Closed-opened-closed. No reason why?
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/6660
Dead?
Reopened only for changing reason of closure?
I'll update if I find more oddities or explanations.
Thanks for the help Jonas.
]]>...
Mine was the only voice to reopen for a month. So I had to post a new question.
(In my opinion, VA has a very valid complaint here.)
I agree. I think people were justified in closing the first question, and by the time the second question was asked, things had already gone wrong. The problem is that there should never be an isolated person on a quest to reopen (or close) a question. It's frustrating, and there's no reason such a person shouldn't have people agreeing with her (or actively disagreeing with her).
Unfortunately, voting to reopen isn't the same as voicing for reopening. This is a shame, because I think if the first question had gotten some attention it would have been edited to look like the newer form of the question and reopened. As far as I can tell, there weren't any voices for reopening the question: there weren't any comments calling for the question not to be closed or for it to be reopened. François left a comment about how the question should be changed, but there wasn't any actual reaction to that comment until a month later. VA didn't give any indication that he disagreed with the question being closed, and his edit came of as suggesting that he may have actually agreed with people's cries that the question was off topic. It was almost impossible to know that VA was stewing in frustration for a month. If some people did know, they were quiet about it: I didn't even know the first question existed until the fiasco with the second question started.
Is there something we could have done to effectively get VA (or at least his first question) onto meta earlier? I deeply believe it would have solved the problem, and that it would have been the right solution. However, for all I know, my attempts to contact him by email have failed, he hasn't looked at meta at all, and believes that there are many high rep users on MO who are unreasonable and who disagree with him in some fundamental way. Needless to say, I'm not very happy with this being a possibility.
]]>So may be this is how democracy works. There are often passionate debates, and progress is painful, but if everyone acts in good faith, some good product would eventually come out? Anyway, may be this is just my attempt to put a positive spin on things...
]]>Noah: I was most upset by the fact that one participant took the challenge and volunteered to write an addon in a few days. But with the question closed and the incentives, such as they are here (the "points") gone, and no way to communicate the results (one can not add answers to a closed question), he apparently abandoned it. So that's anti-progress. Mine was the only voice to reopen for a month. So I had to post a new question.
(In my opinion, VA has a very valid complaint here.)
]]>Yes, though you don't just stumble upon deleted questions. You have to find them somehow (like the deleted tab under the tools menu).
]]>"what invited such a strong reaction to this question" -- it was all the reasons Scott listed so clearly in his first post: the "thought police" comment, the fact that it was a duplicate, and the "closing a question is a personal attack" issue.
]]>This may be a meta question, but who reads meta threads, right?
So, is it true that not many people read meta(as opposed to the number who follow MO main screen)?
Also, I wonder, what invited such a strong reaction to this question, while the question about what to do while stuck at NY airport got through with much less fanfare?
]]>I think I disagree with Pete Clark and Emerton, but I'm not completely sure. I certainly pay extra attention when I see a high rep user doing something borderline. That's because it's more likely that they know what they're doing. But if that action ultimately doesn't make sense to me, it seems crazy not to say, "I disagree with this; why are you doing it?" I find it hard to believe that somebody could be a valuable contributor to MO, but find it unreasonable for somebody else to politely voice such an opinion. In this specific case, I admit I was a bit blinded by my annoyance at the unabashed duplicate and "meta storm", but I actually couldn't come up with a good reason for the original question to be closed, even though at a gut level it felt off topic. I think the question would likely get a better answer on Stack Overflow or Super User, but I don't really see why it shouldn't be on MO. The thing I wish I'd done differently: I wish I'd left a comment on the first question (before the second question existed) to the effect of
This feels off topic to me, but I can't really justify closing it. I've started a discussion at http://tea.mathoverflow.net/discussions/12345
I feel like the problem was that the first question was closed and VA didn't see why (thought police, I guess).
+1 to fgdorais, both for his comment above and for the one he left on the original question:
]]>This is a very borderline case in my opinion, but I'm voting to close as 'off topic' on the basis that this question should be addressed to the arXiv directly. (Addressing it here will serve no purpose as far as I can tell.) I would be fine with a variation on the following instead. Is there a user-side method to render latex formulas on arbitrary websites?
2) Closing a question is not rude, and I think it's important for everyone to internalise this. It is not an insult, it is not a personal rejection.
I remember the same from the film "The Godfather": It's not personal. It's strictly business. "You're taking this very personal. Tom, this is business and this man is taking it very personal.".
Of course, then, when normal procedures give unsatisfactory outcome, "for justice, we must go to Don Corleone".
Pardon me for the off-topic cheeky references.
]]>The closing of the original question started "by the book" but it did not finish that way. I cast the first vote and gave a very clear explanation, including a suggestion for a better formulation of the question. VA had actually edited the question in the time it took to cast my vote and type my comment, partly directing it in the way I suggested. However, the comment chain quickly degenerated and stopped being constructive. I understand how VA could be upset by that.
I only caught the end of the closing of the second question as I only saw the question after Scott posted on meta. Part of it was "by the book" and part was not. I don't agree, but I see how someone could think the question duplicated the original. However, it is clear that much of the closing votes were motivated by the rant in the first paragraph. There is no place on MO for such rants. I edited out the rants, which I thought was the appropriate action in this case.
It is clear to me that both VA and the community acted "inappropriately" in both cases. Ideally, community actions ought to be constructive and users ought to respond by negotiating a compromise. That said, everyone has their failures, and we should be understanding and tolerant of that. Recently, I basically insulted another user in a comment. Of course, I didn't really mean it and I promptly apologized once I realized what I had said. People who saw that incident understood what happened and continued to discuss constructively. That was probably ideal MO behavior in such circumstances.
As far as giving special considerations to some users, I very very very strongly disagree. Everybody on MO deserves equal consideration. Had VA been given due consideration and had VA given due considerations to community objections, things would be a lot better now.
]]>Here is what you said:
All users should enjoy the luxury of people trying to help answer their question.
This is the statement with which I took issue. Perhaps you meant something more specific, but this is what you wrote.
Edit: Just saw Scott's post.
]]>I think this thread is threatening to veer off-topic. Perhaps you could start a new thread if you'd like to again discuss the scope of MathOverflow? Let's keep this thread focused on this particular episode, especially appropriate remedies and lessons to be learned.
]]>Part of the reason you see no evidence of the clutter on the front page is that many people here actively moderate questions by closing those questions that are against the rules.
What Emerton actually said was:
As far as I can tell, people are concerned about clutter on the front-page, and about opening flood-gates, and I've seen no evidence that either of these is something to be genuinely concerned about.
Notice that you are proposing precisely that we open the flood-gates!
]]>While I will probably always find people too trigger happy to close questions, your analysis makes a strong case that it would be worthwhile to think about this as a policy failure, rather than just a politeness failure. On the other hand, I do think that my point about the number of high-level contributors being small is a valid one, and that the MO ecosystem is perhaps more delicate than that of other SE sites. It would be good if people took this into account in their interactions on the site, and did their best to be tolerant. (This might be a better word then politeness.)
]]>In between 7) and 8), I'd seen that the question had 4 votes to close. At that point, I think everything was okay -- no one was offended by the phrasing of the question anymore, and there was a decent answer there. There are two things that I could have done at that point that might have helped:
I really wish I'd cleared the votes, as this might have avoided the eventual problem.
]]>But on this site, people expect to ask questions about the diffeomorphism classes of K3 surfaces, about the construction of 3-folds with certain technical properties, about embedded deformations of subvarieties, about Hilbert schemes, and all kinds of other similarly technical things. How many people do you honestly imagine there are in the world who can competently answer any such question? And then how many of them are likely to spend time on MO? It's almost a given that the people who are providing fluent answers to such questions are going to be strong mathematicians who are well-known in their field, and well-known to some (if not all) contributors on MO.
It was obvious from VA's answers that he was a singularly competent algebraic geometer. It was also obvious that he was annoyed about the way his question was being treated. I don't know that one needs detailed policy or additional software to handle this situation; respect and an effort to be accommodating to a valuable member of the community is all that should really be required.
]]>My second comment is about the language of the debate. Throughout the thread words like "rude" or "obnoxious" were used. While VA use of the word "thought police" is unfortunate and insensitive, I am not sure such responses are helpful, considering the diverse background of MO users. For example, in the culture I grew up with, "losing face" publicly is taken very seriously.
I agree with rwbarton that removing one's post is not a good course of action. I was fairly disappointed, since me and Karl Swchede were having some comments on an issue we both interested in below one of his answer, which is now gone. I realize that the administrators are doing a very hard and largely thankless job, but I hope we can all try to reduce the chance of repeating this situation.
]]>As some people who have read my comments on these kinds of issues before might remember, I am not someone who agrees with the consensus view on what make good or bad questions on MO. From VA's point of view, why would he want to go and ask strangers on SO about LaTeXing web-page displays, when he knows that there are many people on MO who could answer his question, and these (mathematicians) are the people that he enjoys talking with? I don't understand why his question couldn't have been left open. (I know the arguments, but I don't agree with them. As far as I can tell, people are concerned about clutter on the front-page, and about opening flood-gates, and I've seen no evidence that either of these is something to be genuinely concerned about.)
In another thread, there was an argument made that on-site reputation was valuable, because it gave an indication of who had earned the right to be treated with respect on the site. If people really feel this way, I don't understand why they felt obliged to close a question raised by an almost 4000 rep user.
My feeling is that if a high-rep user expresses frustation at having a question closed (as VA did), people could give
that user the benefit of the doubt, rather than lecturing them.
Thanks for the response. I actually agree that it's not so terrible to leave it open (I've voted to reopen based on your argument), but I feel like we should try to figure out some way to deal with this sort of thing in the future (when high-value users post things that would usually be closed). I don't have any ideas, but I think that allowing it unconditionally or without explicit reservations could be used as justification for less valuable users to abuse the precedent.
]]>I don't think this was a duplicate. The original question was targeted specifically at arxiv.org. I deemed that question off-topic since it is not MO business to discuss how other math sites should run (and discussion of MO should be here on meta). I suggested to VA to ask another question on user-side solutions for rendering latex on any site. This is indeed a topic of interest to mathematicians, so not off-topic for MO.
]]>I agree that it is important to treat the experts here with respect and try to be as helpful as possible, but I find your support for explicit double standards rather alarming. I see no reason why asking VA to post his question on meta.MO or SO, where I'm sure his question would be welcomed "with open arms", as it were, could be considered disrespectful, and I don't understand why this situation necessitates relaxing the rules. Shouldn't we avoid adopting a double standard if at all possible? I'm interested to hear your response.
Best,
Harry
]]>I wish that I could see nicely formatted math formulas instead, just like on MO
But instead I stick by my vote to close because I think that this kind of question should be asked on stackoverflow not mathoverflow as it is a programming question, not a mathematical question, and - most importantly - the best answer is going to come from a programmer rather than a mathematician.
Having now started hanging around stackoverflow, I think that there is plenty of room there for LaTeX and mathematical-related programming questions like this one. Maybe having been converted to the "One Thing for One Task" ideal then I'm taking it too far, but keep MO for mathematics and SO for programming.
]]>As the question stands, I think I'm happy with it. There are currently quite a few votes to close pending, presumably on the basis of "being a duplicate". As it seems that it is not in fact a duplicate, but actually an appropriate revision, hopefully there won't be any further. I suspect that some of the votes to close resulted from the provocative preamble!
]]>Actually, there are plenty of LaTeX questions on stackoverflow. But this wasn't a LaTeX question, it was a javascript question and stackoverflow is by far the best place to find experts in that. Even so, I'd quite like to see lots of mathematicians heading over to stackoverflow to ask and answer LaTeX-related questions. There are more people than just mathematicians who use LaTeX in exactly the same way as we do and so we would get better answers by bringing in outside help. But there aren't others who use mathematics in exactly the same way that we do so mathematics questions stay on MO.
That said, I fully support Scott's view as expressed above.
]]>Several points:
1) I said that referring to a previous question (c.f. http://mathoverflow.net/questions/19679/seeing-math-when-viewing-abstracts-on-arxiv-org-closed) as "closed by the MO thought police" was rude. I stand by this. Calling someone "thought police" clearly denigrates them. Obviously, one is allowed to identify real "thought police" when they appear, but I think you're clearly against the consensus here: the people who closed the previous question left well thought out explanations of why they closed the question.
2) Closing a question is not rude, and I think it's important for everyone to internalise this. It is not an insult, it is not a personal rejection. It's a community process that decides that a question is not appropriate on MathOverflow. (In this particular case, commenters made it clear that it would be much more appropriate on StackOverflow.) We're trying very hard to keep MathOverflow focused and on topic. There is easily sufficient community support for the current approach that we're taking to keeping MathOverflow on topic --- this isn't something to argue about at this point (or at least, not in the context of any specific question or vote to close), just something to accept about what MathOverflow is.
3) The MathOverflow community has a quite strong objection to duplicate questions. Your question is clearly a duplicate! I'm actually a little surprised people didn't step in more quickly with votes to close on this basis. Allowing duplicate questions is a real pain --- if a question gets closed, the appropriate thing to do is either revise the question and hope that it is reopened (this has happened many times), and to come over the meta.MO and discuss the reasons for closure. We've had several instances in the past where someone has felt strongly about a closed question, and after some discussion here and some revisions, the question has been reopened. I think anyone with a closed question may find themselves suprised by how willing people are to reopen, once some regard is given to the original complaints against the question. It is inappropriate to ignore the existing consensus on a question, and repost it --- it's immensely frustrating to anyone who went to the effort of explaining why the original question should be closed.
Now -- VA, if you're reading this: these points all apply in particular to your recent questions! I understand that you vigorously disagree with the closure of your original question. Nevertheless, simply reposting the question is not the right way to proceed. You have to show some willingness to engage with the objections to your previous question!
I'm sorry if I upset you, because I don't intend to. Hopefully you can see that I think it's an interesting question (indeed, from my answer you can see that I spent some time trying to work at an answer to it)! Nevertheless, the community process is important here, and it's important to both respect that, and not insult people who were acting in good faith.
]]>