it often happens that very bad questions get very very good answers. I blame Joel for the most part...
Mariano, I apologize. But what is a person to do, when someone asks a question containing the germ of an interesting idea, and one has something interesting to say about it?
]]>My only niggling worry is that there might not be that many people who can give good (as opposed to vague or unsourced) answers
Indeed. But if we take such worries seriously, we would have to disallow questions on all sorts of subjects for which there is a shortage of resident experts, not just history. That is not the way to build a community.
]]>My only niggling worry is that there might not be that many people who can give good (as opposed to vague or unsourced) answers; but I've seen one or two names on MO which I recognize as taking this kind of question seriously, so maybe good answers will emerge.
]]>If it's a specific reference request, then it need not be CW. I agree with you.
]]>Said in fewer words, we don't insist on CW if the question is scholarly and specific with (likely) a definite answer. Or so I think.
]]>One could make the argument that there are possibly many different original sources where differential ratios appear. But the OP can very well select among the offered references the one which he likes best, just as it often happens that a question gets answered in several ways, all of which are correct and the corresponding OPs gets to pick the answer they like more---sometimes using criteria with which I do not always agree, for in many cases I would have picked different ones.
]]>In my opinion., we should welcome questions about the history of mathematics (and not only because I enjoy the subject very much...). Of course, were we to be flooded by such questions, then yes, I would see the point in having some strategy/policy to deflect them, for they are sort of off-topic-ish if one reads the FAQ very strictly: but reading the FAQ very strictly is a silly idea, and I would be quite surprised if such a flood was a-coming... so the objection is abstract.
]]>Maybe I should elaborate a tiny bit: I see three possibly answers here:
I feel only marginally competent to decide between alternatives 2 and 3, but at least I don't think I am in favour of alternative 1.
]]>