Hello to all. I have been enjoying this site for several years and have finally gotten my act in gear and joined. I have a couple of SCP ideas that I will post on on Help & Ideas for feedback. I also have some constructive criticism for a number of previous SCPs that mention radiocarbon dating (as well as other dating methods). What is the best way to assist them in improving their science without stepping on anyone's toes? What about an entry that was done by someone who is no longer active?
Hello and welcome! How'd you find us?
The best way to critique an extant SCP without stepping on anyone's toes is to post a brief suggestion that the science could use improving in the talk page. If the author seems open to your help (or if everybody agrees that they darn well should be ;) ), then you follow up with a thoughtful, constructive, respectful, and detailed set of suggestions for improvement. If you're really concerned about stepping on toes, you can carry out the whole process through PMs instead.
Dealing with articles written by absent authors is much like dealing with those by present authors: you post your suggestions for improvement, and if the community agrees that edits are warranted, site moderation will tell you or someone else to have at it in the original author's place.
I confess myself curious, too: which articles in particular do you see as needing improvement?
SCP Wiki Administrator | Earth: We're all in this together.
Hello. Thank you for your response. It was years ago but I think it was mentioned on the Traditional Games forum of 4chan, that wretched hive of scum and villainy. I have spent nearly an hour trying to find an example of what I was talking about but have had no luck. Perhaps some of them have been modified since I read them long ago, although I did spot one yesterday. I will fabricate an example to illustrate my point. "Radiocarbon dating of SCP-XXX, commonly referred to as 'the Dagger of Macbeth' dates it's manufacture to 1611 AD." Carbon-14 dating is a destructive test requiring a portion of the object to be used up. Additionally, there is a broad margin of error that makes it impossible to date it accurately to the year or even decade. On top of that, the process is not viable on items older than about 65,000 years old. Many people tend to use the the technique in literature as a credible sounding 'yearometer'. I have found SCP-496 and think they did a good job, but the statue might not appreciate the process of obtaining an uncontaminated sample. I think that I may be too fussy over a small matter, but you could say 'scientific analysis' and it would be nicely vague (these reports are supposed to be overviews for Administrators). Who knows, perhaps SCP-001 is a Year-o-meter.