic and unprofessional manner.
3. We must criticize vehemently such an organisation if it is to be considered representative of the causes we fight for.
Conclusion : if RD doesn’t reverse course and apologize to those that have been hurt by this, I refuse to donate money or time in the future to the RDF.
Er, that wasn’t meant to be directed at YOU, Peter, I hope that was clear.
I’d agree your mission is largely complete (and a job well done!) but one last thing remains to be resolved, and that’s the $64 million question everyone’s got on their minds.
It is, was Proessor Dawkins duped or was he complicit?
The answer to that question is crucial because it will chart the future for how people see Richard in future.
And Richard can’t have it any other way, either he knew or he didn’t, it’s open and shut. Not much for gray area there.
As you’ve shown, the evidence points to him having been duped, and that couples with the strong intiuitive sense most of us get about it.
But we have to know.
If Dawkins elects to remain silent, in some odd hope the story will fall off the front pages, his rep will remain forever clouded by this debacle. If he’s innocent, as we sense he is, all he’ll have to do is sacrifice the guilty party(s), and they should be sacrificed in any event. As much as Dawkins may not like doing that, he will have no choice. If he’s innocent.
Please keep reporting until this final question is resolved.
Thank you and thanks for your great efforts!
A sound and balanced set of public statements Peter, thanks for that.
@negentropyeater can I add top yourcomment and take the theme further.
Your conclusion “…if RD doesn’t reverse course and apologise to those that have been hurt by this…” doesn’t go far enough unless we take a very wide reading of “those who have been hurt”.
Prof Dawkins as a respected and public figure has made some strong statements which are blatantly untrue. Unless he publicly acknowledges all those matters of untruth there is no basis for restoration of his public image. Apologising to those who have been hurt, especially the inner circle of his supporters, the staff and members of RDNet Forum, cannot proceed without the starting point of the acknowledgement that he was wrong and his public admission of the specific facts on which he was wrong.
If he cannot take that step, big though it is, his enemies will continue to drag the issues out for many years to come. And those enemies will, for once, have truth on their side.
Peter, the fact that you have manage to attract such media attention and subsequently will get our story of misrepresentation and vilification heard on a wider scale is completely down to your excellent blogs and writing skills. I’m glad we have you here to represent us after these horrible events.
I’m also very glad to see that you have become a global Mod over at RationalSkeptics.org in the wake of this debacle.
With the sudden collapse of the Richard Dawkins Forum (the biggest forum of its kind on the internet), many members have banded together and started their own forum. We have all the old moderators from RDF and all of our old friends are back together;
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/index.php
We encourage all to join no matter what your beliefs or outlooks are.
Diversity is paramount to stimulating discourse!
DanDare: “We are somewhat new and improved there. We are still committed to the guidelines allowing criticism of ideas but not attacks on the person. Now we have been able to rationalise the structure without the Richard Dawkins sales/fan aspect and with wider science range. On the old site there was General Science and then evolution and biology. The new site now includes Physics, Astronomy, Chemistry, Geology and more. The area on religion is more comprehensive and focused as is the scope of topic areas for debunking creationism, pseudo science and other enemy of reason stuff.”
Read the full story of the collapse of the old forum and controversy with Richard Dawkins here;
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=454
Great work Peter!
I’m afraid I disagree insofar as the original closure of RD.net was a shame, but the subsequent behaviour of RD admins in conspiring towards a cover up followed by the Dawkins fanciful spin on events namely the Outrage post which made the event public domain.
Certainly the journalists are being rather expedient in selecting parts of the story which promote mileage for their commentary agenda. Pity they used the false allegations to support personal views.
But I do feel if this RD.net incident had been performed by a member for parliament resignations would be being demanded for such dishonest practices.
All I would personally like to see is a simple public note by Dawkins to say ‘I am sorry former members are upset by the closure of the forums, I understand their concerns but I feel it is not the direction I wish this site to follow any more. I hope they may find a forum more to their liking elsewhere that meet their needs. I apologise for the rash actions of my staff and regret how these actions upset everyone involved, and lastly I was mistaken in my Outrage post, I hope you forgive an honest mistake made by me and continue to enjoy the new revised RD.net.’
I’m not even an Oxford debater but at least I can construct an apology for a mistake and error of judgement.
RD did what he had to do : apologize and reverse course (ensure the old forum will remain available as read only archive).
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5165
AFAIAC, all is forgotten.
RD has done a great job of mending bridges, bravo. Still a bit unresolved with Josh’s actions though. And whether the archived forum will include the accounts that were deleted.
When I was a product manager, I sent out similar ‘non-apologies’. Admit to the minor sin, ignore the steaming mess, and remind the client just how wonderful we are. 99 times out of 100 you didn’t have to DO a thing after the ‘apology’ letter…
Peter Harrison, I have a few questions, I hope that you will answer them.
1. Were you contacted by Heidi Blake, the reporter from the Telegraph or did you contact her?
2. Do you know or have any idea of how this story was brought to the attention of the MSM?
3. Can you support the statement that you made to Ms. Blake?;
“Thousands of loyal, intelligent, rational forum members have been misrepresented as a bunch of foul-mouthed, vitriolic thugs by the man who so inspired them.” *
* The problem is Peter, I’m a “loyal, intelligent, rational forum member” and when I read the “Outrage” post I wasn’t the least bit offended. I didn’t for one moment think that Dr. Richard Dawkins was referring to all of the members of the forum. See I’m rational that way; it seems to me that you’re not. I’ve long been one of those members who thought the forum was an embarrassing mess (not to say that there wasn’t excellent work there) where one had to climb mountains of nonsense to reach the bloody peak and find only a morsel of sustenance. There were thousands of topics and tens of thousands of posts with so much redundancy as to be astounding and you think that all of that that dreck (incessantly referred to by the drama queens as “historical documents”) had to be preserved and paid for by RDFRS?
Here are some examples: in the “Science and Technology” category one can find the “Evolution and Natural Selection” sub-category which has 5,231 topics with 77,634 posts; in the “Faith, Religion and Belief Systems” category one can find the “Faith and Religion” sub-category which has 15,553 topics and has 474,081 posts. The “Did Jesus Exist” topic was in its seventh iteration with the same insults and acrimony being perpetuated day after day after day. Something had to be done. Dr. Richard Dawkins name was on the site not yours or any of the other recalcitrant members who believed that every scintilla of the shit (avatars[which were and still are being abusively used to spam the site after the "mountain out of a molehill" that you were instrumental in creating], signatures and absurdly nested comments must be preserved“in perpetuity” as one of the DQ’s demanded. Historical documents! What a joke! I could go on and on addressing all of the petty and contrived complaints that the drama queens have lodged across dozens of websites, like Rickrolling (so fucking what-it was done all of the time in the forums anyway) and “Oh, the nerve of them, I couldn’t see all of my precious posts for a whole hour! Twice or so a month my IP does maintenance and I can’t get on the web at all-imagine that! The nerve of them to try to maintain and improve their service.
Hello Kevin. Sure, I don’t mind answering your questions.
1. Was I contacted by Heidi Blake or did I contact her? No and no. Never heard of her.
2. No.
3. I cannot support any statement made by me to Ms. Blake, because I never made any statement to Ms. Blake. Indeed, I’ve never in my life been in contact with anyone from the Telegraph.
As for me not being a rational individual, fair enough. You’re entitled to your own opinion. Sorry to hear you were so annoyed by people complaining on other sites and fora. Hopefully you can ignore them if it continues.
Kind regards
Thanks for answering those questions Peter but your answers leave me with more questions than provide any elucidation but perhaps evasion is your intent.
Here’s the link to the Telegraph article written by Heidi Blake wherein you are quoted:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7322177/Richard-Dawkins-in-bitter-web-censorship-row-with-fellow-atheists.html
Are you saying that you didn’t make that statement or rather that it was made to someone else?
I did say the part about some people possibly losing respect for Dawkins, but not to the Telegraph. The second part was not said by me.
I’m glad to know you weren’t offended, and sorry that you feel you have to comment about it.
I guess that’s just another aspect of the terrible state of journalism. As that article was presented one could only conclude that you had said it:
“A lot of people have lost respect for Dawkins after this, although I do still support the work that he does,” Peter Harrison, a former moderator of the website, told The Times.
“Thousands of loyal, intelligent, rational forum members have been misrepresented as a bunch of foul-mouthed, vitriolic thugs by the man who so inspired them.”
What do you think? It seems as if Heidi Blake just made this one up…I was pretty upset with you for being led to believe that you had made such an illogical assertion.
Pingback: Koreascapade » Richard Dawkins’ "Storm in a Tea-Cup" Forum Debacle
Pingback: The 21st Floor » Blog Archive » Dawkins.net: Storm in a teacup 2.0?