Timeline for On the role of anonymity in a site dedicated to research-level mathematics
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
28 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 17, 2014 at 9:50 | answer | added | user45639 | timeline score: 4 | |
| Nov 23, 2013 at 23:22 | answer | added | TRiG | timeline score: -6 | |
| Nov 20, 2013 at 11:47 | history | edited | Stefan KohlMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Fixed spelling of the title (since nobody else did so far ...).
|
| Nov 12, 2013 at 19:18 | answer | added | Lev Borisov | timeline score: 11 | |
| Nov 12, 2013 at 18:12 | comment | added | alvarezpaiva | @CarlMummert. Yes, that's what I said in the comments. This question is already impossible to follow due to their lengths. | |
| Nov 12, 2013 at 16:43 | comment | added | Carl Mummert | I don't agree that you have to write "the proof of this lemma was worked out in an MO conversation with Bullwinkle101". If the user has chosen not to use their real name, I am not convinced you are obligated to give them a call-out via the pseudonym. You could instead simply write "in a conversation on MathOverflow.net", while also seeing whether you can contact them to obtain their professional name. | |
| Nov 6, 2013 at 13:23 | answer | added | Michal R. Przybylek | timeline score: 4 | |
| Nov 3, 2013 at 1:51 | comment | added | Joseph O'Rourke | If it had not been for @quid, I would be a weaker Scrabble player ("A wad of something chewable as tobacco"). | |
| Nov 2, 2013 at 18:51 | history | edited | alvarezpaiva | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 233 characters in body
|
| Nov 2, 2013 at 16:41 | answer | added | Gil Kalai | timeline score: 28 | |
| Nov 2, 2013 at 14:33 | answer | added | Niemi | timeline score: 56 | |
| Oct 30, 2013 at 23:07 | comment | added | user9072 | @GeraldEdgar it may be (without any irony) for some, and we had this discussion long ago (on the initiative of Gil Kalai). But it also may be for some others that they have a particular problem if somebody they know (at least by name) and perhaps respect closes their question. Or it may be they have a particular problem if a student closes their question. Or still something else. In any case if somebody has such a problem their question is close by an anon they might consider to introspect why this is the case and perhaps the outcome could be interesting. | |
| Oct 30, 2013 at 15:32 | comment | added | Gerald Edgar | Often, our users feel offended when their questions are closed. That feeling of offense may be increased if those voting to close have names like "Superman" and "Albert Einstein"... | |
| Oct 30, 2013 at 14:28 | comment | added | alvarezpaiva | @TobiasFritz: Of course, I asked. Note that if no email address or professional website is furnished then the only thing you can do to contact the colleague in question is to write a comment. I don't always read all comments that people leave: it really depends on how busy I am at the moment. Unfortunately, I numbered this point first, but it is not the main point: I can always write in the paper "this proof was worked out in a conversation around the MO question \http.etc.etc.". | |
| Oct 30, 2013 at 14:14 | answer | added | Todd TrimbleMod | timeline score: 58 | |
| Oct 30, 2013 at 13:35 | answer | added | fedja | timeline score: 17 | |
| Oct 30, 2013 at 13:07 | comment | added | Tobias Fritz | @alvarezpaiva, re 1: did you ask the pseudonymous user for how (and if) to acknowledge them in your paper? For example, it could be that the user prefers to be pseudonymous on MO, but might agree to seeing their real name in the acknowledgements of a paper. | |
| Oct 30, 2013 at 13:03 | comment | added | user9072 | The experiment would not really settle the dicussion, since you are still not quite clear what you actually propose. The distinction you stress now is one I would describe as 'open to all' vs 'restricted' (not 'allowing anon' vs real-names). As said one could allow essentially anon contrib to a restricted site too (after some confidential signup). And also various of the lesser question that get asked, and often those leading to more controversy, do get asked by people under thir realname. The copied HW by userxyz is closed quickly and not that much of an issue in the end. | |
| Oct 30, 2013 at 13:02 | answer | added | Lucia | timeline score: 44 | |
| Oct 30, 2013 at 13:00 | comment | added | user9072 | Okay, (at least abstractly) this makes more sense. Though I am pretty sure I'd say same thing under my realname and various people around here would have said comparable things. Also your intitial reply to it perhaps is in the same category ;-) Actually, I think in some ways I am nicer on this site than I would be if under my realname. | |
| Oct 30, 2013 at 12:38 | comment | added | alvarezpaiva | @Quid: I meant 3, sorry about that. Anonymity encourages a lot of "smart-aleking". Actually, I'm more worried about the good people leaving. My impression is that I meet them less often than a I did a year ago and I know other people who also have this impression. In the words of one of them "MO is the victim of its own success". I think MO is really a great tool, and it would be a pity to see it disappear or turn into something useless. But perhaps someone will start a more ArXiv-like site. The experiment would settle our discussion. | |
| Oct 30, 2013 at 11:55 | comment | added | user9072 | @alvarezpaiva if this is like this, simply asked them to change their displayname or provide that link. If they are not willing to do this, maybe your believe is not that sound. Also why does it illustrate 2? What seems to happen in my opinion is that you seem somehow annoyed by this situation in 1. and thus you start a debate on the matter. | |
| Oct 30, 2013 at 11:52 | answer | added | user9072 | timeline score: 17 | |
| Oct 30, 2013 at 11:51 | comment | added | alvarezpaiva | @Asaf: I should have defined an anonymous user as one with no link to his professional website. | |
| Oct 30, 2013 at 11:50 | comment | added | alvarezpaiva | @Quid: your remark illustrates point 2 quite nicely. Thanks! The person in question is a professional mathematician and if anonymity had not been a choice, I believe he would have joined anyway. | |
| Oct 30, 2013 at 11:32 | comment | added | Asaf Karagila Mod | I agree that there are very good merits to recommending people that they use their real names. But to outright forbid anonymous names sounds ridiculous. If @quid would have used the name John Derbysmith, could you immediately tell he is anonymous? What if he would have used "Asaf Karagila"? Can you verify he is misusing my name? I do agree that it might be reasonable to require moderators to use their real names (or at least have them on the profile). | |
| Oct 30, 2013 at 10:51 | comment | added | user9072 | So, looking at 1, an anonymous user told you something quite useful and thus you want to ban them...?! | |
| Oct 30, 2013 at 10:24 | history | asked | alvarezpaiva | CC BY-SA 3.0 |