Timeline for Why was "The origin(s) of the word “elliptic” migrated to hsm?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
27 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 1, 2020 at 20:36 | answer | added | Todd TrimbleMod | timeline score: 6 | |
| Jun 1, 2020 at 12:49 | history | edited | YCor | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added update
|
| Jun 1, 2020 at 0:28 | answer | added | HDE 226868 | timeline score: 11 | |
| May 27, 2020 at 14:31 | comment | added | HDE 226868 | HSM mod here. We've seen the flags now and are making a decision about what to do. We'll let you know what we end up going with. Thanks for flagging it. | |
| May 25, 2020 at 10:04 | answer | added | YCor | timeline score: 11 | |
| May 20, 2020 at 19:56 | answer | added | Joe Silverman | timeline score: 17 | |
| May 19, 2020 at 7:38 | comment | added | Martin Sleziak | @EmilJeřábek Re: hence the only way of “opting out” of them is stop using MO. Strictly speaking, one could add (ho.history-overview) to the ignored tags as a way to opt out. (That's merely a technicality and only tangential to the issue discussed here, but maybe this information might be useful for somebody.) | |
| May 17, 2020 at 7:51 | comment | added | Emil Jeřábek | Daily vote breakdowns are now available in a post’s timeline. | |
| May 17, 2020 at 7:40 | comment | added | Federico Poloni | @EmilJeřábek Thanks; I did not know it was possible to look at vote breakdowns by time! Anyway, those numbers still do not look like a "clear consensus" to me. People who had already upvoted András's answer could still have downvoted mine, so they are reflected in those data. My interpretation is still that the community is split. I would advise you to open a new "poll" question that reflects the updated state of things, if you wish to use its results as a supporting argument. | |
| May 17, 2020 at 7:32 | comment | added | Emil Jeřábek | And note that counting the votes for András Batkái's answer only since 2019-06-06 unfairly underestimates the upvotes, as it ignores everybody who upvoted the answer previously and does not want to change their mind. | |
| May 17, 2020 at 7:19 | comment | added | Emil Jeřábek | @FedericoPoloni Your answer was posted on 2019-06-06, and since then acquired a score of +1 (+8/-7). Since the same day, András Batkái's answer accumulated a score of +6 (+8/-2). So yes, this shows a clear consensus that history question remain on-topic despite the existence of hsm. | |
| May 17, 2020 at 7:07 | comment | added | Federico Poloni | @EmilJeřábek That meta question and András Batkái's answer precede by long the creation of HSM.se; most of the upvotes that form that 'consensus' were accumulated before there was an alternative. OTOH, my answer was given after HSM appeared, and is currently at +8/-7; I think the data show that there is no clear consensus in favor of history questions; our community is split. | |
| May 17, 2020 at 6:25 | comment | added | Emil Jeřábek | @FedericoPoloni There is clear consensus on meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/394/… that (at last some kind of) questions on history of mathematics are on-topic for MO, hence the only way of “opting out” of them is stop using MO. | |
| May 16, 2020 at 21:31 | comment | added | Michael Bächtold | @FedericoPoloni as far as I know, some left because the quality of contributions was not of the expected level. Maybe also because 1.5 questions per day, of which only a fraction is mathematics related, does not make it a very attractive site to check out regularly. "show forcibly HSM questions ..." seems like a silly question. For most MO users there is a big part of MO questions that they ignore, since it's not their area of expertise. | |
| May 16, 2020 at 20:04 | comment | added | Federico Poloni | As a first idea, I would assume that if some researchers left (or never joined) that site it's because they do not want to see HSM questions (anymore). Is that not the case? Is there some issue or back-story that I am missing about that site? In which sense it did not live up to expectations? Otherwise, why do you suggest to show forcibly HSM questions to people who voluntarily opted out of them? | |
| May 14, 2020 at 16:15 | comment | added | YCor | @LSpice thanks for correcting :) I mean antique = ancient. I thought of checking this word before posting my comment and then got distracted while browsing journals of history of math. | |
| May 14, 2020 at 16:14 | comment | added | LSpice | @YCor, "antic" = "antique", or really "antic"? | |
| May 14, 2020 at 12:51 | comment | added | YCor | ... and by "not enough connected with current research", I'd also mean "antic" history of mathematics, such as study of old enumeration systems, etc. (I refer to subjects that exist in current research in history of science.) At the opposite I'd be happy on MO with questions about partly old-fashioned mathematics (e.g., involving 19th century algebra, etc.) if they're of elaborate mathematical level. | |
| May 14, 2020 at 12:48 | comment | added | YCor | I'm sensitive to your arguments and tend to agree. However, while I'm happy with such a terminology question on MO, I wouldn't apply your conclusion to all "questions on the history of mathematics", but only those with enough connection with current research, and excluding questions pertaining to sociology of the research world (e.g., about relationship between French and German mathematicians as in this recent paper published in "Revue d'histoire des mathématiques")... | |
| May 14, 2020 at 9:01 | comment | added | S. Carnahan Mod | I cannot give a full answer to the question (since I did not execute the migration), but 2 possibly pertinent facts are: (1) there was a comment with 14 upvotes suggesting migration, and (2) the question had been flagged for moderator intervention. | |
| May 14, 2020 at 7:35 | comment | added | Emil Jeřábek | That’s a good point. I was going by the question timeline, which doesn’t show who voted for what, but by your observation, this likely means that the three regular users just voted to close, and the mod unilaterally decided to migrate it instead. | |
| May 14, 2020 at 7:31 | comment | added | Martin Sleziak | @EmilJeřábek As far as I can tell, regular users cannot migrate to hsm (it is not among the default migration paths). So some involvement of a moderator is needed in any case if a question is supposed to be migrated to that site. (Just for the reference I'll include link to the close review and revision history.) | |
| May 14, 2020 at 7:27 | comment | added | Emil Jeřábek | This does not seem to be due to a request of the OP. The question was closed and migrated in the vote-to-close process by four users (the last one being a mod, which is why a fifth was not needed). FWIW, considering the amount of traction the post gained here on MO, I find the migration disruptive and ill-advised. | |
| May 14, 2020 at 7:18 | comment | added | Martin Sleziak | An older related discussion (from 2013): Is there a consensus on whether history of mathematics questions are acceptable on MO? | |
| May 14, 2020 at 7:16 | comment | added | Martin Sleziak | I have added the (specific-question) tag, see the tag-info. (If you want to discuss more general issue and this particular question was meant just as an example, feel free to remove the tag.) Maybe also (on-topic) could be considered as a tag for this question - since it is related to the issue whether history questions are on-topic on MO. | |
| May 14, 2020 at 7:14 | history | edited | Martin Sleziak |
edited tags
|
|
| May 14, 2020 at 6:39 | history | asked | Michael Bächtold | CC BY-SA 4.0 |