Timeline for Some proposals for modifications of the process of closing/reopening questions
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 23, 2016 at 23:51 | comment | added | Gerhard Paseman | And I see the opposite: the more lasting (and in my view, worthwhile) effects are cultural and not technological. New people come in and do not understand, so the community members help them with training. There are a lot of technical innovations that came with 2.0 that I ignore or am slowly coming to appreciate like this symbol thingy, @Lucia. While I see your list of pros and cons, I am not seeing much benefit or cure in your proposed change as I do in mine. Gerhard "You Want Change? Be It." Paseman, 2016.03.23. | |
| Mar 23, 2016 at 21:51 | comment | added | user9072 | @Lucia the top-voted answer there asks for edits to such questions by those that value them. Requests for edits to the questions were explicitly made (by a moderator) on the last two question that started a considerable meta activity ("LIGO" and "Go"). No edits happened. It seems a feature needed to get the culture in line with what was discussed there could be a question cannot be reopened unless it is edited. [Added: I do not actually mean to propose this feature it is intended as an illustration for what is in my opinion part of the problem.] | |
| Mar 23, 2016 at 21:33 | comment | added | Lucia | Thank you for the answer. In some ways you are right that a cultural shift would be preferable. However, the discussion (see especially Gil Kalai's answer) in the linked stone soup question suggests such a cultural shift, but I don't think this has happened. People forget, and new people enter the system. It seems to me that a technical solution may in fact pave the way for a lasting change of attitude. | |
| Mar 23, 2016 at 18:13 | history | answered | Gerhard Paseman | CC BY-SA 3.0 |