Based off of this meta question, I think we should address how to handle source citations that are known to be incorrect.

If Roll20 (or other 3rd party sources) are known to have errors, should we allow linking? Is it up to the user of that source to make sure it's correct or is it up to the community?

Do we/should we limit sources based?


1 Answer 1


Answers: Downvotes and constructive comments

Sources are the responsibility of the cite-writer, not the responsibility of policy.

The way to handle this then is business as usual: downvote answers that have errors, and optionally help them correct such errors with constructive comments.

Questions: Solve the problem in answers

Business as usual here too. (We run into this a lot already with DandDwiki homebrew mistaken for official material.) As usual, we solve someone’s problems with a comprehensive answer, including “part of your problem is that you read a misleading/incorrect page on the Tubernets” when necessary.

Making a policy against bad sources would be ineffective

New policies don’t tend to make people do things. Outlawing a kind of link (or requiring rules to use it “right”) would be largely ignored.

But downvoting? That gets people’s attention. For example, the main motivator for our decreasing number of links to 5e.d20srd.org is downvotes with comments pointing out that it’s full of errors. We didn’t need to make a policy, just needed to penalise answers that were wrong.

People in general don’t follow rules. People speed, cheat on their taxes, and break SE rules all the time.

SE is set up to handle that by instead making it painful to write bad answers (to discourage it, and encourage fixes) and by demoting or disappearing bad content (to handle the remainder that’s neither discouraged nor fixed).

  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ Yeah, let's not get overly fiddly about this and/or terrorize people for using Roll20. If there's a specific error point out the specific error. Or post your own answer or use any of the standard remediation methods we already have. \$\endgroup\$
    – mxyzplk
    Commented Aug 3, 2018 at 17:05
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @mxyzplk Not trying to terrorize folks, just trying to make sure we use sources and citations that are correct. If we fall into a habit of users citing incorrect sources, the site itself can become untrustworthy. Putting the onus on the community to verify the sources and quotations is okay, but I'd rather consider the option of requiring citing primary sources. \$\endgroup\$
    – NotArch
    Commented Aug 3, 2018 at 17:09
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ @NautArch People post wrong answers of different sorts all the time, and dealing with that is built into the bones of the site already. We maintain the quality and trustworthiness of the site against bad answers with the normal tools. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Aug 3, 2018 at 17:15
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Fair enough! I can work with helping guide folks to better sources and citations. \$\endgroup\$
    – NotArch
    Commented Aug 3, 2018 at 17:22
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @NautArch that's part of the "expertise" and "expert answers" bit that leads to a stack of good answers: having the in depth understanding / knowledge that can offer that kind of insight. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Aug 6, 2018 at 13:04

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .