Jon Ericson jericson

## Avoid truth assertions
Avoid truth assertions
----------------------

We want a site with broad appeal that welcomes diverse perspectives. This site focuses on the *text* and the process of interpreting it, using tools such as language, history, archaeology, and science.  None of that is inherently religious, which is what *distinguishes* BH from other Internet sites about the Bible.

One of our core tenets is that hermeneutical process is (or ought to be) open to examination from all sides. Religious claims are often not open to examination. Not only that, but they're polarizing.  Therefore, unqualified statements of religious truth are out of place here; this is a site about hermeneutics, not a site about Truth.<sup>1</sup>

Welcoming assertions of religious truth drives away some key groups of users, to the detriment of the site.  This has been raised on meta by several users.<sup>2</sup>  If the current trend continues we will lose the Hebrew-bible-based, rabbinic persepctive, since few Christian users here have any background

## Bring your own framework
Bring your own framework
------------------------

We want a site that allows contributors to speak from within their framework. Overall, this broadens the appeal of the site, and it preserves the richness of expression when answers are given in the natural context of the one giving the answer, even if this means expressing one's framework or opinions as unqualified facts.

Our aim is to be 'expert' in the context of the internet. This will not be the best home for those who do not think deeply about the texts or those who cannot communicate clearly and effectively. But it is not our aim to be home only to academics or full-time theologians: that would narrow the user-base too far and not be sustainable.

Under this option is is generally OK to make statements that assert 'truth', omitting qualifications such as 'Group X believes…'.

This outcome is where we are currently heading. This is not a reason in itself for it to be chosen, but it is the least risky option. It's clear our traffic is growing, and altho

## What kind of site do we ultimately want to have?
There have been a lot of discussions on meta about different aspects of site direction, but none directly focused on the fundamental question: What kind of site do we want to have? What should our culture be? In particular, what style of answers are we looking for?

This question is fundamentally about **where do we want to be in the end**, and not about *how we get there*.

**We all agree that contributions must 'show their work'. Exactly where and how we draw the line is an implementation detail and outside the scope of this question.**

We've provided answers that capture the main positions we know about. Please feel free to add your own if you have another outcome in mind.

Please up-vote answers you find acceptable, down-vote ones you don't, and abstain if you don't feel strongly either way. Please also up-vote the question no matter which of these you do, so we can gauge participation.

## autoreviewcomments.user.js
// ==UserScript==
// @name           AutoReviewComments
// @namespace      benjol
// @version        1.1.9
// @description    Add pro-forma comments dialog for reviewing (pre-flag)
// @include        http://*stackoverflow.com/questions*
// @include        http://*stackoverflow.com/review*
// @include        http://*stackoverflow.com/admin/dashboard*
// @include        http://*serverfault.com/questions*
// @include        http://*serverfault.com/review*
	Avoid truth assertions
	----------------------

	We want a site with broad appeal that welcomes diverse perspectives. This site focuses on the text and the process of interpreting it, using tools such as language, history, archaeology, and science. None of that is inherently religious, which is what distinguishes BH from other Internet sites about the Bible.

	One of our core tenets is that hermeneutical process is (or ought to be) open to examination from all sides. Religious claims are often not open to examination. Not only that, but they're polarizing. Therefore, unqualified statements of religious truth are out of place here; this is a site about hermeneutics, not a site about Truth.<sup>1</sup>

	Welcoming assertions of religious truth drives away some key groups of users, to the detriment of the site. This has been raised on meta by several users.<sup>2</sup> If the current trend continues we will lose the Hebrew-bible-based, rabbinic persepctive, since few Christian users here have any background
	Bring your own framework
	------------------------

	We want a site that allows contributors to speak from within their framework. Overall, this broadens the appeal of the site, and it preserves the richness of expression when answers are given in the natural context of the one giving the answer, even if this means expressing one's framework or opinions as unqualified facts.

	Our aim is to be 'expert' in the context of the internet. This will not be the best home for those who do not think deeply about the texts or those who cannot communicate clearly and effectively. But it is not our aim to be home only to academics or full-time theologians: that would narrow the user-base too far and not be sustainable.

	Under this option is is generally OK to make statements that assert 'truth', omitting qualifications such as 'Group X believes…'.

	This outcome is where we are currently heading. This is not a reason in itself for it to be chosen, but it is the least risky option. It's clear our traffic is growing, and altho
	There have been a lot of discussions on meta about different aspects of site direction, but none directly focused on the fundamental question: What kind of site do we want to have? What should our culture be? In particular, what style of answers are we looking for?

	This question is fundamentally about where do we want to be in the end, and not about how we get there.

	We all agree that contributions must 'show their work'. Exactly where and how we draw the line is an implementation detail and outside the scope of this question.

	We've provided answers that capture the main positions we know about. Please feel free to add your own if you have another outcome in mind.

	Please up-vote answers you find acceptable, down-vote ones you don't, and abstain if you don't feel strongly either way. Please also up-vote the question no matter which of these you do, so we can gauge participation.
	// ==UserScript==
	// @name AutoReviewComments
	// @namespace benjol
	// @version 1.1.9
	// @description Add pro-forma comments dialog for reviewing (pre-flag)
	// @include http://stackoverflow.com/questions
	// @include http://stackoverflow.com/review
	// @include http://stackoverflow.com/admin/dashboard
	// @include http://serverfault.com/questions
	// @include http://serverfault.com/review