Thought Police

Presumably Mathematics Overflow is a "community" of individuals with an interest and/or love of mathematics and its applications. It gives an opportunity to people who seek information with access to other individuals who may have thoughts or ideas that can inform their interests or help them overcome a mathematical hurdle. Some may enjoy participating just for the "fun" of the participation.

From my earliest participation in Mathematics Overflow I have been made uncomfortable with what I will refer to as its "unwelcoming" tone - the down voting and the closing of some questions. More recently it makes me feel as if there are "thought police" at work on MO and whether I want to continue to participate. Should I continue to provide answers and comments? I understand the desire not to have spam and problems like: solve this linear equation on MO. However, sometimes, I see posts that are closed because they are "homework problems" which I find rather interesting, and I would not mind seeing responses to or discussion of these questions. I have often been inspired to "new" thoughts by homework problems. My point is that one never quite knows where an important source of mathematical inspiration or pleasure will come from.

Every morning the NY Times gets delivered to my door. I could read the whole paper from cover to cover but I do not. In fact, I have absolutely no interest in sports and it is not unusual for me to throw that section out (unless there is some other stuff in that section that I care above). How do I know what to read? Well I have an interest in the daily news, science, the arts, business, etc. so I am open to reading those parts of the papers. The articles in the paper comes with headlines, which are chosen not by the reporters who write the columns but by others. It is the ability of these headlines to catch my attention or interest that gets me to read the articles. I don't doubt there are many articles I might have read with enjoyment but did not because the headline did not capture my attention. Some articles that I start to read because I was attracted by the headline I do not finish because what is in the article does not sustain my interest. Some articles I read to the end with little consequence and some I read to the end have "lasting" effects. On MO I look at lots of stuff and I have learned a lot by participating, and at the same time I hope I have helped and stimulated others.

These comments were initiated specifically by the closing of this question:

The topological properties of one-dimensional lines

I gave a good faith answer to this question (now closed) and I have no idea whether or not the proposer of the question or anyone else looked at the book Arrangements and Spreads (there are many more recent developments).

I really don't understand why this question was "closed" other than that the "thought police" are at work and the person who asked the question did not ask the question "the thought police" might have asked. If someone finds an MO "headline" not of interest they don't have to open that item. And if someone does open the item and it is not to his/her liking they can move on. Without new questions to stimulate MO where will it go?

While I value the service that the moderators of MO are performing for my benefit I just hope they will be a bit more welcoming in their reaction to what is posted and leave it up to the participants to choose items that might be of interest or value. MO needs a balance of regulars and new blood to make it worthwhile for someone like me to enjoy it rather than say spending time on MO doing something else.

Sincerely,

Joe

malkevitch@york.cuny.edu
https://york.cuny.edu/~malk

PS: I did a search on meta and note that I am not the first to use the "thought police" metaphor. However, I offer up my "two cents" anyway.

@Joseph : I'm very sorry you were offended. You should definitely not interpret this question closing as a comment on your answer! Two points:

1. Though the question was closed, it was not deleted. You answer is still there, and people can still comment on it and vote it up (in fact, I just did). All closing does is prevent other answers from being posted.

2. As it was written, it is impossible to figure out what the questioner wanted (and, just as importantly, what his/her background is). In fact, the first phrase of your answer acknowledges this. The questioner was asked to be more specific, and he/she basically refused. I'm usually pretty left-wing about what questions to close and I have argued against closing many questions in the past. This time, however, the question needed work to make it answerable and the questioner refused to do that work. It is thus a good candidate for closing.

@jose; I had no desire to be offensive. I am just trying to understand the "harm" that leaving vague or ill-defined questions open causes?

@andy; What harm does it do to have other people continue to answer this question even though it is vague and the author of it refused to be more specific? Can't I be of use to this person without knowing his/her "background?"

Just a minor point in passing... Closing a question is not a permanent action! There have been plenty of reopened questions, sometimes after very minor edits.

@jmalkevitch: the purpose of this site is to redirect expert attention to specific, well-thought-out questions, for the purpose of aiding mathematical researchers. Anything else that goes on here is incidental, and the policies we implement reflect this priority. Leaving vague and ill-defined questions open 1) takes up space and 2) may indicate to some researchers that MO is not a serious enough environment, and may lead to them not participating. Whether they are interesting is irrelevant; at the end of the day, we care more about serious researchers than the average user.

Like Jose, I find the thought police comparison offensive, as well as misinformed. You don't have free speech on MO in the first place; it is privately funded, and the people who maintain it can do whatever they want.

Like AnnanFay, you are now free to move to math.stackexchange.com if you want a freer environment.

Presumably Mathematics Overflow is a "community" of individuals with an interest and/or love of mathematics and its applications.

This is not correct. MathOverflow is a website which hopes to support the work of mathematical researchers.

It gives an opportunity to people who seek information with access to other individuals who may have thoughts or ideas that can inform their interests or help them overcome a mathematical hurdle.

This is not correct. The intention, as I read it, is to provide a way to help mathematicians help each other in an effective way. Mathematicians interact at many different levels. At the highest is collaboration. At the bottom is answering specific, definite questions. MathOverflow aims to help that bottom level. Of course, such interactions can lead to higher-level interactions but MathOverflow is not for them.

From my earliest participation in Mathematics Overflow I have been made uncomfortable with what I will refer to as its "unwelcoming" tone - the down voting and the closing of some questions.

This has been addressed by the others. I would add that as it is necessary to filter questions to this site (for the reasons others have said), the question then arises as to when to filter them. The way that the software works here is to filter questions after they have been asked. The idea is to make it as easy as possible for people to use the software so there is no pre-moderation on questions or answers. Down-voting and closure is simply a way of moderating the questions and answers which makes the entry-level as easy as possible.

I have often been inspired to "new" thoughts by homework problems. My point is that one never quite knows where an important source of mathematical inspiration or pleasure will come from.

This is absolutely true (I once got the answer to a research problem I was stuck on in the middle of a lecture), but misses the point entirely. MathOverflow is not meant to encompass everything. To stick with the NYTimes analogy (though I agree with the flaw), if MathOverflow allowed such any question that might lead to a research idea then it wouldn't be like getting the NYTimes, it would be like getting a copy of every single newspaper that is published in New York. There's just too much junk that finding the few nuggets of gold is a waste of time.

That said, I also find the "thought police" comment bordering on offensive. The people behind MathOverflow put in a lot of work to make it what it is and I have never detected anything other than a desire to help other mathematicians. You may disagree with how they have chosen to do that, but to call them "thought police" is quite offensive.

Why would you bother to post a comment saying, "No comment" when none was solicited from you? I mean, you hit the button that says "add your comments"...

+1 Yemon