tea.mathoverflow.net - Discussion Feed ("gossipy" questions)

WillieWong comments on ""gossipy" questions" (10819)

WillieWong — Thu, 18 Nov 2010 16:03:48 -0800

@Shevek: regardless of what you think, note that there was a founding vision as expressed in the FAQ, where it is clearly stated

The site works best for well-defined questions: math questions that actually have a specific answer.

You are free to disagree, but many of us are used to, are comfortable with, and support that vision.

Shevek comments on ""gossipy" questions" (10818)

Shevek — Thu, 18 Nov 2010 15:53:51 -0800

@Andrew: I know that others agree with you, but still I feel that it is a bit much to say that questions like this "do not work" on MathOverflow. It depends on what you expect the outcome of such a question to be. Sure, just because MO is here, it doesn't mean that it has to be used for everything. But also, just because MO supports a voting system for answers doesn't mean that any question for which voting on answers doesn't make sense should be regarded as inappropriate. It is not my intention to start a discussion on this old topic or to try to convince you otherwise, I just want to point out that there is not some perfect consensus on what is and is not appropriate for and what does and does not work on MathOverflow. There are definitely arguments that could be made for why discussion-y questions might be problematic for MO, but the fact that they do not admit a "correct" objective answer is (in my view) a completely groundless reason to conclude that they are not going to work on MO.

Todd Trimble comments on ""gossipy" questions" (10773)

Todd Trimble — Wed, 17 Nov 2010 05:40:24 -0800

Oh, okay, maybe he did then. I wasn't aware of this fact you mentioned.

WillieWong comments on ""gossipy" questions" (10772)

WillieWong — Wed, 17 Nov 2010 05:37:18 -0800

@Todd: how do you know Andrew didn't vote on that? That question is 6 months old, and my impression is that votes to close expires after a few weeks if it didn't gain sufficient momentum?

(Observe also that http://mathoverflow.net/questions/43397/examples-of-prime-numbers-in-nature shows no pending votes to close, even though Andrew and Andy Putman both committed votes to that effect.)

Todd Trimble comments on ""gossipy" questions" (10767)

Todd Trimble — Wed, 17 Nov 2010 04:47:42 -0800

Andrew, you didn't vote to close on this however:

http://mathoverflow.net/questions/22071/how-to-correct-an-error-in-a-submitted-paper

Can you explain how this is very different from the questions you closed?

Andrew Stacey comments on ""gossipy" questions" (10764)

Andrew Stacey — Wed, 17 Nov 2010 02:13:18 -0800

I voted to close both.

Questions like this just do not work on MathOverflow. There is no "right answer" and also no objective means to judge one answer over another. It's like asking for the length of the Emperor of Japan's nose. We can all give an answer, and all say whether or not we like other's answers, but who knows the correct answer?

There are serious failings in the refereeing system, and it would be nice to have a good proper discussion about them. Indeed, we tried a year or so back, but didn't get very far. If there's enough interest, we can reopen those discussions. But then they should be had in a proper place rather than on MO.

Just because MO is here, doesn't mean that it has to be used for everything.

WillieWong comments on ""gossipy" questions" (10751)

WillieWong — Tue, 16 Nov 2010 16:53:25 -0800

Since there's some discussion, let me just describe why I voted to close the question despite Mark's good answer. (1) I believe in the principle that "a good answer does not a good question make". And (2) maybe it is the wording, but the question reads to me something too much like a blog entry/discussion, or something that I see on FaceBook walls.

(For the record, I probably would've voted to close the primes in nature question too; but I was not enfranchised back then.)

markvs comments on ""gossipy" questions" (10746)

markvs — Tue, 16 Nov 2010 16:01:56 -0800

I voted to reopen the first of these questions. I do not really like the second one, but I would not close that either.Both questions are about refereeing which is an essential part of the math research process. I think it is much closer to the math than many questions on wiki (my "favorite" is about primes in nature, of course).

Anton Geraschenko comments on ""gossipy" questions" (10745)

Anton Geraschenko — Tue, 16 Nov 2010 15:59:26 -0800

This is something that you should e-mail Anton about. It's ultimately his decision, and posting here on meta is not going to change anything.

Disagree. Everybody who has some reputation is to lesser or greater degree moderating the site, and meta is meant to be the forum where those moderators decide what the community norms should be. If you vote on MO, and especially if you vote to close/reopen questions, then you are actively shaping what MathOverflow is for.

In general, I think questions about the profession should be acceptable on MO (see the [career] tag), so long as their density doesn't get too high. Of course, I think they should be good questions ... it's notoriously easy to ask really bad general interest questions. In my mind, one important factor is that the question should be asking for an answer to something, not inviting a discussion about some topic.

Actual gossip questions (e.g. questions which invite speculation about people or organizations) are pretty much always a bad idea.

I haven't looked at these two particular questions and I don't have time to look over them now, so I can't speak to the specifics.

Harry Gindi comments on ""gossipy" questions" (10742)

Harry Gindi — Tue, 16 Nov 2010 15:14:38 -0800

I think it is a mistake to close these questions. People say "that's not what math overflow is for" but I'm trying to argue that it should be part of what math overflow is for. What do you think?

This is something that you should e-mail Anton about. It's ultimately his decision, and posting here on meta is not going to change anything.

Todd Trimble comments on ""gossipy" questions" (10741)

Todd Trimble — Tue, 16 Nov 2010 15:14:37 -0800

I personally thought the first question was fine for community wiki, and plan to vote to reopen. Questions about the academic profession (such as the one about how carefully a referee has to read a submitted paper) that are not specifically about a math question do appear periodically as community wiki, and they seem relevant for the MO audience.

xide comments on ""gossipy" questions" (10739)

xide — Tue, 16 Nov 2010 15:00:03 -0800

Many very interesting questions on this site are "gossipy". Some recent examples include http://mathoverflow.net/questions/46251/accidental-submission-of-a-bad-paper-to-a-good-journal and http://mathoverflow.net/questions/46237/opening-the-peer-reviewing-process . These questions were closed as off-topic because they do not involve specific math questions. But the answers they got before being closed were extremely interesting, in part because they came from experienced people who would know about these things and who took the questions seriously, and the view counts indicate that I am not the only one who thinks so. They address very important aspects of the mathematical profession, which have serious consequences for the mathematical research that gets carried out, recognized, promoted, etc. In other words, these issues affect real math (math for math's sake) and not only careers and politics.

I think it is a mistake to close these questions. People say "that's not what math overflow is for" but I'm trying to argue that it should be part of what math overflow is for. What do you think?