Timeline for MathOverflow policymaking and transparency
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
33 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 9, 2021 at 20:46 | comment | added | David Roberts Mod | @Harry in that case, apologies for bringing up something so contentious. I'm not from the USA, so maybe that means something different to you than it does to me. I don't think mathematics is or even should be run on equity, but just perhaps how we treat each other here on MO needs to be tweaked a little depending on the parties involved. People have feelings, after all, and just saying someone shouldn't feel embarrassed doesn't make it so (this is also hugely culturally-dependent; you don't don't see many Japanese mathematicians here, for instance). But I've said enough, you have the floor. | |
| Jan 9, 2021 at 18:44 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | @HarryGindi I find it bizarre that you think that link is somehow inappropriate on David's part: he was addressing you in conversation, not making some banner post on how We Should All Do X. (If you wish to discuss further with me we should take it to a chatroom; I have been guilty upthread of using this comment thread as a place to discuss with other commenters, but on reflection if I were Neil I would be getting a bit irritated by this.) | |
| Jan 9, 2021 at 12:59 | comment | added | Harry Gindi | @DavidRoberts Also fwiw, I'm pro-equality and anti-equity. I don't know who you think you're convincing by linking articles promoting your ideology (and I don't think it's appropriate for MO). At any rate, the entire edifice of mathematics is not built on an equity-type system, and I am opposed to the notion that it ought to be. | |
| Jan 9, 2021 at 12:58 | comment | added | Harry Gindi | @EmilJeřábek Be that as it may. The point is that I'm not insulted or embarrassed, and I don't think anyone in a similar situation ought to be either. | |
| Jan 9, 2021 at 10:19 | comment | added | Emil Jeřábek | @HarryGindi I can understand a “bow to the experts” reaction, but 1 vote to close is just noise. With 2–3 votes it may start to be a meaningful indicator, but not 1. | |
| Jan 8, 2021 at 23:23 | comment | added | Harry Gindi | @DavidRoberts It's happened before. I think I deleted the question. If people feel strongly enough to want to close it, and it's not in an area of my expertise, I am happy to bow to the experts and give it some more thought. Part of being in a community with experts means having a little bit of humility. We all started with 1 reputation, after all. | |
| Jan 8, 2021 at 23:19 | comment | added | David Roberts Mod | @HarryGindi now imagine you were a first-time user nervous about MO, and you got a delete vote (and somehow you found out, in my imaginary scenario). Why on earth would you self-delete a question after one vote? You've got four more to go! Others might not agree with that vote etc. ("treated the same"? cf ywcalgary.ca/news/equity-v-s-equality-whats-difference) | |
| Jan 8, 2021 at 12:48 | comment | added | Harry Gindi | @FedericoPoloni Yeah. It's fine. My point was that users with high scores will get treated the same as users with low scores. This is fair. | |
| Jan 8, 2021 at 12:40 | comment | added | Federico Poloni | @HarryGindi So the only issue about this question is that you got one close vote stating that it is not research level? Do I understand this correctly? And then you deleted it because of that? | |
| Jan 8, 2021 at 10:50 | comment | added | Harry Gindi | @FedericoPoloni There was a vote to close for it not being research-level, which is exactly what we're talking about here. | |
| Jan 8, 2021 at 10:48 | comment | added | Federico Poloni | @HarryGindi Thanks for the link! What happened to that question exactly? The history doesn't show anything suspicious; to an external onlooker it seems that you just deleted it after a brief comment exchange. | |
| Jan 8, 2021 at 9:30 | comment | added | Harry Gindi | It used to have a vote to close on it as 'not research level', but that got cleared when I deleted it. Anyway, I don't take it personally. The person who voted to close was, of course, right. Anyway, my point is that things like this happen to everyone, and that it's a good thing. | |
| Jan 8, 2021 at 9:28 | comment | added | Harry Gindi | @FedericoPoloni mathoverflow.net/questions/378327/… | |
| Jan 8, 2021 at 9:22 | comment | added | Federico Poloni | @HarryGindi Please add a link to your deleted question, so that it is easier to review what happened. Otherwise, 30 days from now it will be almost impossible to locate. | |
| Jan 8, 2021 at 9:12 | comment | added | Harry Gindi | Those of you guys who can see deleted threads can see that this happened to me recently (a question about finite locally free maps). It doesn't feel great, but it's better to have this kind of exchange once in a while rather than have MO go to the dogs. | |
| Jan 8, 2021 at 7:22 | comment | added | Francesco Polizzi | Regarding algebraic geometry, personally I do not think that the related community is less welcoming than others. This perception might be caused from the fact that AG is somehow over-represented here, both regarding people and regarding questions (the total number of questions in AG is three times the number of questions in DG) and this is reflected in the "vote to close" clue length. | |
| Jan 8, 2021 at 7:20 | comment | added | Francesco Polizzi | @YemonChoi: I understand your concern, and I think that some better formula could be used. After all, "research level" is not even a well-defined concept. However, finding the balance between "being more tolerant and inclusive" and "avoiding to be flooded by a mass of poor questions" has always been a thorny issue and matter of discussion here. | |
| Jan 8, 2021 at 7:08 | comment | added | Hailong Dao | @YemonChoi: I have heard similar complains about algebraic geometry. But I have to admit most algebraic geometers I met have been pleasant. | |
| Jan 8, 2021 at 3:08 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | @FrancescoPolizzi regarding what may be felt by some to be unwelcoming: I don't know about "This result is false" but I do know that "this is not research level" is not very pleasant to receive, especially if it follows some terse answer-in-comments. I will also say, not directed at you, that in recent years, my semi-daily look at the "vote to close" queue has made me glad I never tried to go into algebraic geometry | |
| Jan 8, 2021 at 1:17 | comment | added | David Roberts Mod | @StevenLandsburg I have also heard various men also say the rep system is off-putting. It was made for and by coder bros, StackOverflow started. Not everyone like such psychological engineering, for better or worse. | |
| Jan 7, 2021 at 15:47 | comment | added | Steven Landsburg | I forget where I saw this, and have no memory of how well established it is, but there is apparently at least some evidence that men are more likely to stick with exercise programs that offer quantitative measures of progress whereas the opposite is true for women. This at least mildly suggests that the reputation system might draw men in and drive women away. It does not follow that there's anything wrong with the reputation system; any system at all is going to attract some people and repel others. | |
| Jan 7, 2021 at 1:08 | comment | added | Monroe Eskew | Regarding what may be the true underlying issue of gender balance, how about we ask people we know, especially female mathematicians, how they feel about participating on MO? I'm curious. The answers I would expect to get for why someone declines to participate, regardless of gender, would be either (a) lack of interest, or (b) worry about the potential for negative impact on professional reputation. Of course, no one is obliged to participate here, but it would be interesting to get a feel for why people generally choose not to. | |
| Jan 6, 2021 at 18:04 | history | edited | Neil Strickland | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 2253 characters in body
|
| Jan 6, 2021 at 15:23 | comment | added | Francesco Polizzi | honestly, it is not clear to me how much freedom we have. There is already a CoC valid on the whole of the SE network, that is quite strict. Harassment and abuse are easily recognisable and we MUST act to avoid them, but "un-welcomingness"? Is a simple answer like "This result is false for this and this" unwelcoming? At any rate, we will see... | |
| Jan 6, 2021 at 15:15 | comment | added | Harry Gindi | I should also note that in my question, I didn't ask that any such forum take place necessarily on Meta.MO (although I think that is preferable), only that MO community members can at least observe and discuss (and hopefully participate directly) from the beginning of the process, even if it were hosted on an offsite platform. | |
| Jan 6, 2021 at 14:32 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | +1 for your 2nd paragraph, Neil. | |
| Jan 6, 2021 at 11:46 | comment | added | Harry Gindi | Moreover, if people have a problem with the basic framework of MO, I don't see how any particular policy is going to change it. Maybe a better idea is for such people to build a competing model in a framework more to their liking. There simply aren't that many changes you can make to a Q&A format that will make it less like Q&A. | |
| Jan 6, 2021 at 11:40 | comment | added | Harry Gindi | My worry about lack of public comment in formulating policy with external parties is that the policies that arise in such fora tend to be presented as faits accomplis. | |
| Jan 6, 2021 at 11:15 | comment | added | Neil Strickland | I have added the phrase "with other parties" to clarify my meaning. | |
| Jan 6, 2021 at 11:13 | history | edited | Neil Strickland | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added "with other parties"
|
| Jan 6, 2021 at 10:34 | comment | added | Martin Sleziak | ....only to mods and CMs. (But this is not restricted specifically to the MO mods.) But from past interactions with them, it seems that the MO mods do not use chat that much. | |
| Jan 6, 2021 at 10:33 | comment | added | Martin Sleziak | Since you're saying in the opening paragraph that you don't want to prevent the moderators from having discussion in private - it seems to be something different from the issue raised in question. Moderators do have channels to have discussions visible only to moderators. It seems that they use the address [email protected] for various discussions - I suppose it is accessible only to the moderators. The mods have also an option to create a chatroom which is not visible to regular users.... | |
| Jan 6, 2021 at 10:21 | history | answered | Neil Strickland | CC BY-SA 4.0 |