The word crank can strip away all the human characteristics of a person reducing them to a single bit of information.
But the word tall can have the same effect if it is used in that way... No one here (nor anywhere, I think) uses crank to refer to more than a facet of some people's personality and actions, without ignoring that the crank may have other sides.
But in so far as their behaviour is when doing cranky stuff, well, they are cranks. What do you want people to use to refer to them in that particular capacity of them?
]]>Re compassion, I can certainly feel compassion for cranks, for they waste not only our time but their own, often massive quantities of it. But there is nothing in the training of professional mathematcians that enables us to deal with cranks and help them overcome their problems. Some of us may have some natural talent for it, but others don't, and if you fall into the latter category (as I do) then trying to avoid contact seems to me a good strategy. Personally, I get intensely frustrated when I feel unable to communicate with someone in a meaningful fashion, and I am sure this frustration will show. I am possibly even doing that person a service by avoiding him (most cranks seem to be male).
]]>Having said that, I also resent some of the more elitist statements on this thread. It seems to me that "not professional mathematicians doing mathematics" and "cranks" is being used almost synonimously, which is rather insulting towards the amateur mathematicians here. For example, I don't quite see how the thread http://mathoverflow.net/questions/47188/ mentioned by Theo Johnson-Freyd fits into the discussion. This meta thread started as a discussion about how to tell cranks from non-cranks and that seems a non-issue in the linked question. The only connection I see is that the OP is not a professional mathematician.
Regarding that thread itself, while I agree that the OP likely received more sensible advice from the professional mathematician who has read his work than he could expect from this site, I can totally understand his desire to ask a wider audience. I do think that "how do I avoid looking like a crank if I sincerely believe that I'm not one" is a valid question and that a community of professional mathematicians is the only body qualified to give a definitive answer, since they are the ones who will put the stamp "crank" on the work (or won't, as the case may be). I agree with Ben Webster's assessment of the question and if the MO-community decides that MO is not for providing encouragement to non-academics, then that's fine by me. But if the thread was closed "to keep the cranks at bay", then I would find that misguided.
]]>I really would not worry about cranks somehow obtaining power over the site; Anton (if I remember correctly, he's the one with the actual finger on the moderator-creation button, even though moderators will be elected from now on) has too many dictatorial powers for things to get really out of hand, and I doubt it would come to that given the active and serious user base.
]]>The issue would be if cranks were able to gain moderation powers, but I can't see that happening unless people start voting them up (rather than down).
]]>The level on MO has been remarkably stable, and I don't think it's fair to say that it's even on the road towards sci.math. There's no shortage of people here who would have a problem with closing large numbers of threads.
]]>Your comments all make very valid and correct points, and I won't try to create such a question. (Is why I asked it here, after all: I wasn't so sure about the appropriateness myself.)
-Theo
]]>In fact, the problem of "designing a system" is going to be inherently involving lots of ideas and discussions, with many gives and takes and compromises, and the StackExchange platform is really not at all the best at such. A bona fide bulletin board system, a blog, a mailing list, or even USENET are all more suitable for this type of interactions. Therefore I hold my reservations on whether this question is suitable for MO.
(On the other hand, I do find this question to be an interesting one, and would at least like to follow the discussion if it were to take place elsewhere. I just don't think it fits very well technically or in content with MathOverflow.)
]]>My motivation is the recent batch of posts by HH Hannett, and in particular the following comment from http://mathoverflow.net/questions/46843/ :
No, it wasn't Terry Tao. I suspect with covering 4 areas in Math that he'd be the first to admit that he's not omnipresent (yet). In defense of those at the top of the math totem pole, it seems to me from my limited skirmish, that there might be a mechanism whereby amateur ("non-PhD") contributions can get a fair shake without tieing up their time. Perhaps some sort of delegated, tiered system that a paper has to survive would be useful before it bubbles up to them? – HH Hannett 10 mins ago
I don't think HH Hannett is trying to spam MO (although this is what he is doing): rather, he seems to honestly want some way to participate, and like many amateurs has been somewhat frustrated by the system as is.
Now, I want to be careful about what discussion to start. My goal is not to criticize, per se, the mathematical academy as it is currently set up (nor to defend it --- that's just not the question I'd like to ask on MO). Rather, it seems that MO might be a good place to design the "delegated, tiered system that a paper has to survive would be useful before it bubbles up to [the top of the totem pole]" that HH Hannet is advocating, or something else that can solve the same problems. Maybe the answer is that peer review already does this, but maybe there are better answers?
So, what's my point? This is meta, so I don't actually want to discuss answers to this question here. I do want to know if y'all think a question like this could be appropriate on MO, and if so, how exactly to write it and manage it so that it doesn't get out of control and/or closed (which it could easily do).
Any ideas?
]]>