Timeline for Replacing the homework policy 1b: what is our scope anyway?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 16, 2017 at 16:03 | history | edited | CommunityBot | replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ | |
| Mar 16, 2017 at 16:03 | history | edited | CommunityBot | replaced http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ | |
| Sep 8, 2016 at 10:55 | comment | added | sammy gerbil | @DavidZ : I mean that they all get "viewed", commented upon and voted upon. All users are involved in this. Not all are applying the same criteria as used in VTC, but all are judging the question. | |
| Sep 8, 2016 at 7:13 | comment | added | David Z Mod | How do you know all questions get screened? | |
| Sep 8, 2016 at 5:06 | comment | added | sammy gerbil | @DavidZ : 1. The purpose of VTO is to ensure only high quality questions get answered. All questions are currently screened by someone, so the resources are there. Pre-screening all questions is manageable eg (a) if the threshold rep or no. of votes for VTO is lowered, or (b) if only up-voted questions are moved to the VTO queue. 2. Abandoning Control : Bad questions are already flooding onto the site, posted without restriction. Is this frustrating experts? A simple strategy is for them to concentrate on highly-upvoted questions. Where there is a will there is a way (and converse). | |
| Aug 28, 2016 at 13:26 | comment | added | sammy gerbil | @heather : If lay questions are ok, then this is not a site for "students, researchers and academics of P&A" - it is a site for everyone. | |
| Aug 28, 2016 at 13:21 | comment | added | auden | @sammygerbil, I understand; I apologize for the misinterpretation...however I think it is unfortunate that you are abstaining from close voting. | |
| Aug 28, 2016 at 13:20 | comment | added | sammy gerbil | @heather : I do not intend to exclude anybody, only poor questions. You are misinterpreting me. Even under the VTO option, the acceptability of questions depends on their quality, not the user's qualifications or rep ... re my VTC activity, I vote to implement site policy as I understand it, not to express my own personal preferences, even though the 2 goals often coincide. However, from today I have decided to abstain from VTC and leave the problem of enforcing policy to others. I shall restrict myself to down-voting and my usual caustic comments, on the basis of my personal judgement. | |
| Aug 28, 2016 at 12:59 | comment | added | auden | @sammygerbil, I think the "anyone can ask...anyone can answer" is more of a fluffy statement...it is standard across all stack exchange sites. I'd say that's a poor example of a contradiction. Also, in the site definition, we say its a site for physicists, etc. You could close a question as a "layman's question" but that would be so subjective as to ruin the system (in my mind, anyway). | |
| Aug 28, 2016 at 12:57 | comment | added | sammy gerbil | @heather : I have not defined who is allowed on the site. The site has already done that at the start of the tour. However, that is inconsistent with the promise that "anyone can ask... anyone can answer". I am pointing out that we are implementing inconsistent policies : Insisting that everyone is welcome, but closing down questions when they come. Saying it is a site for physicists, but welcoming everyone. We need to decide exactly what our goal is, then match our policies and procedures to that goal. | |
| Aug 28, 2016 at 12:50 | comment | added | auden | And one final thing: I've seen you vtc for insufficient research effort many times. | |
| Aug 28, 2016 at 12:24 | comment | added | auden | Oh, and I guess under your definition of who is allowed on this site, I'm not (depending on how far you carry the student definition) allowed on. =) | |
| Aug 28, 2016 at 12:23 | comment | added | auden | I don't think this makes sense. You are giving two extremes. While it may be more difficult to keep the happy medium, and it may be more subjective, I think it is important to try. Yes, close vote reasons can be subjective, but we can try to formulate policy so they are not used subjectively. It is not a perfect system, but I think your ideal systems will actually result in madness. Oh, and yes, there is a deteriorating quality in questions. I think two things would help: 1. the little page before posting a question (which I suggested way back when) and 2. better formulated policy. | |
| Aug 28, 2016 at 5:37 | comment | added | David Z Mod | This is a reasonable thing to propose, but I don't agree. The whole purpose of this site is to give high quality answers to good questions (where the definition of "good questions" can be manipulated somewhat), and that requires retaining experts to answer questions. If we open the site to all questions that can be addressed using mainstream physics, that opens us up to a lot of bad questions that will frustrate experts and cause them to leave. And we just don't have the resources to pre-screen all questions before opening them. | |
| Aug 28, 2016 at 4:36 | history | edited | sammy gerbil | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 22 characters in body |
| Aug 28, 2016 at 3:38 | history | answered | sammy gerbil | CC BY-SA 3.0 |