Edited to replace original incorrect Herzog attribution with my own version that correctly attributes the quote
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
not a good reason to leave it up. Think about the precedent that sets.
...the precedent that people are allowed to make minor mistakes? Gasp THE HORROR
Seriously, this mistake isn't a big deal, no intentional misdirection and in any case, the quote is more important for conversation than the actual author.
I think the objection here is that it creates a massive loophole: Intentionally post misinformation, claim you thought it was legitimate. Repeat until you stop getting the benefit of the doubt, start over with a new account, repeat ad infinitum.
I'm not sure what the best solution is, but I think we at least need some kind of very clear notice, on the feed page and not just in the comments, that the content is proven to be factually incorrect.
If it's more serious misinformation, it probably warrants taking down the post, even if unintentional. The nuance would then be that genuine error doesn't immediatly warrant banning, even if the post is taken down.
This one is a mild and unintentional case with little implications either way. If someone were to cite this as "But this one you left up!" as excuse for a different, more severe case, the mods would justifiably say that it doesn't apply.
Besides, it's not like setting a precedent is as serious for community mods as it is for courts of law - mods can change the rules when a situation arises that warrants it and enforce them accordingly, make one-off decisions for special cases or admit a previous decision was a mistake and generally have more leeway.
I think the point is it's factually incorrect about the least significant fact.
This is a great point but man that was hard to process.
Maybe I'm running a little slow today?
wait. You saw this comment, and reported it anyways?
Think about the precedent that pulling down discussions wholesale because some inconsequential detail about them is wrong sets.
It wasn't intentional, FFS. I hate this place so much.