Timeline for Community Wiki in the hands of moderators
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
23 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 13, 2013 at 17:14 | comment | added | user9072 | Just to be clear: I completely agree that Frank Thorne has not indulged in any questionable behavior (and never wanted to suggest otherwise, sorry if this came across differently). I also think that the question is alright. Also, I agree that there is a long history of this use on MO. Only, I think this history also caused problems, and it would be better to leave this history behind, and, say, to have this particular CW question as a normal question and some other CW questions not at all (and very few questions still in CW). But, I assume we can agree to disagree about this final point. | |
| Jul 13, 2013 at 16:36 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | Okay, thanks. I of course agree that CW has been abused on occasion in the past. But I stand by my opinion that Frank Thorne has not indulged in any questionable behavior whatsoever, slipping in a question through a back door as it were. In fact, the question is absolutely fine IMO and concerns a situation many professionals will face, and it is certain that there is no definitive or objective right answer; in my understanding CW is highly appropriate for that, and there is certainly a long history of CW being applied that way on MO. With that, I think we can let the matter rest for now. | |
| Jul 13, 2013 at 16:25 | comment | added | user9072 | I changed 'policy' to 'guidelines' (which is the word used for information related to this given in faqs, sorry for any irritation arising from the word). Also, I made even more explicit that the reason I give for CW-ing in this case is of course my interpretation of the situation. It might be wrong. However, there were cases where things like this were made explict. It is IMO simply a reality that CW is also used (maybe or not in this case) to create some type of "second class questions" (compare Benjamin Steinberg's answer). I am against this way of using CW. | |
| Jul 13, 2013 at 16:14 | history | edited | user9072 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
some changes following comments
|
| Jul 13, 2013 at 16:12 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | One more thing I should mention: yes, I did read (yesterday) the blog post you keep referring to. | |
| Jul 13, 2013 at 15:56 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | Your first edit was fine, quid. The second one I take some exception to. Part of it could be a language thing, but instead of "policy" (I don't think there are hard and fast policies which dictate when CW is to be applied), I would say there are general rules of thumb, and applications of such can be determined by authors. The whole bit about "hands" was also completely unnecessary, since I'm obviously not talking about removing control from moderators. | |
| Jul 13, 2013 at 15:37 | comment | added | user9072 | Okay, let us leave it. But, first you complain I do not give enough arguments, then you complain I give too many. (As a general aside: that you are told to avoid extended discussion is a sort of irrelevant notice by the software in particular for meta, mainly there to point to the existence of the chat-functionality. So we could also discuss this is chat. Yet, since you do not have much time, actually, neither have I. But, again, you complained I do not expain my point in full, so I felt somewhat obliged to explain more. I warned from the start on a lengthy debate would follow :-) | |
| Jul 13, 2013 at 15:27 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | quid, you wear me out; I am being told now to avoid extended discussions, and I really don't have voluminous amounts of time to respond to each and every point you make (and many of which I take issue with). I will say however that I find your remarks on the specific question I linked to unwarrantedly speculative. If you would like to continue the discussion offline, presumably you would know how to contact me. But, basta. | |
| Jul 13, 2013 at 14:35 | history | edited | user9072 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
reply to edit of OP
|
| Jul 13, 2013 at 1:09 | history | edited | user9072 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
change a formulation to be precise
|
| Jul 13, 2013 at 1:00 | history | edited | user9072 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
addition of an argument as requested in the comment
|
| Jul 12, 2013 at 21:34 | comment | added | user9072 | Regarding calamitou: I think you too complained on at least one occasion because somebody voted to close something as they thought it should be CW but was not. (I might have a hard time finding this and perhaps it was somebody else. But I think it was you.) And, again, many people simply did not know that one also needed to pay attention regarding answers. So of course they did not notice if this was not in-line, and thus did not see the problem. (It is not a huge problem, but only to get the point across why I consider it as a progress that no it must be flagged, as opp. to having a mix.) | |
| Jul 12, 2013 at 21:28 | comment | added | user9072 | Regarding the rep: I thought the mention of rep reffered to something else. I would say to attach a rough rep-value to the threshold you want for being allowed to ask in CW could still make sense. It might make a difference for some. For instance, while I do not consider the workload argument (not yours) as very convincing as it is rather rare, I would say one really should agree it is not a relevant argument if it only were to apply for 10k, because how often would this even be relevant then. Once or twice a month I would guess. | |
| Jul 12, 2013 at 21:14 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | I might not have paid it much attention, quid, if I was not the one calling for CW. But I wonder if others feel, as you do, that the situation was calamitous? | |
| Jul 12, 2013 at 21:09 | comment | added | user9072 | It is not argumentative. It is a simple question: did you pay attention to it? And, if not how should you have notice the confusion I claimed existed but you did not notice? | |
| Jul 12, 2013 at 21:08 | comment | added | user9072 | The last comment was written befor seeing yours. | |
| Jul 12, 2013 at 21:07 | comment | added | user9072 | Now this is much cleaner, if it should be CW it must be flagged. And that's simple and clear. No need for comments regarding it except perhaps to signal that somebody flagged already. I mean some people even voted to close if the question was not inline with there expectation regarding CW. I always felt this was very inappropriate. Now this likely will die out. Except if we restart it with the added issue that more might get a completely unjustified vote to close as not all will pay attention to threshold. | |
| Jul 12, 2013 at 21:06 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | your last comment is giving me an impression of being argumentative. If so, I wish you would calm down. | |
| Jul 12, 2013 at 21:04 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | I didn't propose any rep. As I said in another comment, the issue of rep is not a primary concern with me, but I know it is with some people. If pressed, I would propose the old 10 as fine by me, but some people who would seemingly prefer to place power in the hands of moderators might prefer 10000 (where moderator tools kick in). | |
| Jul 12, 2013 at 21:01 | comment | added | user9072 | Did you pay attention to the fact whether an OP of a question that was asked (sometimes in a rude form) why it is not CW had had the rep to make it CW right away? If you did not pay attention to this, of course you did not notice it happening. And some of the CWing-debates in comments were quite pointless. In addition to the clean way always would have been anyway just to flag as often there were answers already. I rememeber several question with more than one comment on CWing it (with unresponsive OP simply not online) but seemingly noone had idea to flag over hours (I did then typically). | |
| Jul 12, 2013 at 20:53 | comment | added | user9072 | I did not give the arguments why I prefer the current situation over the old one, as this seemed irrelevant as you suggested something still different. (Replace debate by thread; I did not want to start a debate about rep in general mixed in with what should or not be genarally on MO.) Also, I answered some of you side question, why this was done for example. But since we are evaluating: your request is not quite precise, which reputation limit do you propose, roughly only order of magnitude 10, 100, 1000, 10000? might make a difference to evaluate your request ;) | |
| Jul 12, 2013 at 18:30 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | It's hard to evaluate your answer when you intentionally withhold arguments (for fear of taking the "debate off-track" -- what debate?). I also think you might be exaggerating the chaos that would ensue, and also perhaps whatever confusion did ensue under the old system. (It certainly escaped my attention.) | |
| Jul 12, 2013 at 15:57 | history | answered | user9072 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |