date
stringlengths 10
10
| nb_tokens
int64 60
629k
| text_size
int64 234
1.02M
| content
stringlengths 234
1.02M
|
|---|---|---|---|
2018/05/17 | 1,417 | 5,323 | <issue_start>username_0: The question [Is there a way to change preprint service within OSF system?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/109866/14341) is about to closed and I suspect the reason is that it's a technical question. Perhaps the close voters think that it's better on [Web Applications](https://webapps.stackexchange.com/). But I've seen another question that is purely technical issue and is well-received: [Is there a way to follow particular authors on arxiv?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/81831/14341). And basically technical questions fill the entire [scopus](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/scopus "show questions tagged 'scopus'") tag, and some of [reference-managers](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/reference-managers "show questions tagged 'reference-managers'").
What should we do with questions about preprint services? Are they academical enough? If no, what about the questions about whether the color of [slideshow](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/10354/14341), [CV](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/61277/14341) or [board](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/109389/14341) should be black or white? If yes, should questions about other services like Academia.edu or ResearchGate on-topic? And surely we don't want questions about LaTeX or creating [PDF of slides with audio](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/2862/14341) to be here, right?
So what do you think?
---
Related:
• Case in point: [Drawing the line for tech support](https://graphicdesign.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3300/26474) in Graphic Design. Maybe our beloved mutual mod have some insights on this?
• [Should we be more welcoming of "technical" questions?](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3631/14341) But it's about study design.
• [What to do with questions asking to evaluate commercial online services?](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4062/14341) But it's about evaluation, not using them.
>
> **Moderator’s notice:** Featuring this question, as it seems to considered important by the community, but none of the answers have received sufficiently many votes to be considered a consensus. **Please consider voting on the answers or posting an answer of your own.**
>
>
><issue_comment>username_1: No. A question about a product (free or not) which is marketed to academics is not a question about academia. Questions about individual products are similar to questions about individual research problems in that way.
Example: "What color should an academic CV be?" is on topic but "How do I change the color of my academic CV in LaTeX?" is not. "Why do academics use preprint services?" is on topic but "How do I submit to ArXiv?" is not.
The degree of technicality of a question is subjective.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: Based on the received responses, I guess that we want to keep them, for the reason has been discussed in the question? I think it's the unheard of OSF that make it sounds like off-topic. If needed, a sentence explaining what it is is enough. So I'd say this type of question is on-topic.
However, I don't know which point in the question doesn't say that it's not a preprint service?
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I didn't vote either way on closing this question, and don't know about the reasons of the people who did, but my first guess would be the question doesn't sound like it will be of interest to too many people. What is on topic is certainly subjective, but the most important thing is that it is of interest to other people on the site.
To me, the question sounds like it may be a reasonable question for this site in terms of topic based on other questions I've seen, but I have never heard of OSF, and apparently it hasn't been mentioned too many times on this site, compared to things like arXiv or Google Scholar, so I'm not sure that many users of this site know what it is. Possibly the people who voted to close don't know what it is either, and it is hard to ascertain this from your question, so one thing you could try is to give a little more background and detail in your question. (Of course, if no one here uses OSF, you're unlikely to get an answer anyway.)
And yes, I would say in general we don't want questions about how to use specific software/applications on this site, that doesn't mean questions involving specific software is necessarily off topic (e.g., if you should post on the arXiv or use LaTeX in such and such a situation).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: I am going to ignore the big-picture question posed in the title and focus on the issue of wether or not [Is there a way to move a preprint from one service to another within the OSF system?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/109866/is-there-a-way-to-move-a-preprint-from-one-service-to-another-within-the-osf-sys) should be opened or closed.
To me this is a clear cut case of a question that is too specific and should be
(left) closed. The exact answer depends on the specifics of the generic OSF preprint service and MindRxiv. While it might/might not be possible to move a preprint between two services, that may not hold for all services. Maybe there is an edit that can be made to make the question more general, but it is not obvious to me.
Upvotes: -1 |
2018/05/17 | 1,622 | 6,461 | <issue_start>username_0: The [original question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/109789/what-was-offensive-about-the-ladies-lingerie-department-joke-and-how-can-i-av) about the lingerie joke made in an elevator was controversial leading to a lively [meta discussion](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4153/how-to-proceed-with-the-lingerie-elevator-question). The consensus appeared to be to ask a new, but related, question on issue. This [has been done](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/109937/how-can-i-avoid-causing-a-major-incident-by-offending-people) but the initial reception has not been positive. What is wrong with the new question and what can be improved?<issue_comment>username_1: I was initially skeptical that edits could address [my concerns](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4154/929) about the original question: not specific to academia, bad subjective (all answers equally valid, no problem to be solved, and rant like), too broad, and likely to lead to tangential discussion. I was surprise and think the new questions addresses all of my concerns.
Academics blur the lines between professional and social interactions. Further some academics are hypersensitive to issues of harassment while others are socially oblivious. The actions we can/should take are sufficiently different from the actions that should be taken in other workplaces that it seems reasonable to ask here.
By asking for actions that can be taken, not all answers will be equally valid. Some actions will be more effective and others will be easier to implement. There is clearly a problem with harassment in academia and hence knowing how to avoid it is important. The question does not imply that the behavior is not offensive and does not seem like a rant in disguise.
While the question is still broad, it is clearly a topic some members of the community wish to tackle. Any discussion that arises from the question and answers seems like it will lead to better answers as opposed to simply disagreements.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: I think the question would have been improved if it removed the citation of the original article to keep focused.
Instead, the answers seem to be based on a reading of that article, and so the intended refocusing of the question has been lost. For example, the question says nothing about the process of apologizing nor about the way Prof Y responded, and the answers and discussion in the comments has become largely a discussion about those topics.
However, I am wary to suggest an edit to the question at this point since it already has several answers and a lot of attention.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: I'm happy about the efforts to rescue the essence of the question.
However, I felt that the question needed some sharpening of focus. I'll explain here what my thinking was in the edits I've proposed.
The quote from the linked article showed that this was a gender issue -- yet the title and the tags were a whitewash. So I proposed an edit to the title.
I also added two additional paragraphs from the cited article, so that readers will understand that Prof. X didn't *just* make an insensitive, silly "joke" in the elevator -- in fact, he dug himself in deeper by emailing the complainant and calling the complaint "frivolous." It will be easier to explain to the original OP (and people in his shoes) what was wrong with Prof. X's actions, and how to avoid doing something similar, if this information is included.
And I made the asker's gender explicit.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: lingerie–elevator question is exculisivly a gender issue question.
It is a perpetual struggle of females in academia to be taken seriously.
Lack of female moderators and female members of academia SE, made the question about something else.
This, as I suppose, is coming from the male members. Most of the people here feel irresponsible to female struggle in academia, they fail to recognize assaults that are sex-based.
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=13&v=h3Yrhv33Zb8>
Why men cannot recognize their fault and appologize?
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_5: Having just read the new question, there are two things about it that currently bother me/signal a poorly-formed question.
(1) The double negatives in the title. "How can I avoid being intolerant and unsupportive ...?". This has the flavor that something is getting bent or overworked in an attempt to take something trashy and make it marginally acceptable. Imagine if the title instead was, "How can I be tolerant and supportive ... ?" That's shorter, clearer, more direct, and doesn't have the "odor" of some ulterior motive being masked. It's also a totally different question, of course.
(2) The line after the quote about the OP's deep-seated fears, "As a male member of academe, I am worried. I feel bewildered and fear that I might also offend someone some day." That seems ridiculous; it's hard to imagine someone so oblivious as to be terrorized at not understanding that mentioning ladies' underwear is a faux pas; or that some amount decorum must essentially be practiced. Rather, this has the scent of a propagandist. I don't think this line adds anything to the question.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: The original question was fine.
===============================
People just didn't like it because it looked like the original question was invented just to get rep on the site. I'm honestly not sure. OP could have been a troll but we can't know that. The original question could have been the legitimate fears of someone.
---
### The new question is just bad because it's a totally different question!
The original question asks this:
* Help me understand why this is offensive?
=========================================
The new question is mostly heavy pandering. The new question asks this:
* How do I not accidentally say something offensive?
==================================================
---
Both questions are not great but the new question is awful and removes all intent of the original question.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_7: Regarding the close-vote due to the question being allegedly off-topic, because it better fits in *the workplace* or *interpersonal skills*: If I member correctly, our policy is that relevance on another site does not imply irrelevance on this site. I've voted to reopen.
Upvotes: 2 |
2018/05/21 | 927 | 3,849 | <issue_start>username_0: The question [What research explains political attitudes of academics?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/110059/7734) has attracted a lot of debate and undergone quite some change since it was posted. In particular, some of the answers do not fit the question (anymore). How shall we proceed with it?
### This Question
In an answer, please propose how we should proceed with this question:
* Should it be closed?
* Should it stay open?
* Should it be changed in a specific manner?
* How shall we deal with answers that do not address the question in its current form?
* How shall we deal with opinionated answers (and comments)?<issue_comment>username_1: I think the question is a good fit for this site in its current state as it does not solicit mere opinions and tries not to incite political debates.
However, given the inevitable attraction of political debate, the question shall be equipped with a notice that all answers not providing a reference will be deleted without warning (and are fair game for not-an-answer flags) and the same applies to political discussion in the comments. As a rule of thumb, it should not be possible to deduce the political opinion of the author from a post.
This means that some existing answers, including upvoted ones, need to be deleted, but they are not valid answers to any question that is suited for our site (and thus “had it coming”). Regarding [<NAME>’ highly upvoted answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/110063/7734) in particular, it mainly builds upon the clarification of liberalism, which may be interesting, but not the point of our site.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Another possibility is the following:
1. Revert the question to the original state and keep it closed with the initial answers.
2. Invite the OP to ask a new question according to the latest edited version.
3. If the OP is not interested in asking the edited question, someone who edited it can go on asking.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: The question, as it is currently phrased, just wants to know about the existence of "serious" research into the (alleged) phenomenon. Such a question is easily resolved with a google search, as [there is an entire wiki page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_American_academics) dedicated to the topic. This page is heavily sourced with thirty references. This includes several analyses of *why* the phenomenon occurs. This is more than sufficient for anyone to resolve the question immediately at hand.
I don't think questions which boil down to "provide me a list of things readily obtained by googling or even just wikipedia" is a suitable question anywhere on the Stack Exchange. It definitely demonstrates a lack of research effort, which is one of the default reasons for down-voting a question.
The attention the question has received is not because it asks a good question which admits a quality answer, but because it asks a trivially answered question on a contentious topic.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: There is an additional problem with this question. If you follow the citations to the base article, it is poorly done. I do not believe it was peer reviewed and the editor is a co-author. While it may be factually true, there was much about it that was concerning. I had sufficient concerns to be unsure of the veracity of the article itself. It read as a disguised tool for polemics.
If the question is reopened, there should be a direct link to the underlying article so that others could read it. I would tend not to reopen the question because the underlying article is suspect.
It is true from other research that academics are more liberal than others, but it also matters to be careful as to what material is cited to begin the discussion.
Upvotes: -1 |
2018/05/23 | 571 | 2,444 | <issue_start>username_0: I have been here for about 1-2 months, and clearly see that most of the questions come from mathematicians or computer scientists.
Am I wrong? Is it because these disciplines are on their computers more, relative to a chemist or biologist?<issue_comment>username_1: As its name suggests, the Stack Exchange network grew out of CS-based websites, so there is likely to be a lot more questions from scientists than from the humanities, because that reflects the user base.
It’s also worth noting that there aren’t nearly as many resources geared toward STEM faculty: most of the books I’ve seen addressed to faculty have been written from the viewpoint of someone who is working in the humanities rather than the sciences.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: As Aeismail points out in their answer, the Stackexchange network grew out of the StackOverflow site - which is for programming queries. Therefore, people who program in their daily lives, i.e. people in STEM subjects, will be more likely to think of coming here.
But it's perhaps also worth noting that a huge number of questions that are closed for being off-topic are from computer scientists; for some reason they seem to assume that "academia.stackexchange" means a place to ask academic computer science questions. This has always baffled me. Maybe it's for the same reason?
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: While there is an actual prevalence of people from those fields here (due to reasons elaborated in other answers), this even gets emphasised due to the fact that they are somewhat peculiar due to their subject of research and history, for example:
* The research process in many subfields of mathematics and computer science can be quite different from, say, an experimental field.
* Publications in mathematics are put to special scrutiny (for a reason).
* Computer science has a mostly unique tradition to publish at conferences.
Compared to this, many other scientific fields are rather homogeneous – they form the default backdrop, against which the above peculiarities can be seen. Therefore, for mathematicians and computer scientists, their field is more likely to be a relevant factor to mention in a post – and thus more visible.
Note though, that there are other fields with similar peculiarities such as law, which you will hardly ever read about here, because they are indeed underrepresented.
Upvotes: 4 |
2018/06/01 | 903 | 3,850 | <issue_start>username_0: The irony of putting on hold this question [How should I handle questions about family/spouse on the job market?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/110614)
is that it limits my right to apply for any position without being the questioned why I choose such a distance, therefore limiting my right to look for a job and have a right to be employed.
The question is concise; it refers to a specific webinar intended for career development of US- and Canada-based academic staff. It talks about the special situation when the applicant or presenter is confronted with the silly question and it mentions the legality of a situation that actually happened.
I didn’t want to make this question only US-based, because I thought this is an international platform and that people from other countries can contribute answering.<issue_comment>username_1: Your question title
>
> What is an illegal or/and inappropriate question in a job interview?
>
>
>
is an open end question.
There are a lot of things that could be illegal or/and inappropriate to ask in a job interview depending on the local law and the local culture.
Legal and appropriate are two separate questions. Legal in one place does not necessarily imply the question is appropriate in another place.
These are the reasons I voted to close as "too broad" and "leave it closed" when I reviewed the Reopen queue.
However, in your question body
>
> it is illegal to ask a candidate in a job interview about what would friends or/and family think about your job appointment with the institution.
>
>
>
sounds like an answerable question to me if you add a location to it.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: First, I want to say that I think that the question posed about how to handle job interview questions about family is important, and is answerable within the framework of the site. I've expanded in more detail some of what I said in the comments. Also, I don't have close or reopen vote privileges, and I up voted the original question in any case.
I would say that the title doesn't quite match the body of the question. The question in the title "What is an illegal or/and inappropriate question in a job interview?" has infinitely many answers, and therefore doesn't fit very well in the Q&A format. However, what you're discussing in the body of the question *is*, in my opinion, focused enough for it to be answerable in the Q&A format.
The other aspect is that the legal question is very specific to location. If you ask "Is it illegal to ask about spouses in a job interview?" and you want answers for both the USA and the UK, these are basically different questions. The site discourages asking multiple questions in a single question. Aside from this, I think the legal question may not be best suited to this site. In my opinion, it might get better answers on workplace.stackexchange.com, although having said this, the Stack Exchange network in general shies away from legal advice. Still, I think this question is a valid to ask here and should not be closed provided it is asking about a single location.
Apart from the legal question, you also asked "How should I respond to these questions as an early stage career academic?". To me, this is the part of the question which this site is best equipped to answer. As you said, even if the question is illegal, you still need to handle it somehow if it's sprung upon you. It perhaps could have some geographical focus, but I think it doesn't need to have one to be a valid question.
In summary, to me, the legal question and the "how to handle this" questions are separate, and should be split off into separate questions. The "how to handle this" question is good, and is exactly the sort of question this site ought to be able to provoke good answers for.
Upvotes: 3 |
2018/06/03 | 914 | 3,707 | <issue_start>username_0: @scaaahu noticed in the Ivory Tower chat that <https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/91603/d-hutchinson?tab=profile> has been banned for 28 years. Incredible! I took a look at D.Hutchinson's posts at academia.SE and found nothing bad. Really nothing. I might be missing something, but which kind of offense would lead to such a long ban? In practical terms, this is "forever". The way we know the stackexchange site today, it need not even exist for such a long time span. Some of us might even be happily pushing up the daisies by then.
What I could imagine is that the user might be way too young to discuss academic issues, say, 5 years old. Then, about 20 years might make sense.<issue_comment>username_1: Your question title
>
> What is an illegal or/and inappropriate question in a job interview?
>
>
>
is an open end question.
There are a lot of things that could be illegal or/and inappropriate to ask in a job interview depending on the local law and the local culture.
Legal and appropriate are two separate questions. Legal in one place does not necessarily imply the question is appropriate in another place.
These are the reasons I voted to close as "too broad" and "leave it closed" when I reviewed the Reopen queue.
However, in your question body
>
> it is illegal to ask a candidate in a job interview about what would friends or/and family think about your job appointment with the institution.
>
>
>
sounds like an answerable question to me if you add a location to it.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: First, I want to say that I think that the question posed about how to handle job interview questions about family is important, and is answerable within the framework of the site. I've expanded in more detail some of what I said in the comments. Also, I don't have close or reopen vote privileges, and I up voted the original question in any case.
I would say that the title doesn't quite match the body of the question. The question in the title "What is an illegal or/and inappropriate question in a job interview?" has infinitely many answers, and therefore doesn't fit very well in the Q&A format. However, what you're discussing in the body of the question *is*, in my opinion, focused enough for it to be answerable in the Q&A format.
The other aspect is that the legal question is very specific to location. If you ask "Is it illegal to ask about spouses in a job interview?" and you want answers for both the USA and the UK, these are basically different questions. The site discourages asking multiple questions in a single question. Aside from this, I think the legal question may not be best suited to this site. In my opinion, it might get better answers on workplace.stackexchange.com, although having said this, the Stack Exchange network in general shies away from legal advice. Still, I think this question is a valid to ask here and should not be closed provided it is asking about a single location.
Apart from the legal question, you also asked "How should I respond to these questions as an early stage career academic?". To me, this is the part of the question which this site is best equipped to answer. As you said, even if the question is illegal, you still need to handle it somehow if it's sprung upon you. It perhaps could have some geographical focus, but I think it doesn't need to have one to be a valid question.
In summary, to me, the legal question and the "how to handle this" questions are separate, and should be split off into separate questions. The "how to handle this" question is good, and is exactly the sort of question this site ought to be able to provoke good answers for.
Upvotes: 3 |
2018/06/04 | 508 | 2,046 | <issue_start>username_0: When I browse the questions on the issue of research funding, I found that [this question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/100499/funding-in-mathematics-from-large-companies-as-undergraduate) was closed (I am not the author). Since I want to be more familiar with the norms of Academia Stack Exchange, I want to know why this question which ask for the funding sources was deemed **off-topic**.<issue_comment>username_1: The reason given on the question page\* is
>
> This question is not within the scope of this site as defined in the help center. Our scope particularly excludes the content of research, education outside of a university setting, and undergraduate admissions, life, and culture.
>
>
>
I suspect this may have been a knee-jerk "it's about undergrads so it's off-topic!" reaction. Unfortunately, if people vote to close for multiple reasons, the site only displays the most common one.
Obviously, I don't remember my reasoning from six months ago but, looking at the question today, I believe my close vote would have been because:
>
> “Shopping” questions, which seek recommendations or lists of individual universities, academic programs, publishers, journals, research topics, or similar as an answer or seek an assessment or comparison of such, are off-topic here.
>
>
>
I think sources of funding fall within "or similar". The question is just soliciting a big list of funding sources, and [lists are generally discouraged on Stack Exchange](https://stackoverflow.blog/2011/01/17/real-questions-have-answers/).
---
\* Quoted for context, in case the question is reopened.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I believe the reaction is to the request for a list of funding sources. However, the question about whether or not it's appropriate to cold call companies and corporations could be a valid and appropriate question for Stack Exchange, particularly since it's funding undergraduate research (which is on-topic, even if many other UG issues are not!).
Upvotes: 3 |
2018/06/05 | 814 | 3,227 | <issue_start>username_0: In the following question, I describe how I believe to be the target of a possibly predatory journal:
[Can an academic journal with low reputation be a scam?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/110785/can-an-academic-journal-with-low-reputation-be-a-scam)
I was informed in the subsequent answers about several online lists that mention predatory journals and publishers, and the journal and its publsiher **were not** listed there.
**Should I and could I mention the publisher and the journal name from my case in this academia.SE question?** It was mentioned that this could perhaps help me clarify the situation for me, if someone on here knows specifically about this journal, and also help others, but that I should first discuss this publication here, on meta.<issue_comment>username_1: Yes. There is no reason not to include additional pertinent information.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Please don’t. This would degrade your question into a [shopping question](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3657/7734), i.e., the evaluation of an individual journal, which is something we really do not like to here. The information you give completely suffices to answer your question.
Given the plethora of journals out there, it is very unlikely that somebody here is familiar with that specific journal even if it is reputable.
Thus all we can do, is to study its website and make a judgement from this.
Answers based on this are dangerous, since they can become invalid once the journal turns bad or is similar – and this site is not suited to be a database for the reputability of journals.
On the other hand, your question without the specification of the journal is much more general and useful to future visitors.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: To answer the question in the title ("Can I [...]?"): yes.
**To answer the question in the text ("Should I [...]?"): probably not.**
The answer from @wrzlprmft gives an excellent reason not to (it turns it into a [shopping question](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3657/why-was-my-question-put-on-hold-for-shopping)). Another is that a journal publicly accused of being predatory would probably have grounds to sue for defamation, and several have tried. For example, [the OMICS group tried to sue a librarian in the US for $1 billion for including them on a blacklist of predatory journals he curated](https://www.chronicle.com/article/Publisher-Threatens-to-Sue/139243?cid=at). Although the legal article under which the case was brought [has since been struck down by the Supreme Court of India](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_open_access_publishing#Beall's_list), other countries may have similar laws allowing such cases to proceed.
@wrzlprmft also mentions that journals may 'turn bad' - I'd suggest the opposite is more likely; a journal with low standards and flawed reviewing processes which charges high fees might not be intentionally 'predatory', it might just be managed badly, and could potentially tighten things up with a new editor etc. I can't think of many examples though - and in line with my own advice above would be reluctant to name them anyway :)
Upvotes: 1 |
2018/06/06 | 1,274 | 4,904 | <issue_start>username_0: Part of the questions on the Academia.SX mainly focus on admissions procedure in different countries. One of the best questions, succeeded to cover questions about application procedure in the United States, [link](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/38237/how-does-the-admissions-process-work-for-ph-d-programs-in-the-us-particularly); was previously opened and attracted huge amount of attention of the users.
[What is the process for PhD applications and contacting professors in France?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/16824/what-is-the-process-for-phd-applications-and-contacting-professors-in-france?s=1|32.7681)
[Right time to start applying for PhD - Germany](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/48416/right-time-to-start-applying-for-phd-germany?s=5|29.5616)
[Is it possible to be admitted to a masters in Germany with a 3-year bachelors from another country?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/60439/is-it-possible-to-be-admitted-to-a-masters-in-germany-with-a-3-year-bachelors-fr?s=10|27.0840)
[Can I get into an Australian PhD program in computer science without a masters degree, with a dual BSc degree?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/55853/can-i-get-into-an-australian-phd-program-in-computer-science-without-a-masters-d?s=9|17.6174)
My question is particularly about questions which have similar concept, but are mainly about application procedure in other countries, like France, Germany, Asian universities, etc.
As an instance, if somebody has question about application procedure for starting a PhD program in Austria, is it better to form his question as the above mentioned question (something like: *How does the admissions process work for PhD programs in Austria, particularly for weak or borderline students?*) or should he ask his question the same as any other normal question on this site and exactly point to his main point of question?
In my opinion, having similar format of question like our *How does the admissions process work for PhD programs in the US, particularly for weak or borderline students?* has some advantages and disadvantages, can easily lead users with similar questions directly to their point of vagueness which has brought them to our site, but can mislead users by wrapping many questions in just similar formats.
Not to mention that, this question should not lead to opening as many questions as we can (serial questions/ one question for each country!) and questions should specifically be written and opened if any user has indeed some problem during his PhD application.<issue_comment>username_1: If a question is about an admissions system that is replicated throughout a country, and it’s not covered by a canonical question, there’s no reason not to ask it, particularly if it’s a country not often represented. However, if it’s a feature covered in one of the systems here, we should point that out and refer the reader to the appropriate existing question.
If it’s about the practices at an individual institution (“How many recommendations do I need for the PhD program in Widget-Making at The University of Northern Southern Azkaban?”), it should be closed for being institution-specific.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I disagree. There are questions about admissions that are a good fit for the SE Q/A format and questions that are a bad fit. The SE model is to help people get good answers to the questions that fit and close the questions that don't fit. A while back, we decided to deviate a little from this model and create a canonical question about [PhD admissions in the US](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/38237/how-does-the-admissions-process-work-for-ph-d-programs-in-the-us-particularly). The canonical question is not a great question for the SE format, but it grew out of a [meta discussion](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1560/what-should-we-do-with-the-can-i-get-into-x-program-with-3-xx-gpa/1563) where it became clear that our community did not want to just close these *bad* questions as depending on individual factors (that is usually what makes the questions a bad fit) and instead wanted to do our best to help these, often new, users. The existence of the canonical question should not influence what happens when we get a *good* (i.e., one that works well with the SE format) admissions question, we still answer those.
I think my feeling is that we should continue to close highly specific admissions questions for which the answer depends on individual factors for countries other than the US. If at some point in the future we reach a critical mass of these types of questions for a particular, somewhat unified, system, then we can make another CW question, if we have someone who will answer it (creating a canonical question without an answer is not so helpful).
Upvotes: 2 |
2018/06/09 | 1,120 | 4,546 | <issue_start>username_0: A few people flagged the last couple of questions I asked as duplicates of other questions, while they clearly weren't duplicates and the people flagging it had apparently misunderstood/missed the part of my explanation that was explaining why the question is not a duplicate. Yet, flagging a question as duplicate is so easy and I don't see any measure that prevents users from doing that.
When the question is closed, it takes time for the question to be reopened upon a request for moderator intervention. By the time the question is reopened, the person asking the question has missed a few days of time for acting on the matter and the question is already an old one so the chances of getting the answer after reopening would be very low.
Wouldn't it be better if there was a measure to discourage users from false flagging and encourage them to read the questions more carefully before flagging it as duplicate? There is a chance that it's only the flagger's misunderstanding, but in the cases mentioned, the questioner is punished.<issue_comment>username_1: First, a premise. I was the first to vote to close [your question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/111017/20058) as duplicate, and I'm still convinced that it is a duplicate.
In fact, in the [first question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/110970/20058) you conclude (bold mine):
>
> **What should I do in this situation?** So far I've just been explaining
> to them how there might have been some confusions, but with their most
> recent response, it seems to me that most probably, they misunderstood
> my documents, and might have even completely missed one of them! **I'm
> afraid of pursuing this more seriously and directly because the
> department is one of my favorite departments and I like to keep the
> option of going there later in my academic career open.**
>
>
>
In the closed question you conclude:
>
> Do you think I should forget about working in that department if I start an appeal process at the court, or could I assume that everyone could just be adults and behave professionally?
>
>
>
To me, even if worded differently, the bold sentences in the first question and the conclusion of the second question are asking for exactly the same thing.
Finally,
>
> Wouldn't it be better if there was a measure to discourage users from false flagging and encourage them to read the questions more carefully before flagging it as duplicate?
>
>
>
I instead encourage you to edit your questions to make them really different.
That said, your feature request should be probably asked on the [main meta](https://meta.stackexchange.com/) because it'd be better implemented network wide. However, I suggest you to first check the already existing questions about [duplicates](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/exact-duplicates), and in particular [this one](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/309178/why-does-marking-someones-question-as-duplicate-incite-such-rage-or-hurt-feelin).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I don't agree with the view that both questions are full-fledged duplicates. However, I would encourage you to thoroughly edit the second question (or write a new one) and entirely focus on the issue that makes it partly different from the first, namely the probable impact of mounting a legal challenge on the attitude of the admissions committee toward you and your application. I would omit the backstory as far as possible, which also has the added benefit of making the question more generally applicable.
Coming to your actual meta-question, there are already two mechanisms in place
>
> to discourage users from false flagging and encourage them to read the questions more carefully,
>
>
>
namely the requirement of five close votes and the possibility of reopening. The first mechanism makes sure that alledged duplicates are quadruple-checked after the initial flag. Even then, the second mechanism allows correcting remaining errors, in addition to taking into account revisions of the question that were made after it has been closed. Also note that after the first duplicate flag, you are [prompted to edit your question](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/250981/255554) to clarify why it isn’t a duplicate before closure.
It is true that on urgent matters, this can be frustrating, but I consider this a lesser evil compared to less thorough vetting, which would lead to many more closings, reopenings, and ultimately more duplicates.
Upvotes: 3 |
2018/06/15 | 384 | 1,437 | <issue_start>username_0: There is a closed question on the OSF system: [Is there a way to move a preprint from one service to another within the OSF system?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/109866/is-there-a-way-to-move-a-preprint-from-one-service-to-another-within-the-osf-sys) that has spawned a number of comments as well as two meta questions:
1. [Are questions asking technical issues on academic services on-topic?](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4162/are-questions-asking-technical-issues-on-academic-services-on-topic)
2. [Is there a consensus if there is only indirect evidence?](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4211/is-there-a-consensus-if-there-is-only-indirect-evidence)
Both meta questions are quite general and I am not able to understand how to interpret the votes in regards to reopening the original question.
I am not sure another meta questions (i.e., this one) is really needed since there does not seem to be conflicting votes: it is not as if the question has been closed and then reopened and then closed again.
I guess I am asking because I would like to bring closure (even if that means reopening the question) to the issue.<issue_comment>username_1: Yes, this question is a good fit for our community and should be reopened.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_1: No, this question is not a good fit for our community and should be left closed.
Upvotes: 0 |
2018/06/20 | 1,155 | 4,513 | <issue_start>username_0: I subscribe to the [review-articles](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/review-articles "show questions tagged 'review-articles'") tag, whose description is this:
>
> "Survey" or "review" articles are academic publications that organize
> and summarize the current state of research on a given topic in a
> novel way that integrates and adds understanding to work in the field.
> For questions related to the peer-review process, use the
> 'peer-review' tag instead.
>
>
>
Despite this explanation (which many people, especially new posters, apparently never get around to reading), maybe as many as 50% of the questions with that tag actually pertain to peer reviewing and have nothing to do with literature review articles.
Hence, I propose to rename the tag [literature-review-articles](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/literature-review-articles "show questions tagged 'literature-review-articles'"), which I think should be more explicit in communicating the correct intention of the tag. In that case, I also propose deleting the [review-articles](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/review-articles "show questions tagged 'review-articles'") tag; that is, **not** leaving it as a synonym, since that would perpetuate the confusion.
If this makes sense, then could someone with the right permissions please make the change?<issue_comment>username_1: Less than two weeks ago, I implemented [a similar renaming](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4145/7734): Before, there was only [research](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/research "show questions tagged 'research'"); now, there is a synonym [research](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/research "show questions tagged 'research'") → [research-process](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/research-process "show questions tagged 'research-process'"). While this tag was blatantly misapplied on a daily basis before (I subscribed to the tag just to remove it), it has not happened since then. This shows two things:
* Renaming the tag is indeed effective.
* Only the master tag matters – very likely because this is what is shown when typing *research* into the tag field when [asking a new question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/ask) (best try for yourself).
I also second [<NAME>’s comment](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4221/rename-review-articles-tag-to-lit-review-articles#comment12871_4221) that abbreviations should be avoided in tags.
I thus suggest to have the following tag structure:
* [review-articles](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/review-articles "show questions tagged 'review-articles'") → [literature-review-articles](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/literature-review-articles "show questions tagged 'literature-review-articles'")
* [review-papers](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/review-papers "show questions tagged 'review-papers'") → [literature-review-articles](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/literature-review-articles "show questions tagged 'literature-review-articles'")
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: I just wanted to comment regarding logistics: the best way to rename a tag is
* post on meta to find out if the community supports or is opposed to the tag renaming.
* if there is community support, moderators will "merge" the tag which effectively renames it.
It's generally not recommended to just start adding or replacing the tag manually, especially for a tag with many questions. (1) This can be confusing for people who are new ("what is the difference between these tags, which should I use for my question on a survey paper?") or who are used to the old tag schema. (2) It also bumps a bunch of questions to the top of the home page, which some people don't like.
(For reason #1, I have renamed the [lit-review-articles](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/lit-review-articles "show questions tagged 'lit-review-articles'") back to [review-articles](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/review-articles "show questions tagged 'review-articles'") for now. Once there is agreement on a new name for the tag, and the need for it, a moderator can rename [review-articles](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/review-articles "show questions tagged 'review-articles'") again.)
Upvotes: 2 |
2018/06/22 | 903 | 3,545 | <issue_start>username_0: This is quite funny, because although whether the [original question about the OSF system](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/109866/14341) is reopened or not, I think the meta series is more interesting. First, let's recap:
1. [Are questions asking technical issues on academic services on-topic?](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4162/are-questions-asking-technical-issues-on-academic-services-on-topic)
2. [Is there a consensus if there is only indirect evidence?](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4211/is-there-a-consensus-if-there-is-only-indirect-evidence)
3. [Should this question on the OSF system be reopened?](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4217/14341)
As of today, it is clear, in principle and in specific, that the original question is on-topic and should have already been reopened. Yet it's not. People only vote, but don't act.
My questions are:
1. **What does consensus mean if there is no action?**
2. If the mods are the representatives of the consensus, then what should they do, when people who can act don't act?<issue_comment>username_1: My interpretation of what the consensus opinion of our community is, is slightly different than yours. I believe that [Are questions asking technical issues on academic services on-topic?](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4162/are-questions-asking-technical-issues-on-academic-services-on-topic) has led to a consensus that in general questions on technical issues are on topic. I also believe our community has expressed that a consensus opinion can be formed from indirect evidence based on [Is there a consensus if there is only indirect evidence?](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4211/is-there-a-consensus-if-there-is-only-indirect-evidence). I think you agree with those two statements.
Where I think I disagree with you is what the voting on [Should this question on the OSF system be reopened?](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4217/should-this-question-on-the-osf-system-be-reopened) means. I think you think it suggests that a mod should be called into action to reopen the question. Mod intervention for opening and closing questions in our community is usually limited to cases where an unedited questions gets repeatedly opened and closed and a mod has to decide if the final state is open or closed. In general, at most a simple nudge (e.g., a comment in chat), is enough to get our community to reopen questions that it is interested in. After nearly a month and numerous posts in meta and chat and trips through the review queue, the community was unable to generate enough support to reopen the question. I see nothing in the voting on [Should this question on the OSF system be reopened?](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4217/should-this-question-on-the-osf-system-be-reopened) that makes me think the community wishes are not being fulfilled and hence have no desire to wield the mod hammer to reopen the question.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: The question "Should this question on the OSF system be reopened?" only has 4 positive votes. The original question has, in its lifetime, received reopen votes from 4 unique users.
It doesn't seem like most "people only vote, but don't act"; it just seems like the specific question does not have enough support from the community to be reopened. (The threshold is 5 reopen votes from users with the reopen vote privilege, which hasn't been met here.)
Upvotes: 4 |
2018/06/26 | 2,240 | 9,368 | <issue_start>username_0: My answer to [this question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/111498/40589) has been quite controversial, attracting several hundred positive and negative votes and a long thread of comments. An initial batch of comments was moved to chat per the usual site policy, and two subsequent long streams of comments were simply deleted with no public announcement or explanation.
Many of the comments that were deleted were very thoughtful and interesting and, in my (possibly biased) opinion, contributed greatly to furthering the debate on OP’s question and related ethics questions. The deletion of the comments thus seems quite detrimental to a high-quality discussion and contrary to the goals of the site. It not only frustrates users who have thought and attention to writing good comments, but also (more importantly) deprives the community at large of important follow-up content.
A moderator who left me a chat comment explained that they “had to” delete the comments because comments can only be moved to chat once and the comments thread was “getting out of hand” (or words to that effect).
**My question:** what should be done about the comments associated with questions or answers that attract a lot of attention, including long streams of comments, many of which are of high quality and highly relevant to the debate, and which continue unabated long after the initial stream of comments has been moved to chat?
If your answer is that deleting subsequent comment streams as was done in this case is the best policy, please explain why you think this best serves the purpose of fostering the most informed and high-quality discussion possible (or why it serves some other, even more important, goal that I’m not thinking of).<issue_comment>username_1: The answer is simple, of course. The comments should be moved into the existing chat. If the moderator can't because comments can only be moved once, then this strikes me as a serious flaw in the system.
I had a related issue recently. I posted a comment on an answer explaining my vote and ways to improve the answer, and the comment received several dozen upvotes. A long series of irrelevant comments followed. The entire block of comments was moved to chat, including mine. I queried that and was told that there's no way of selectively moving comments to chat. To me that seems to defeat the point of the comment system, which is *supposed* to be used for suggesting improvements to the answer.
I would suggest that moderators need finer tuned controls for deleting and/or moving comments, and site policies should also be finer tuned. Comments should be deleted or moved based on their individual merits, and not as an entire block (which is akin to throwing out the baby with the bathwater).
As a final point, deletion really ought only to be used on comments that have serious problems (e.g. are abusive). With the availability of move-to-chat, there is little reason to delete a comment.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: ### First of all
>
> It […] deprives the community at large of important follow-up content.
>
>
>
Almost nobody wants to read a discussion spanning twenty or more comments.
This apparently even applies to comment authors – going by comments that add nothing to existing comments.
In fact I would wager that the only people who read all the comments on the answer in question are its author and some moderators.
[The point of moving comments to chat](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4230/7734) is to make those comments visible that are the few ones that are of high interest to future readers *on their own* – be these existing or potential future comments.
Also, please remember that comments are mostly intended to be temporary, i.e., to be made obsolete with an edit or similar.
The main exceptions to this are relevant links, but even those can be edited into the post.
**If you want to say something of lasting value, do not say it in a comment.**
### What should have happened
Ideally, almost none of the fifty-something comments following the initial moving to chat should have been posted as a comment but in chat.
This is not because those comments were entirely pointless, but these comments were either very likely to incite further replies or were only of value in the context of the entire debate surrounding this answer. (Please see [this](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4230/7734) as to what kind of comments I consider worthy of being comments after comments have been moved to chat.)
### What should happen in a similar situation in the future
In the future, moderators should include a link to [this FAQ](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4230/7734) to every moved-to-chat notice.
If you post a comment after such a notice you have to live with the possibility that your comment is removed without warning.
If you do not like this, do not post a comment but in chat.
Comments that do not follow the FAQ above should be removed as soon as possible to avoid the strong broken-window effect that this situation has on some comment authors (“If that opinion deserves the honour of being a comment, so does my contrasting opinion.”).
### What to do with the post in question
After the initial moving to chat, **not a single message** was posted in chat.
Any of the comment authors could have said or thought:
>
> We are having a longer discussion here, let’s move to chat.
>
>
> My comment is essentially a reply to a chat message (being a comment moved to chat); I’ll post it as such.
>
>
> This comment will likely incite a longer discussion, I’ll post it in chat.
>
>
>
They didn’t – despite a moderator’s comment saying that comments are not for extended discussion.
On the other hand, we moderators are not completely without fault either. We could have intervened earlier or more clearly.
I exploited some special properties of the situation, abused quite a few features, and spent a considerable amount of time to move the entirety of comments into [one chatroom](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/79371/discussion-on-answer-by-dan-romik-dealing-with-a-phd-student-reneging-on-an-agre).
**This is a one-time thing. Do not expect this to ever happen again.**
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: I know your answer has been controversial and you received a lot of both positive and negative comments. You have handled that, often hostile, feedback well. Your responses to the feedback have been on point. The main issue that I see as a moderator is your point
>
> The deletion of the comments thus seems quite detrimental to a high-quality discussion and contrary to the goals of the site.
>
>
>
I strongly disagree with this statement. The goal of this site is not for high quality discussion, it is for high quality answers. The point of comments on answers is to help improve the answer. That improvement process might require a back and forth discussion, but the end result should be an improvement to the answer.
When reading the comments and responses, it was clear to me that you thought about the comments and were not going to integrate the concepts in your answer. Given the nature of many of the comments, that is a reasonable decision and yours to make. At that point all the comments became obsolete as they were no longer going to make your answer better. If someone felt strongly about the views expressed in those comments, they could have written an answer.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: The answer by @username_2 states
>
> Almost nobody wants to read a discussion spanning twenty or more
> comments.
>
>
>
Come on.
**Almost *everybody* wants to read a discussion spanning twenty or more comments.** More people prefer to talk-and-listen than to read-and-write.
But the Will of the People is not my concern here. On the contrary I understand why a website that wants to be and remain a serious Q&A forum, must come down hard on things like comments: we are here to play "too short; didn't read" rather than "too long; didn't read".
So the official policy explicitly *scorns* comments, and canonizes about their lowly nature. But, whatever the SE team wants the comments to be (and maybe rightfully so), they are stubbornly much more, and re-iterating the rules and the official intent around comments will not really help. And indeed, Many-many times comments contain precious content.
In light of the above, the rule "comments can be moved to chat only once and then they can only be deleted", is a dysfunctional SE operational rule (alongside a few others).
The compromise is obvious: sure, keep pushing comments to Chat (after all if you are here to chat, go to Chat), but scrap the "move only once, and then delete" rule. Let the moderators be able to easily preserve all Chatery, without needing to go to the extraordinary lengths our brave-with-the-spear moderator went, which apparently was so frustrating that he ended it with the grave warning "don't ever expect for this to happen again". I agree. Moderators have more important things to do than perform workarounds for inefficient SE rules. The point is to have the SE team change the functionality.
**This is officially a "feature" request**, and I would ask the moderators to consider forwarding it to the SE crew.
Upvotes: 2 |
2018/07/09 | 1,466 | 5,761 | <issue_start>username_0: Latino is not even race, [Is this statistic about how many Latinos/Hispanics have a PhD in the USA correct?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/111045/is-this-statistic-about-how-many-latinos-hispanics-have-a-phd-in-the-usa-correct)
and it was only referenced via social media,
my question [Is there any relible evidence of underrepresentation of LGBTQ scientists in STEM fields?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/112396/is-there-any-relible-evidence-of-underrepresentation-of-lgbtq-scientists-in-stem?noredirect=1#comment295797_112396)
even after referencing Nature and New Your time is off topic?
Is there some issue with LGBTQ on this part of SE?
P.S.
in my opinion the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation, NASA, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the Department of Transportation),
are not part of Academia<issue_comment>username_1: I can think of dozens of questions about LGBTQ issues here. Your assertion that this is considered off topic is simply wrong.
Further, the question about underrepresentation in STEM is a question for the main site, not the meta.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: After some thought, I think that there is a core issue here that Academia should be interested in. That issue closely parallels concerns about under representation of (females, Hispanics, ...) in higher education, either as students or faculty. I would say that, having run a few journal queries, that the topic of LGBTQ demographics in academia is pretty new, and in general the topic of LGBTQ in overall society is still pretty new (consider the wide range of various estimates for simply the number of LGBTQ individuals in the general population).
However, the question as asked contains various elements that made it possible to vote as unclear or off-topic. These included
* That "people in STEM tend to be more feminine"
* The whole second half of the question about hiding piano playing
* A fairly aggressive tone insisting on 'academia' relevance and ignoring comments asking to clarify things.
* (I'll note in passing that the linked Nature item is a commentary, not a technical article)
So, given that, I would suggest that a simpler, broader question on LGBTQ in academia would still be appropriate. One more focused on what do we know now about LGBTQ demographics at least through undergrad -> faculty (actual data). A second question might revolve around what, if anything, is out there pointing to acceptance of LGBTQ in academia (perhaps focused just on faculty, may differentiate based on area).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Here is a possible edit, incorporating comments from both the main question and this question, that might help clarify your point and address concerns about the question. I'm not going to just make the edit because there's only one chance at getting put into the post-edit re-open queue, but please feel free to adopt any of it that you think is useful.
Note that I did add the second footnote wholesale, to address questions about "what does *representative* mean?" Of course you are free to edit or ignore that bit (or any other part of the suggested rewrite) if it doesn't match your intent.
What the edited question would look like:
-----------------------------------------
According to the Nature article "[LGBTQ scientists are still left out](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05587-y)"
there are some "heteronormative assumptions" in the STEM field which artificially suppress the number of LGBTQ people in the field. This view of the sciences1 doesn't match my own experience and anecdotal evidence. (I have seen evidence of a sexism issue but it is a separate issue from LGBT.) In my (admittedly subjective) experience, people in STEM tend to be more open-minded than any other profession.
The Nature article cites a few studies, but none seems to be directly on-point (one study focused on government workers rather than scientists in academia-proper, and another had results that were not statistically significant and whose authors admitted they had made mistakes). Again maybe I'm wrong, but I would like to see a more relevant peer review study (gender studies or social science) explaining this problem.
\*\*What robust studies exist on the representation of LGBTQ individuals2 in STEM fields within academia?
---
1 The idea that STEM fields are especially constrained comes up in other contexts, too. For example, according to [an opinion piece by <NAME>](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/05/opinion/manil-suri-why-is-science-so-straight.html) published in the New York Times, in science it is also not appropriate to talk about hobbies.
<NAME> is a famous scholar, his description of the situation in academia is worrying, and gives the impression that behavior is constrained and under close scrutiny.
>
> Being too expressive of personal identity can be viewed as running counter to scientific neutrality. In competitive venues, where complete immersion in one’s field might be the promoted ideal, the mention of an extracurricular pursuit can even be seized upon as a lack of commitment. I remember a young mathematician at a prestigious research institute sharing his love for piano playing after hearing I wrote fiction. “Don’t tell anyone in my department I own a piano,” he requested in the next breath.
>
>
>
This is a shock to me because I perceived the STEM field as most openminded.
2Representation could measure the percentage of LGBTQ faculty in STEM fields in comparison to other academic disciplines, or something like dropout rates for LGBTQ students in STEM fields compared to dropout rates for other students.
Upvotes: 1 |
2018/07/22 | 1,172 | 4,538 | <issue_start>username_0: We commonly redirect questions such as ["Manuscript status changed from Review in progress to Ready for review"](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/114030/manuscript-status-changed-from-review-in-progress-to-ready-for-review) to ["What does the typical workflow of a journal look like"](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/55665/what-does-the-typical-workflow-of-a-journal-look-like). However they are not similar in essence at all. At best, the answer in the community question is only tangentially related; it doesn't say anything about status changes for example. This question is by no means unique either; see all the questions that are already linked to the community question.
Redirecting everything to the "typical workflow" question is similar to redirecting ["How to nail a Ph.D. interview?"](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/113996/how-to-nail-a-ph-d-interview) to ["How does the admissions process work for Ph.D. programs in the US, particularly for weak or borderline students?"](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/38237/how-does-the-admissions-process-work-for-ph-d-programs-in-the-us-particularly), country tag notwithstanding. Admissions processes in different countries is probably no less different than journal workflows in different journals + fields.
Are the redirects overdone?<issue_comment>username_1: Would you rather them be closed as too specific and go ask the journal? If the answer depends on the specific journal, it is not a good question for us. If it is more of a general question, then the canonical question provides the answer. If there is something missing from the answer on the canonical question, let's fix that.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I would categorise “What is happening to my paper” questions as follows:
* Questions which are directly answered by the canonical Q&A¹. These should clearly be closed as duplicate.
* Questions where the asker tells us little about what happened and what they already know. [Your example question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/114030) is typical for this category and leaves us with the following questions:
+ Did another instance of *ready for review* precede *review in progress?*
+ Is the asker aware of how the peer-review process generally work?
+ Did the asker already make the guess that the peer reviews did not happen or were disatisfactory and either excluded that option or just wants a third opinion?Voting to close or closing such a question as duplicate of the canonical Q&A¹ [prompts the asker](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/250981/255554) to clarify why their question is not answered by the canonical Q&A.
If it isn’t, this will ideally allow the asker to clarify all of the above and leave an interesting question, where we do not need to reiterate the typical workflow – something we did again and again before we had the canonical Q&A.
* Questions where the asker makes clear why the canonical Q&A¹ does not answer the question, but which can be answered by a slight addition to the canonical Q&A, usually by adding some name used for some stage in the process. In that case, there are two options:
+ Answer the new question and perform the respective edit to the canonical Q&A, linking back to the new question.
+ Close the new question as duplicate, perform the respective edit to the canonical Q&A, and leave a comment that it is now addressed.In most cases I would lean to the latter option, but if the answer was difficult to obtain, I would clearly prefer the former one.
* Questions which do not fall within the canonical Q&A’s scope, e.g., questions about an atypical case. These should be left open.
My impression is that we mostly get the second kind. However, I also observed users voting to close questions of the fourth kind as duplicate of the canonical Q&A.
---
Some sidenotes:
* >
> [the community question] doesn't say anything about status changes for example.
>
>
>
I beg to disagree. There is an extensive diagram how statuses change into each other and text explaining how and when this can happen.
* If you ask me, the main problem with [How to nail a Ph.D. interview?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/113996/how-to-nail-a-ph-d-interview) is that it is too broad. Interestingly, nobody voted to close as such yet.
---
¹ [What does the typical workflow of a journal look like?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/55665/what-does-the-typical-workflow-of-a-journal-look-like)
Upvotes: 2 |
2018/07/27 | 400 | 1,616 | <issue_start>username_0: I started a bounty recently for [this question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/114135/why-do-most-scientists-think-brexit-is-bad-for-british-science). The reason is explained in the bounty notice: most of the answers are passionately anti-Brexit. However if the answers provide the entire story, then there shouldn't be any scientists who support Brexit. Since there are - a minority, but still present - I suspect something is missing among all the answers.
I've already started a bounty, but am having second thoughts that perhaps a separate question is better, especially since I've already accepted an answer. I don't mind just awarding the bounty now and asking a new question. Should I ask a separate question instead of awarding a bounty?<issue_comment>username_1: It sounds like you want the opposite answer from what the question asks. I think you want to know what the upsides of brexit is for UK science. The answer to your original question make it clear that this community believes that on the whole brexit is bad, but the question does not really ask for the upside, it only asks for the downsides. If this is in fact what you are after, you should ask a new question.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I would suggest asking a new question, something like 'What are the upsides to Brexit for UK scientists?', and further ask if there's a reason that scientists appear to have an opinion opposed to the larger electorate.
This will make the question seem less loaded, and hopefully draw in more views from across the spectrum.
Upvotes: 0 |
2018/08/01 | 3,825 | 15,577 | <issue_start>username_0: ### Context
I recently updated my answer to the question [Do all countries have the same gender imbalance in science?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/34360/do-all-countries-have-the-same-gender-imbalance-in-science/94081) with additional information.
Basically, my answer contains the following position :
* It is a misconception that women are underrepresented in science or STEM fields fields in general, as this applies to only some fields (with especifically computer science & engineering standing out)
* Yes, this is a roughly consistent for different countries, although countries with greater gender equality - ironically - have a greater gender gap
* This could be at least partially explained by gender stereotyping or the high "geek factor" of those fields, but biological sex differences may play a role at least as significant
I believe each of the three components of my answer are equally important, due to the numerous common misconceptions there are about gender inequality in STEM as a consequence of the current political climate. For the same reason, I deemed it necessary to back up this position by a lot of data, with graphs & sources. In fact, my update consisted mostly of adding additional data, graphs & sources as a response to a comment on that answer, which - rightfully so - pointed out that I insufficiently backed up that gender differences are roughly consistent for different countries.
After updating my answer, I stumbled on the question [Why are women even less represented in engineering than in other STEM?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/97267/why-are-women-even-less-represented-in-engineering-than-in-other-stem) and realized that all of the three components of the aforementioned answer apply here as well to the same degree. So I re-posted my answer to this question, with minor modifications.
Around the same time, I found the question [Could it be beneficial for me to not disclose my gender/ethnicity in an REU application?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/82753/could-it-be-beneficial-for-me-to-not-disclose-my-gender-ethnicity-in-an-reu-appl/114448). Here, I posted an answer that basically contains the following position :
* We know that women that faculty members generally prefer female applicants over male applicants
* We also know that African-Americans & Hispanics are typically favored over European-Americans & Asian-Americans in college admissions
* There are numerous campaigns worldwide to increase the number of women or "minorities" in STEM, including the creation of jobs where only women are allowed to apply
* Therefore, as a white male, I would be inclined to not mention race or gender on my applications for tenure track job applications, especially with respect to positions in a STEM field. For the same reason, I would be inclined to mention my gender as a woman or my race if I were black or Hispanic.
This too, of course, was backed up by sources (although less extensively).
Then I found the question [Should I disclose gender, race, disabilities etc. in tenure track job applications?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/79933/should-i-disclose-gender-race-disabilities-etc-in-tenure-track-job-applicatio/114447), where again the exact same components apply. So here, too, I re-posted my previous answer with minor modifications.
---
### Problem
I learnt that my answer to [Why are women even less represented in engineering than in other STEM?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/97267/why-are-women-even-less-represented-in-engineering-than-in-other-stem) was deleted by a moderator ([Strongbad](https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/929/strongbad)), with a comment not to post duplicate answers, and that I should "tailor [my] answer to the specifics of each question".
So I decided to remove the least relevant details of my answer and re-post the remaining part of my answer as a new answer, referencing my answer to [Do all countries have the same gender imbalance in science?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/34360/do-all-countries-have-the-same-gender-imbalance-in-science/94081) for the details that were left out. This answer was also deleted, by the same moderator. No comment this time.
Then I received PM from an anonymous moderator about [Could it be beneficial for me to not disclose my gender/ethnicity in an REU application?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/82753/could-it-be-beneficial-for-me-to-not-disclose-my-gender-ethnicity-in-an-reu-appl/114448). They told me that normally they would "just delete the duplicate answer", but that they would not delete my answer in this case because it "presents a unique view that is not presented in the other answers and in general goes against the majority view of the community". Also, they wanted to make it clear "moderation of these answers is not related to the views expressed in them, but rather the generic information".
I responded to this message by explaining that in both cases I believe the exact same answer to be equally applicable to both questions, and that leaving out just a part of the answer (at least IMO) significantly reduces the quality of the the answer for both questions in both cases.
I also asked how I could answer [Why are women even less represented in engineering than in other STEM?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/97267/why-are-women-even-less-represented-in-engineering-than-in-other-stem) without my answer getting deleted? I received no response so far.
---
### Question(s)
I find it hard to believe that the deletion of my answer to [Why are women even less represented in engineering than in other STEM?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/97267/why-are-women-even-less-represented-in-engineering-than-in-other-stem) isn't abuse of the rules of this community with respect to duplicate content in an attempt to censor an unpopular opinion, especially considering a different decision was made by a moderator in a very similar context in the very same community. But let's just assume it isn't and the reason two different answers to that question are deleted has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual views expressed in them.
Can anyone explain to me why it's OK for [Could it be beneficial for me to not disclose my gender/ethnicity in an REU application?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/82753/could-it-be-beneficial-for-me-to-not-disclose-my-gender-ethnicity-in-an-reu-appl/114448) and [Should I disclose gender, race, disabilities etc. in tenure track job applications?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/79933/should-i-disclose-gender-race-disabilities-etc-in-tenure-track-job-applicatio/114447) to have roughly the same answer, but not for [Do all countries have the same gender imbalance in science?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/34360/do-all-countries-have-the-same-gender-imbalance-in-science/94081) and [Why are women even less represented in engineering than in other STEM?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/97267/why-are-women-even-less-represented-in-engineering-than-in-other-stem)? Is it just a matter of different moderators making different choices or is there a difference between both cases that I'm just not seeing?
And if it is really just a matter of different opinions from different moderators, doesn't this mean the community rules need some revision towards greater objectivity? How is it acceptable that the personal opinion of one moderator determines whether a detailed answer backed up by ample sources ends up getting deleted? How is that fair to the members of this community?
Also, is there a way I can answer [Why are women even less represented in engineering than in other STEM?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/97267/why-are-women-even-less-represented-in-engineering-than-in-other-stem) using relevant information from my answer to [Do all countries have the same gender imbalance in science?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/34360/do-all-countries-have-the-same-gender-imbalance-in-science/94081) without my answer getting deleted?
Would I need to find different data, different graphs & different sources to pretty much demonstrate the same argument? Would I need to rephrase every paragraph to pretty much make the same argument? And if either of these would be acceptable, why not just allow the answer as it was? Why all the hassle to rephrase the form of an answer when the content itself is fine?
Or if it's really just a matter of including content not relevant enough to the question, which content must be removed to make the answer acceptable and on which grounds? How is not each of the three components of my answer sufficiently relevant to the question?
Since I'm not confident I'll receive a response to my PM, I suppose this is question is a suitable alternative approach for getting an answer to (at least some of) those questions.<issue_comment>username_1: **tl;dr**: Since your answer was duplicate text and a lot of it didn't directly address the question that was asked, it gives the impression of someone who hears a few key words ("gender" "STEM" "underrepresented") and posts a whole screed without taking the time to give a thoughtful answer to the question that was actually asked.
On Academia SE, answers should directly address the question as asked. When you post an answer that includes lots of stuff that isn't specifically targeted to the question, it is likely to get deleted.
---
In the case of (for example) your answer to [Why are women even less represented in engineering than in other STEM?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/97267/why-are-women-even-less-represented-in-engineering-than-in-other-stem), the question begins with the following statement
>
> women are approx. half of the students in biology, chemistry and maths (check e.g. here ) but barely 20% in engineering.
>
>
>
as the premise of the question, then it goes on to ask a question about the reasons for this. Specifically, it asks for studies that give possible reasons for the different gender ratios in engineering vs. other STEM fields.
Then the bulk of your answer is devoted to text and images that reiterate the *premise* of the question, rather than answering the actual question.
Thing stated as a given in the question:
* women have high representation in some STEM fields and low representation in other STEM fields.
Your answer:
* women have high representation in some STEM fields and low representation in other STEM fields. **Already assumed as a "given" in the question.**
* women have high representation in some non-STEM fields too. **Not relevant to a question that is specifically about STEM fields.**
* two paragraphs at the end that address the "why" question - **this is the only portion of the answer that seems to answer the question as asked**.
(Although I haven't looked at the studies you cited and whether they were specifically about motivation for pursuing other STEM fields vs. engineering.) Also, it seems you didn't read the part of the question where the OP wrote
>
> It is often stated that women tend to choose careers where they feel more useful towards society but that is difficult to reconcile with the fact that the share of women in Chemistry is 50% but only 35% in Chemical Engineering
>
>
>
as a part of your answer was "women are driven by a biological urge to help people" without addressing the difficulty the OP stated with this particular reason.
Your second answer contained much less irrelevant content, but about half of it was again reiterating the premise of the question.
---
An answer that directly answers the specific question, "(Cite studies to explain) why women have lower representation in engineering than other STEM fields", without extra content that doesn't answer this question, would not be deleted.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> What exactly is it that I do wrong?
>
>
>
Your behavior was generally fine in that you did not violate the golden *be nice rule*. What you did wrong was post identical answers to different questions. Our community does not like duplicate answers that are not tailored to the question. It makes users feel like the answerer is trying to make a point. This is especially true for controversial views on *soft* questions.
Also, when we see \*duplicate/revised versions of deleted answers with down votes, we get a little worried that users are trying to game the voting system. I am not saying you were, but it is something we think about. Overall, your behavior (posting duplicate answers and a new answer instead of an edit) is/was no big deal and I just wanted to steer you towards more acceptable behavior.
>
> (2) What makes the deleted answer different in nature from the one that didn't get deleted?
>
>
>
Flags. User raised flags make all the difference. Moderators tend to only find issues when they are flagged or brought up in meta/chat. We don't generally go looking for issues. The answer I deleted was flagged by a user as being identical to another answer. The ones that didn't get deleted had not been flagged and I (and likely the other moderators) did not know about them. Now that we know about it, it is probably worth looking into more, but hopefully this meta question will help you see a way forward so that we don't need to step in.
>
> (3) How can I post an answer to the question that does not get deleted?
>
>
>
If two questions have identical answers, then they should be considered duplicates and closed as such. If there is a difference, or even a perceived difference, then the question should get left open. In that case, the best answer would point out the differences and perceived differences and explain how they do not affect the answer. Then provide a link to your previous answer and a brief summary of the key points of that answer. This is essentially the same way we answer all questions for which the answer is available online. In other words, don't just provide a link, but summarize the content that is being linked and explain why that *general* content is relevant to the question.
For completeness, I also want to address a couple of your comments about moderation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* I sent the moderator message. The message was signed "moderation team" because I didn't change the default signature. The system used to default to signing the individual moderators name and I generally do not think about it. Sorry for any confusion.
* When I deleted your revised answer, I sent you a moderator message instead of a comment. I wanted to be clear about what was going on, but did not feel that discussing the contentious nature of the answer in public was the best course of action.
* I didn't respond to your follow up message, because I haven't had a chance yet. The gist of my message would have been, please ask in meta. While you found the right path on your own, steering some users to meta (and the right question), can be difficult and it takes time to write an appropriate mod message.
* The content of the answer did not affect my moderation decisions. I looked at the two answers and thought that they were duplicates and that the newer one was not tailored to the question. That said, I looked at the answers because they were flagged. The flags quite possibly were raised because of the content.
Upvotes: 2 |
2018/08/01 | 386 | 1,839 | <issue_start>username_0: I think it's clear from the Help and actual questions/answers here that questions about the academic side of research are on topic. However, are questions about research administration on topic?
By "research administration" I mean things like:
* Interpreting uniform guidance regarding things like allowed costs for federal grants
* Submitting or preparing grant applications
* The IRB approval process and standards
* Disclosing industry partnerships and conflicts of interest
* How to handle intellectual property and business interests that stem from research
It's less clear to me whether these are on topic. On one hand, they are related to academic research. On the other hand, the Help says this site is appropriate for academics and these questions may be more appropriate for people with professional experience in research administration, rather than academics themselves.<issue_comment>username_1: As a general rule, the best way to make a question a good fit is to ensure the question could be asked by someone else not in your exact situation. Asking about very specific details of policy manuals is probably not a good idea, but if the question could be expanded to cover different agencies or cover different research areas, then it’s usually OK.
But there’s certainly nothing wrong *a priori* with research admin questions.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: **Research administration is certainly on topic.**
Notably, practically every academic starts as their own research administrator. Even if you are provided shared staff with this specialty, you must check everything as you learn the strengths and weaknesses of those that support you. I think learning good research administration is as important to achieving success as good research design. Sadly, possibly more so...
Upvotes: 2 |
2018/08/02 | 679 | 2,855 | <issue_start>username_0: I have posted a question a few months ago and I would like to get it deleted.
In the question I have posted my own opinion and views that I have used in an essay. I have been told that there have been some similarities found using the [Turnitin](https://www.turnitin.com/) service and I have tried to delete the question but I am unable to do so since a person already answered to it.
I have edited the post and removed my opinion and view that I have written and left the question with only a few words left. A moderator has edited my question and added all my text back and locked the question.
I was wondering how can I delete such question.<issue_comment>username_1: You can't delete the question, but doing so also won't solve your problem anyway.
When you post a question on stackexchange, you agree in the terms and conditions that you don't have the right to delete the question. (You may only remove your name from it.) The question may be deleted by moderators, administrators, or the anti-spam bot if it is considered not to have any value, but questions with value can't just be removed by the user. People have taken the time to answer your question, so you shouldn't be able to make all their hard work worthless in a fit of pique (there have been problems with users deleting all their questions when ragequitting, and then the answers don't make sense any more). A moderator may make an exception for you based on the circumstances.
See also: [How does deleting work? What can cause a post to be deleted, and what does that actually mean? What are the criteria for deletion?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5221/how-does-deleting-work-what-can-cause-a-post-to-be-deleted-and-what-does-that), under "When can't I delete my own post?"
Turnitin regularly scrapes content from various websites, including stackexchange. Now that turnitin knows about this text, it is in its database and won't be removed from there just because you delete the question on the site.
However, everyone knows that turnitin sometimes finds duplicate passages that are not instances of plagiarism. For instance, generally all references are highlighted, because other people have cited the same paper before. Another case is, as here, publication of the same text by the same author in another location.
Therefore, the solution is simply for you to add a note when you hand in your essay saying that you wrote this question.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: It took me a while to figure out what you are trying to solve.
I think the solution is to cite the question on Philosophy SE and the answer to that question to avoid the plagiarism issues.
Please refer to [Attributing contributions to academic work that occur in Stack Exchange](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/1580/546)
Upvotes: 2 |
2018/08/19 | 1,254 | 4,717 | <issue_start>username_0: [This question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/115512/20058) and [this other one](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/115513/20058) have been recently put on hold for being strongly dependent on individual factors.
I think that the closure of the above questions is unfair and unwarranted, given that this community has well received many other, even much broader, questions about salary in various parts of the world, and I would like to encourage everyone to treat in a uniform way certain types of questions.
A few examples:
[After my PhD how much salary should I expect as a professor of computer science?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/2346/20058)
[How much is the normal salary of a postdoctoral fellow in North America and Western Europe?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/12618/20058)
[What's the net income of a W1/W2 german professor?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/221/20058)
[How much non-salary income do computer science professors make in the United States?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/76178/20058)
[Academic salaries at European universities](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/28/20058)<issue_comment>username_1: There is a question
[What is the average postdoctoral salary in China?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/43260/546)
and the question listed in this meta question, I think we should either close those salary questions altogether or open them all because the US is a country, China is a country, Germany is a country, Canada is also a country, **…..**
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I don't understand why these questions were closed. The closing rationale is given as "depends on individual factors". While undoubtedly some universities will pay more than another, one can still give an answer based on salary range.
For example here's the rough salary of [a Computer Science professor in the United States](https://www1.salary.com/Professor-Computer-Science-salaries.html):
>
> The average Professor - Computer Science salary in the United States is $110,787 as of July 31, 2018, but the range typically falls between $87,575 and $155,093. Salary ranges can vary widely depending on many important factors, including education, certifications, additional skills, the number of years you have spent in your profession.
>
>
>
The equivalent for engineering teachers in Pakistan/India would answer the question.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I am conflicted. While on the face of it all questions for the form
>
> What is the average salary for position *X* make in field *Y* in country *Z*?
>
>
>
seem to be a good question for the SE format since there is presumably a concise evidence based answer that will not become rapidly outdated. Assuming position *X* is related to academics, then these questions are relevant to our community and potentially one that someone may not have easy access to resources to answer. For example, a US trained Postdoc looking to move to Japan might not know where to begin to lookup salary info and there may not be a specific job that they are applying to during the early stages of researching job opportunities.
I think the issue I see with them is that there are an awful lot of permutations of *X*, *Y*, and *Z* and we would get bored answering these questions. That in and of itself is not a reason to close the questions. I however am not intrigued by any of the listed questions and have not upvoted any of them (and have only left a somewhat snarky answer on one of them).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: I propose that any such question should be rephrased as follows:
>
> **Where can one find** salary data for job type X / country Y / field Z?
>
>
>
If the question is just "What is the salary range?", then what would an answer look like? If it just gives specific figures, then it can't be expected to be valid into the future. If it comes from someone's personal experience or guess, then it's purely anecdotal. What you really want are statistics based on large-scale data from a reliable source. So if such a source exists, then why not simply link to it? That way, people will be able to find well-referenced data into the future (assuming the source continues to update their data, which many do).
Also, if the source turns out to give a broader range of data (covering multiple job types / fields / countries) then the question can be broadened retroactively, so that people searching for any relevant combination can find their source in this question, and not have to ask separately.
This way, instead of giving people fish, we're teaching them to fish, or at least telling them how to get to the river.
Upvotes: 4 |
2018/08/20 | 896 | 3,302 | <issue_start>username_0: I asked a few questions on this website and I think all of them got deleted. I have no idea how to ask a good question on this site. I'm not a researcher. Maybe researchers have knowledge that I don't have from which they can figure out how to ask a good question. I read [How do I ask a good question?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/help/how-to-ask) and [What topics can I ask about here?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic) and neither of them helped.
Basically, I would like a detailed answer teaching me how to ask a good question. I don't really know how to explain what type of answer will help me. Maybe somebody could explain what's wrong with the question [Is math useful for non-math-research](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/111692/is-math-useful-for-non-math-research) (accessible to 10k+ users) I asked that got deleted. Maybe people never know for sure whether a question is worthy of deleting, and when somebody deletes a question, they do it because they're pretty sure that it's worthy of deleting and pretty sure that it would waste so much time more heavily researching whether that question is worthy of deleting.<issue_comment>username_1: Firstly, it's worth you asking yourself why you are seeking to participate on this site. This is a forum about academia, where people can ask and answer questions about academia. This is *not* an "ask an academic" website... its goal is to help academics navigate the world of academia. If you're not in that field you may have a hard time participating, as there's a lot unfamiliar to you. That's not a judgment call, it's simply an observation; I'm not a plumber, so I would have a hard time participating in an advanced discussion about plumbing. The same is true here.
Secondly, the second page is really where you should be looking. Specifically:
>
> If you have a question about...
>
>
> * Life as a graduate student, postdoctoral researcher, university
> professor
> * Transitioning from undergraduate to graduate researcher
> * Inner workings of research departments
> * Requirements and expectations
> of academicians
> * University-level pedagogy
>
>
> ... then you're in the right place!
>
>
>
Your questions should be about those things. If they're not your question will likely be closed. If it *is* on those topics but too broad, unclear, or any of other other close reasons, it will likely be closed.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I don't have 10k rep so I cannot know what the question is really about, but base on the title I think it arguably falls into the category:
>
> Requirements and expectations of academicians
>
>
>
Or in this case, non-math-researchers. The 404 page suggests me this question, and I think it's the same with the question in discuss: [Is there a place in academia for a physicist who reads mostly about math?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/79796/14341) Therefore, I think this question is on-topic.
I find this question on Mathematics, perhaps it will help you reword your question: [What fields of math would be most interesting for non-mathematicians?](https://math.stackexchange.com/q/310317/157643)
If your question cannot be asked here, you can ask it on Reddit or other forums as well.
Upvotes: 0 |
2018/08/21 | 3,134 | 13,164 | <issue_start>username_0: I closed my account and it will be effectuated within 24 hours. I received an indirect personal attack on my posts. I also do not like how quickly sincere questions of (new) participants are downvoted or labelled as a duplicate because a couple of years ago a similar question was asked. These responses are mostly targeted at questions that criticise (or question) current practices in science.
Current practices work for those affiliated to established research groups. Current practises do not work for minorities like me, and practising science comes at high personal costs.
For those personally criticising or downvoting participants who have the courage to raise their voice, I would like you to ask yourself the following questions first:
• I am working in an established research group?
• Does my group’s or supervisor’s reputation benefits how my work is received?
I really hope, one day you will experience the joy of being generous, the joy of lifting those in your circle of influence. Yes, science works for you but that does not devaluate the experience of others.
I also hope, some day you will understand that we all go to processes in which we search for how relate ourselves to experiences and circumstances. Do not judge too quickly. This is a necessity for human growth.
I especially want to thank some participants. @Allure for your honesty and ongoing search for truth and improvement. @Buffy for your quest for humanity. You have to reach a certain level of experience to practise such wisdom. I am not there yet but I promise I will shepherd those in my care. @Scientist for your brutal honesty, courage and believe in righteousness. Science needs people like you. I will remember your response: “do not fear (…).” . @user3209815 for your sincere response to one of my questions, which many would see as a rant.
Finally, I want to thank all the other community members who lifted me up or provided useful feedback. May your lives and careers prosper.<issue_comment>username_1: What you describe is a common phenomeon here (and even worse on many other SE sites - I myself experienced it under a different account). You may not know me but I liked your questions and answers. I wish you all the best!
(I do not know if I am allowed to say this here, but "AskAcademia" on Reddit is a very good resource - in my opinion, the quality is not as high as here (in this regard, Stack Exchange is really extraordinarily great) but the atmosphere is really, really welcoming and friendly which makes up for this.)
Thank you!
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: You are mainly right, but deleting your account is a bad strategy. With it, you give up all your hard earned privileges. You could use them to make the system better.
Between the SE sites, the Academia SE seems to me mainly friendly, except some... sensitive, mainly political topic.
It is the internet. Here people can anonymously give, what they want to, without any too serious retorsion. It doesn't have always the best effect.
The best what you could do, in my opinion, would be that you don't delete your account, but silently become inactive. On this way, you could have the possibility to once go back and start to fix.
Furthermore, after so many work, it would be better if you wouldn't deattach it from your name in a sudden upset. I would suggest, think a week and go away only if you think the same after cooling down.
Having more than 2000 rep, you are only from steps away from the last really useful privilege, you could cast close and reopen votes. The real influence of the users with much higher reputation is not much bigger. With these votes, you would have some saying to move the *whole system* into a better direction, if you are unsatisfied with it.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: It's a pity to see you leave, but as somebody who has been around this community (at times more, at times less) for a few years now, I feel you are misjudging the intentions of the community.
Particularly, I am talking about this paragraph:
>
> I also do not like how quickly sincere questions of (new) participants are downvoted or labelled as a duplicate because a couple of years ago a similar question was asked. These responses are mostly targeted at questions that criticise (or question) current practices in science.
>
>
>
The reason why these questions tend to be closed as duplicates isn't that people hate to challenge the status quo (I would wager that the average community member here is significantly more progressive than most of our colleagues), but that we **literally had all of these questions before**, usually multiple times.
You may respond that some of these questions are important enough that they should be revisited every so often, but that's unfortunately not at all how a Stack Exchange works. Once a question is asked and answered, the topic is done. I would argue that this is primarily what differentiates a Stack Exchange from a forum. I agree that this does not work well for certain types of questions, but those tend to not be overly well-suited for a Stack Exchange in the first place.
You may also respond that the fact that the person asking the question is a minority makes it a different question which should not be closed. This is *absolutely* a fair comment. If the circumstances of the poster are made clear in the question (ideally already in the title), and these circumstances actually make the situation and likely answers differ from previous questions, I would personally be more than happy to leave a question open or vote for re-opening it. In fact, I would argue that questions related to problems minorities face in academia are generally handled pretty well. Take, as a recent example, [this question about whether not being able to apply for state funding is a problem on the academic job market](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/94644/is-obtaining-a-professorship-contingent-upon-the-ability-to-secure-federal-grant).
**Personal attacks in answers or comments are of course not ok. These can and should be flagged and removed.** However, closing a question as duplicate or downvoting a question is not a personal attack, even if you disagree with the closing or voting (not saying that this is what you meant with "indirect personal attacks", but I have seen cases where posters were offended when their question was closed).
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: A few thoughts about this:
* This is Academia SE, which means it's read mostly by academics. Academics as a demographic have certain characteristics, e.g. they're liberal as opposed to conservative, they think their profession should be paid more, etc. So if anyone expresses a contrary view, they can expect to be downvoted.
* Ultimately, answering questions on Stack Exchange is a recreational activity. I do it because I find it fun, and I suspect most others think the same way as well. It's not appropriate to dictate what others should or should not find fun. So I think questions such as [this one](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/113783/telling-phd-supervisor-i-published-a-paper-about-my-thesis-without-telling-them/) should not be closed. The 19k views and 10 answers indicate people find the question fun. Besides the stated close reason is "unclear what you are asking", which is ironic because at least ten people do understand what the question is asking. That's not to say that no question should be closed, but I do think we should err on the side of leaving questions open, especially if they've attracted lots of views and / or answers.
* About marking as duplicate: I personally don't think it's a problem because if it's indeed a duplicate then the question suddenly has multiple answers already. Still, unless the question is an *exact* duplicate (not common), to actually close the original question seems rather unnecessary.
* Personal attacks are unfortunate and it's very possible that one person finds something offensive while others can't see what the problem is at all ([example](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/109789/what-was-offensive-about-the-ladies-lingerie-department-joke-and-how-can-i-av)). It's a pity we don't have an ignore option.
* Downvotes are sometimes necessary but bad. To go from 0 to -1 is significantly worse psychologically than going from +10 to +9, even though in both cases it's just one downvote. So I've been upvoting things if they're negative just to get them back to at least zero. It's a good thing that it takes rep to downvote (I'd even increase the amount required), and a single upvote outweighs multiple downvotes.
In the end everyone has a right to their own happiness, so if you find you no longer enjoy participating here, you should absolutely leave. Best wishes!
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_5: It unfortunately took me too long to find this discussion: user93911 has already committed 'digital suicide' by now.
I have a few comments that might help others in a similar situation, or even our dear ex-user93911 reading this from another plane of existence.
(i) I always say that one should be ready to quit in order to feel stronger. Being ready to leave makes you ruthless: never leave without a good fight. Fighting makes you feel swell, and helps improving the world. When you think you've brought out all you could and you loose interest, then you may leave holding your chin up -- however, usually you will find that your enemies are cowards and that there is still more war to be fought. On the other hand leaving suicide notes intended to bring tears will instead bring out the laughter of your aggressors and further lower local standards. **Fighting in social & business circles cannot kill you, whilst depression will.**
(ii) As someone said, you left at the brink of exerting the power of voting for closing/keeping/editing posts. All your issues could vanish just with a tad more patience. *This is how life works*. I have just now voted to keep this post open, while writing my answer!..
(iii) Modern Academia is unfortunately full of opportunistic gamblers and abusers, worldwide. I have probably seen the worst of them. Don't lower your gaze: look at them straight in the eye. So many colleagues believe in playing sheep and goose to succeed in the field, out of cowardice and brainwash. This is making the weak oppressors stronger with little effort -- any veiled threat and all of their wishes are granted. *They* are not many, but they may look powerful and confident. Experience though will show they are scared to the bone inside, all too aware of their incompetence. This is why any opposers and potential rivals are quick to be targeted with passive-aggressiveness, cold treatment, lies, scooping. These guys are desperate! Listen, don't give them a good time: resist, don't play minion. They won't stop using you and everyone else. Play smart, see through the lies, sabotage their goals (usually petty and in the short-term). And the most important: **never leave a good colleague alone**. If someone asks you for help, *help them* in whatever way you can.
Anyway, this is getting too long. Hopefully this user will come back, stronger. I will proceed with sapping some bad guys. You know where to find me, here. You might find me in the real world as well, next door.
Fight the good fight!
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: I completely agree with you. I feel like all my questions are automatically down voted. I also hate that questions are marked as duplicates. Everyone's situation is different and these people are reaching out for help online, because maybe they don't have anyone else their life to ask. They want professional help from others in academia. Even if it's duplicate maybe you would help someone by answering and their situation is probably different. I understand if it's duplicate and the question is something that does not change through time, like for example "how can I get into grad school?" but the majority of people who are new are reaching out and asking for help for something they probably couldn't find answers for online easily.
I don't understand this negative energy people have here.
This place has the opportunity to be a ask and answer platform that can help new graduate students or in general everyone in a academia and instead the people who are ancient here spend all their time trying to get more points by editing other new user's questions, marking duplicates that are probably not duplicates exactly, and belitting others.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_7: I don't know what happened, and I'll offer no advice on whether to delete your account or not. Judging by what you wrote about minorities, I probably disagree with you on a lot of issues. However, I also strongly agree with what username_5 wrote. The only path to earning the respect of those who *actually* matter is through fighting injustice, even when the task seems thankless. I strongly, strongly, *strongly* hope you keep fighting evil even when it's hard and bears no rewards. It's the only good fight there is.
Upvotes: 0 |
2018/08/25 | 745 | 3,001 | <issue_start>username_0: On some large portion of all questions about conferences,
it becomes important to know if the
conference is in Computer Science, or one of the other fields, that takes conferences seriously as a publication venue.
I was thus thinking we should put something in the tag wiki,
to recommend to users of the conference tag, that it is often a good idea to specify their field in the question.
Or something like that.
If people think this is a good idea, could someone suggest appropriate wording?
If not, follow Meta practices and downvote this question. :-)
Related to this question
[Questions about Computer Science - please, make it explicit](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/517/questions-about-computer-science-please-make-it-explicit)<issue_comment>username_1: For many of the questions that we receive here it's important to specify the field of interest (not to mention the country). Indeed, Computer Science has some specificities (e.g. importance of conferences), Mathematics has other specificities (e.g. author order, long revision times), the Humanities have others (e.g. books may be more important than journal papers) and so on.
Thus, generally speaking, I don't think Computer Science should be singled out in tags, because otherwise we would have to go through all tags to add the specifities of all other fields.
What we should do is to encourage through comments the questioners to add information about the field whenever we feel that that piece of information is relevant, whether it's a question about conferences, publications, hiring etc.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Suggestion: Add something to the tag wiki encouraging askers to describe the *type* of conference: e.g. is it one with peer-reviewed proceedings, and so forth.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: My feeling is that the tag wiki excerpt won't be particularly effective at transmitting this information, since they're hardly ever read. By the time the user gets to tagging the post they've already finished writing it and they're just trying to get it up and running; reading each tag description in detail is simply not something that's going to happen very often.
However, this is precisely the situation where a tag warning could really help. They look like this:
>
> 
>
>
>
([source](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/274634/1305553)) and they show up when the user adds the tag. The procedure for requesting them is [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/298887/whats-the-protocol-for-requesting-a-tag-warning).
As a starting point for that discussion, I would propose wording of the form:
>
> Tip: different fields treat conferences differently, from primary publication venues (as in computer science) to optional extras.
>
>
> Questions about conferences get better answers if they specify what field you're working in, so people have enough context to answer well.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 2 |
2018/08/29 | 971 | 3,945 | <issue_start>username_0: See this: [*How does the admissions process work for Ph.D. programs in the UK, particularly for weak or borderline students?*](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/115557/84565)
And, compare it with this: [*How does the admissions process work for Ph.D. programs in the US, particularly for weak or borderline students?*](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/38237/84565)
I am not understanding why the former was closed while the later one bagged 110 votes.
USA and UK are two big and popular higher education destinations with slightly different systems. Both have a good number of followers. For instance USA=>{Switzerland, Canada, China, Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, and so on}, and UK=>{former British colonies and vassals, and compatible with most part of Europe}.
UK is world leader in producing research papers (on the 3rd position after USA and China. But, produces way more as compared to its population size). Also, because of its past empire, it has a large follower, probably larger than the USA in terms of population.
So, What is fundamentally wrong with my question?<issue_comment>username_1: The highly-rated question you linked was created as a community wiki as a way to close numerous related questions as duplicates, since these types of questions are quite common here. As such, it includes an answer to a question that would ordinarily be far too broad to be accepted.
See this [meta discussion](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1560/what-should-we-do-with-the-can-i-get-into-x-program-with-3-xx-gpa/1563).
Had that question not been created as a community wiki question based on a discussion in meta, it would have been closed just like yours.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: I don't know about the UK system, but as I gather from the comments below your question, there might not be a sufficiently uniform admission process there, and there may be not specific advice that can be given for weak students.
For instance, if you asked the same question about my country (Italy), I'd have voted to close too, because there are probably as many different admission processes as universities, and the criteria may even change year after year (the admission process for me 20 years ago was completely different from the current one in the same university, and we changed the process at least another couple of times). And I wouldn't have any specific advice to give to a weak student before the application, it would be too late to do anything.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: The thing that is fundamentally with your question about the UK is the same thing that is fundamentally wrong with the one about the US. The questions are both too broad and too narrow at the same time. The admissions process in both countries is a huge topic with books and books written about it. At the same time a good answer depends on the individual department and individual student.
>
> I am not understanding why the former was closed while the later one bagged 110 votes.
>
>
>
Your question on the UK was closed for that reason (i.e., not a good fit for the SE system). The one on the US was not closed, most likely, because it was the result of a meta discussion that concluded that the community wanted to make an exception for the US. As for the up votes, my guess is a lot of people found it helpful and some people up voted it simply because it helped solve the problem of the influx of bad admissions questions.
There is nothing special about the US question and we can make another exception. All it would take is a clear demonstration of the problem and how the question would solve that problem. As it stands now we do not get a lot of UK admissions questions. This means that there may not be a problem to be solved.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: It's called [American exceptionalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism).
Upvotes: -1 |
2018/08/31 | 2,323 | 8,551 | <issue_start>username_0: Update - the theme and layout is now live for everyone.
-------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for your feedback in this process. If there's additional feedback, please feel free to add to the answers below.
---
As part of implementing the new unified themes across the network, we're gradually rolling out updated site themes for each site. As of today, we have enabled your updated site theme for testing.
If you can't see it right now, that's by design! We're hoping to get feedback from you before rolling it out to everyone permanently. If you'd like to review it, here's how:
How do I enable it?
-------------------
[Click here](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/users/preferences) and check the "Beta test new themes" option. This will turn on the new theme for all sites that have one in testing, including this one. *Here's [more info](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/314542/opt-in-to-beta-testing-new-themes) on how to opt in.* You can uncheck the box to revert to the older theme until the site is live for everyone (note, it will take a few minutes to go into effect).
What type of feedback do we need?
---------------------------------
### On this post: Bugs related to this site's design elements
Please help us look for issues/bugs related to the theme design and how we have mapped the old theme to the new. This needs to be done within the [limits of the new unified theme](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/307862/ch-ch-ch-changes-left-nav-responsive-design-themes).
### On Meta Stack Exchange: General concerns about left nav or theming
If you have concerns or issues regarding the left nav or the overall approach we are taking to theming, then [this Meta Stack Exchange post](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/310908/live-left-nav-new-theming-and-responsiveness) is the right place for feedback.
As you may notice, there are some unique design elements like voting arrows and tags that are being standardized in this process. Keeping these custom elements makes our ability to maintain the sites too complex and, while we're very sad to see them go, we're in a difficult position of needing to make the site designs work together so that we can continue to address feature requests and bugs that will make your Q&A experience better. This is addressed in a [Meta Stack Exchange post](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/314799/why-we-initiated-the-latest-round-of-design-changes-and-the-role-of-meta) if you want more detail.
What new themes?
----------------
If you're like, "What the heck are you talking about?", then you should read the Meta Stack Exchange post entitled [Rollout of new network site themes](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/312365/rollout-of-new-network-site-themes) (and maybe the posts it links to for the full background).
Thanks so much for your constructive feedback!
----------------------------------------------<issue_comment>username_1: [status-completed](/questions/tagged/status-completed "show questions tagged 'status-completed'")
>
> The line weights have been adjusted. When shrinking the image, the weights were too fine and made the image look fuzzy or undefined. We'll get a better weight for them. Clock face also has hands now!
>
>
>
The line strength for the buildings in the top right is too thick given the shrunk buildings. I acknowledge that it has to be at least one pixel, so my best suggestion is to remove or shrink the clock tower and clouds and increase the size of the buildings, as long as they have enough space at the top without looking crammed.
Also, in case you keep the clock tower, the face of the clock could be made more recognisable. You still have space for more than three pixels.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: General comments:
=================
University image: [status-completed](/questions/tagged/status-completed "show questions tagged 'status-completed'")
>
> The line weight has been adjusted. When shrinking the image, the weights were too fine and made the image look fuzzy or undefined. We'll get a better weight for them.
>
>
>
Empty space: [status-bydesign](/questions/tagged/status-bydesign "show questions tagged 'status-bydesign'")
>
> It's important to remember that, while there's white space on *that* page, elements live in those empty spaces on other pages, like the [Questions](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ftxr6.png), [Tags](https://i.stack.imgur.com/e43vC.png), or [search results](https://i.stack.imgur.com/aZNoh.png) pages (links go to screenshots). Additionally, due to the responsive design, how much white space you see depends on your page width.
>
>
>
Ask Question button placement: [status-bydesign](/questions/tagged/status-bydesign "show questions tagged 'status-bydesign'")
>
> See the empty space images... The placement for this button needs to be easy-to-find and consistently in the same place. Right now, the only time this button isn't in that spot on a page it exists on is on question pages themselves, where it's been moved slightly to the right to make more space for question titles so they don't wrap so much.
>
>
>
---
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Qm5uI.png)
---
Specifically on the kerning issue, it looks like the text is just bolded, which makes it look really bunched up. Comparing it to existing text, the existing is actually pretty bunched as well... may as well fix it if possible.
*Old:*
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/r4cLh.png) [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ceteD.png)
*New:*
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/uuhrZ.png) [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/oNPTr.png)
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: [status-completed](/questions/tagged/status-completed "show questions tagged 'status-completed'")
>
> These are now blue instead of pink.
>
>
>
What's with the pink OP highlighting?
>
> 
>
>
>
(from [this answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/11766/820).)
On the plus side, the jarringness of the pink has brought my attention that the OP signature gets highlighted in question and answer bylines just like it is in comments, even in the old styling, so there's that.
But why is it such an awful shade of pink? Why is it the same pink as deleted posts? (OK, it's [not quite the same colour](https://i.stack.imgur.com/7UcpK.png), but it's close enough that they register as the same colour if you don't have them in direct contrast.)
And to make things worse, the same awful transformation has attacked the comment highlighting:
>
> 
>
>
>
Pretty please, choose a more neutral colour for this notation :-).
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: [This header](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/116559/is-it-considered-ethical-to-sign-yourself-with-name-followed-by-phd-when-in-fact) doesn't exactly look great:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/PWxJy.png)
It seems like the title should only go as far as the divider between the question and the right bar. Right now, it doesn't seem like it's part of the same element. And, with two-line titles like this one, there's a lot of awkward empty space.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: There isn't enough contrast between "open" questions and questions with an accepted answer on the landing page. The box around the answer is nice, but some shading would make it clearer—and break up the monotony.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_6: Accessibility issue: I'm wearing glasses but have generally very good eye-sight with them. However, since recently I'm finding it hard to read the titles in the list of questions on the front page. I can only imagine how bad it is for people with poor eye-sight. The blue seems to be an even lighter color than on the Stack Overflow front page.
You should change this to something with more contrast to the background as soon as possible.
**Edit:**
I've realized it looks different on different systems. Here is a screenshot of what I see with Firefox 61 on Windows 10.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/AKTRk.png)
Upvotes: 2 |
2018/09/01 | 1,331 | 5,718 | <issue_start>username_0: I have made a question very clearr (and interesting) as the answer and comments show ([Why publishing in a journal instead of arxiv or in my blog?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/116166/)), but 4 users flaged this as unclear. I feel that this is a censorship strategy because the question (and answers above all) are not to the liking of them. May be that those people work for editors or have their own interest in censoring that question.
Is there any mechanism in these forums so that this does not happen?<issue_comment>username_1: Welcome, Ixer. This is a feature, not a bug. The Stack Exchange system is designed to make it easy to remove low quality questions. If you do not like this, try a different website.
If you want an example of how to ask a higher quality question, you might like this:
[Why are journals used in modern scientific academic research?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/86686/why-are-journals-used-in-modern-scientific-academic-research)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: **TL;DR: If users say that your question is unclear, please consider the possibility that this is because it is actually unclear – and not because of censorship.**
There were several problems with your question as it was closed:
* It was not understandable due to using an acronym *(HIP)* that is not in active use. In the ten thousands of questions and answers on this site, nobody ever used this acronym. The first results by Internet search engines are from some exotic company. (This issue is now fixed.)
* It asks several questions at once, which is something not suited for our question-and-answer format. Please take the [tour](https://academia.stackexchange.com/tour) to learn more about how this site works. A specific problem that already arose from this is that the existing answers addressed different aspects of the question and thus are not comparable.
* You tell us very little about want you already know, why you want to know what you are asking for, or why you are skeptical about certain things. This is not a forum where you just throw a topic into the ring and everybody writes an essay about it.
* Some of the questions you were asking were already addressed before or are very broad themselves and we have several questions around that topic.
Note that the primary purpose of putting a question on hold is to prevent further answers while giving you the opportunity to fix the issues with the question. It does not result in deletion and unless users vote to delete your question, it will not be automatically deleted. If you edit your question, it will automatically be sent to a review queue, where users can decide whether the issues are fixed and it can now be reopened.
Finally note that the right to put questions on hold is a [privilege](https://academia.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/close-questions) in this community and it takes five users to agree on this, so it’s not that easy to abuse this function for censorship. Also note that the privilege of closing requires much more reputation than the privilege of downvoting, and so far nobody downvoted any of the answers that you presume they disliked.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: I did not find the question particularly unclear, but there were certainly some problems that led to it getting closed. A wish of our members to censor this discussion was certainly not one of them, as we have many questions in similar spirit that were highly upvoted:
* It's a duplicate. Notably [this question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/73536/what-is-the-point-in-publishing-a-paper-in-a-journal-rather-than-arxiv) contains more or less the same discussion.
* It sounds like a discussion prompt rather than question with a clear answer. Stack Exchange is not a discussion forum, and questions in the style of *"I identified this problem with academia, what can we do?"* are not in scope of this website.
* Somewhat relatedly, it probably triggered the "rant alarm" of many of our community members. In this Stack Exchange, many members are wary of questions that are asked in bad faith, or meant to provoke or trigger discussions. Again, Stack Exchange is not a discussion forum. It's simply not the right place to brainstorm alternative ideas to academic publishing. It certainly *is* the right place to ask why the publishing model is the way it is, as the question linked in the first bullet item shows, but your question did not sound like that.
* You are asking a number of questions at the same time. The question of why to choose a journal over arxiv has already been answered, but you also ask about publishing a blog post instead. You also ask why it's not better to not care so much about scientific rigor and try to get it out of the door quickly, and there is also something related to IPR and patenting in there. The Stack Exchange model really only works well if you ask one, fairly narrow and specific, question at a time.
It's an unfortunate reality that one really should not read too much into the specific closing reason here. Oftentimes, what exact reason the community members choose to close a question on is a bit random. Going over the comments in the question (or asking a meta question, as you have done) is more instructive in learning how the question can be salvaged.
Further, note that putting a question on hold does not mean that people want to kill it with fire. It purely means that we think the question needs some editing before it becomes a good fit to the site. Oftentimes, fairly small editing to the question is sufficient to bring it in scope, at which point it will be re-opened.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer] |
2018/09/16 | 1,559 | 6,774 | <issue_start>username_0: I'm deleting my academia stackexchange account so I don't really care if this my last question will be marked as duplicate or off-topic. The reason why I'm asking this question is that I feel the academia stackexhange community right now heavily focused on hierarchy of this forum such as preventing duplicate, off-topics, etc. rather than actually answer the people's questions. I think every-time if someone, whom specially is new in this forum, asks a question a lot of experienced people will rush to the newly posted question in order to edit its content and discuss its relevance and find duplicates when it is applicable. I think this rush created a censorship, which does not allow new users to express their questions or ideas. Furthermore, I believe every question, which is asked by unique person, has some originality even if it shares its topic with other similar questions and I think it's not fair to mark every question as duplicate or off-topic because his/her questioner is not an experienced user in this forum. I know, even this my last question will be marked as duplicate, off-topic and will be closed, on hold, or even deleted. But, I'm happy that I just expressed my ideas and I don't really care if even I don't receive any response because my account will be deleted anyway.<issue_comment>username_1: I'm sorry you feel that way, and thank you for taking the time to post your experience. Looking over your posts, I'm not sure I understand why you feel that way... your [last question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/116888/should-i-withdraw-my-paper-from-a-journal-which-even-didnt-give-me-the-manuscri) (>10k users) was pretty well received and good discussion helped improve the question even more.
There is a well-recognized phenomenon of older users rushing to close questions, but try to view it from their side... many new users post without checking history, and in many cases the answer has already been discussed. This site has been around for over six years at this point, we have quite a body of knowledge built up. Sometimes mistakes happen, but overall it tends to work fairly well.
That said, as you point out, it's not perfect. I'm sorry you're not feeling welcome, and I really would urge you to reconsider your decision. You've only been a member for a few weeks now, but in that short time you've contributed a few pretty interesting questions. Don't let one bad experience ruin that for you.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I suspect by the time I post this answer here, you will be gone already. Still, my answer might serve someone else feeling likewise.
I am a regular SE user. I think the main objective of the database is to provide a Q&A search interface for specialists in different fields. Meaning that if one has a problem, there might be a dedicated SE discussion for it, freely available and still open for additional discussion. I follow and participate different topics in SE, and I can say this website has helped me **beyond measure**.
Now, there is the matter of the *main goal of **users** in SE Academia*. I believe your question was meant to *highlight a distance* between what I wrote in the paragraph above and what users are actually seeking here. You seem believe most users are just selfishly hunting for reputation, and one of their strategies is nitpicking at selected questions what won't bring them any more views or points. My answer here is based on this personal interpretation, and I am afraid you won't be here to reply or edit the question anymore.
I do not seek reputation in SE Academia. My profile is anonymous, and many of my answers oscillate between controversial and unpopular. Perhaps I often state facts and opinions many academics engaged here don't want to see or be seen in public? I don't know, and I don't care. Because my main personal objective here is (in answering) to contribute to colleagues here who seem to need help in situations I may know about, and also (in questioning) learning what colleagues elsewhere think/advise about a certain topic or situation.
I should state *I have voted to close one of your questions*, linked in another answer here. It seemed and still looks like a duplicate of [another](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/55665/what-does-the-typical-workflow-of-a-journal-look-like?noredirect=1&lq=1), Frequently Asked Question (FAQ). I did not seek to censor you, not understand why anyone would do that on such a trivial question. Being directed to FAQ is a very helpful outcome, as you may find a suitable answer among many other discussed aspects, or else reformulate your question more specifically on a details you still quite don't understand.
I do believe **some** users may occasionally misuse this platform on occasion, mostly by passive-aggressively attacking others in comments (or even edits) and by downvoting and voting to delete material they personally disagree with without clear technical or objective reasons. This may be interpreted as a form of censorship, and is unfortunately very common everyone in the real world as well. However I do not think this is widespread in SE Academia (and I would say if I did) and I do not think you seem to have been a victim of such situation.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: The goal of Academia.SE (similar to the other stack exchange sites) is to develop a useful Q&A that *applies to a broader audience than the individuals asking questions*. This is why we close questions that are too specific to a single individual, or mark as duplicates questions that have already been answered.
These approaches filter out the messy individual circumstances and *give the best chances for **other people** to find answers here* without having to ask their own question.
Closing a question as duplicate is never an attempt to censor a particular question or questioner, it seeks to point you toward information already here. Additionally, we can't really answer "what should I do?" questions: you have to make your own decisions based on what you value. Your advisor is likely to be a better place to get information when you need to make a particular decision, because they know you and your circumstances better (though even then you may disagree).
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: I agree with you again!!! Nothing is more frustrating then literally having a question and being in need of help and the first responses on your account are people editing your original content, and making it something else entirely by changing your tone and diction, and/or people saying your post is irrelevant. It is rare that you will actually get help.
Try to go reddit. I'm thinking of going there when I need help now.
Upvotes: 0 |
2018/09/21 | 1,321 | 5,637 | <issue_start>username_0: I'm wondering what is the similarity percentage of answers and opinions, which are given on Academia Stack Exchange to users, to the opinion of academic community as a bigger entity? In other words, do the answers here necessarily reflect the accepted answers to questions or problems of whole academic community?
The reason why I’m asking this question is that when I see the profile or background of people who give answers to the question on this site, it seems the active people here are the individuals who really care about computer stuffs but their research is not necessarily about computers or computer science. So, maybe this similarity could bias the answers in a certain direction, which may not reflect the opinion of the academic community as a bigger entity. I mean, a lot of experienced and old professors in the academic community don’t even know this site exists. My question is basically: if someone answers a question, how similar is this answer to a hypothetical answer if you would ask someone in academic community who is not on this site?<issue_comment>username_1: First of all and just to clarify, the goal of this site is not to collect personal opinions, but facts and best approaches to certain problems.
Given the nature of our subject (academia), this is only an ideal and often the best we can offer are educated opinions.
However, you will not find questions like “Should pay-to-view journals be outlawed?” or similar on this site (if you do, please flag to close as primarily opinion-based).
>
> do the answers here necessarily reflect the accepted answers to questions or problems of whole academic community?
>
>
>
Of course there is a certain bias to the answers and votes given by this community due to its tendency towards computer-heavy fields and people who become active on such websites in the first place.
[Here](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/19604/7734) is an example, where a custom or rule completely differs between fields and this wasn’t reflected in the answers for about four years (still, all the previous answers did make appropriate disclaimers, so nobody can complain that we spread false information).
However, quantifying this bias would be largely infeasible:
You would have to make a large-scale survey soliciting the stance of a representative selection of persons from the academic community on a representative selection of questions on Stack Exchange – and ensure that you do not get a bias due to who will participate in such a survey.
That being said, we do not exist in a vacuum.
If there is a huge amount of people with differing opinions, some of them are bound to eventually stumble upon our site, and some of them in turn are bound to tell us [that we are wrong on the Internet](https://xkcd.com/386/).
(And just in case we are censoring any dissent, somebody is bound to start a website informing the Internet about this – which hasn’t happened yet as far as I know.)
Now, for most of our questions, the general directions of answers align and votes merely indicate which answer presents the best reasoning or [simply was first](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/9731/255554).
Cases with strongly dissenting answers are rare, and it rarely happens that somebody joins our site just to tell us how wrong we are.
I would consider this a good indicator that the aforementioned bias is not a huge issue when it comes to the correctness of answers.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> In other words, do the answers here necessarily reflect the accepted
> answers to questions or problems of whole academic community?
>
>
>
No. There's no reason or evidence to believe that this community is a representative sample of academia as a whole. And, as you note, a number of reasons to believe that this *isn't* the case - namely, that many of the natural "feeder" sites to introduce someone to Academia.SE are computational in nature.
To be frank, there's not even a guarantee that the answers to the questions reflect the whole community *of this site*. For example, if you ask a question about a field without particularly high coverage (my own, for example) and I'm not on the site for whatever reason, it's possible that that absence will skew the answers. We're not, when it comes down to it, a very large site.
That being said, there is a reason so many of the answers on this site boil down to: "It depends." and "Have you asked your supervisor?" Academia as a field is hugely diverse, and even among fairly homogeneous groups the answers to questions will vary considerably.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: All sub-samples contain bias unless inclusion is random - and inclusion to academia.stackexchange is anything but random. Certainly there is observer bias.
academia.stackexchange also contains feedback mechanisms like up/down voting, which like many online communities reinforces founder-behaviour: ideas, viewpoints, theories, etc that are majority-held views are promoted, while minority opinions are generally not. This is kind of the point of up/down voting, to rank answers by popularity as a proxy for validity.
Having said all that, the mods at academia.stackexchange try really hard to allow opinions from all sides of the discussion. Even if no one likes an argument, it will be allowed to remain up on the website. In other words, you will at least be exposed to a wide variety of opinions on SE, even if the results of voting are somewhat biased. It's not quite as wide as *i personally* would like, but I also think it's pretty ahead of the curve in general.
Upvotes: 2 |
2018/10/03 | 676 | 2,866 | <issue_start>username_0: Recently, I posted [a question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/117764/98164) which at the first time I didn't expect that it will receive this huge ~ 12k attention. Now, I'm wondering why it received this amount of popularity among the academic community in this forum? Because I had similar questions before but none of them really received this amount of attention. I will be very grateful if someone could explain this to me or more concisely define which criteria in my question lead to this amount of popularity.<issue_comment>username_1: Questions with outlier level of attention are almost always a result of the "hot network questions" or HNQ.
This has been a topic of a lot of discussion on the [main meta](https://meta.stackexchange.com/search?q=HNQ) as well as the meta for individual stacks. HNQ are great for attracting attention to stacks, but sometimes that attention is a bit unwanted, including votes and answers on questions that are more controversial that end up not reflecting the home stack but rather the SE community at large (without any attention to the quality, note that 2/3 of your answers come from people who are not regulars here; this is typical of questions on HNQ but you will find that most other answers here are by regulars).
Your particular question probably got a lot of attention from people who are interested in automatic plagiarism detection, probably because everyone in the StackExchange community has been a student of some sort at some time, and many are young enough to have experienced automatic plagiarism detection. It probably received less attention (proportionally) from people who are *users* of automatic plagiarism detection as educators or people affiliated with journals, which is the audience you might get more informed answers from and would be more likely to find in the makeup of the regular Academia.SE community - that's simply the nature of HNQ.
In summary, if a question generates a little bit of attention quickly, it can end up on the "Hot network questions" that people see on the side bar and on the main StackExchange site. These questions tend to then attract a lot *more* attention from people who are just SE users or casual users of a particular stack, rather than the regulars in a stack. This has an especially large effect on stacks that are fairly small (which Academia is, though it's not the smallest). **Most likely, most of that attention is *not* from the everyday Academia.SE community.**
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: [Schadenfreude](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schadenfreude) and the tabloid effect.
Issues pertaining to plagiarism, fraud, retraction, inappropriate behavior of supervisor, sexual misconduct, "stolen" ideas, feeling of despair, etc. attract bored site users more than the serious ones.
Upvotes: 2 |
2018/10/05 | 1,012 | 4,298 | <issue_start>username_0: Quite a few questions at Academia are about conflicts with Supervisors, both for students and for post-docs. A question there about how to avoid such conflicts from arising, starting on the first day, would likely be closed for a variety of reasons - broad, opinions, shopping, etc.
Is this a suitable place to discuss that and preserve any advice given? The chatroom is too ephemeral for it, I think. But quite a few new students could benefit from advice from other academics.
How can you build a strong and positive relationship with your supervisor from the first days, even if he/she is aloof or judgmental?
NOTE: The question has now been asked on the [main site](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/118465/20058).<issue_comment>username_1: The following is a proposal for a community wiki question at Academia. Feel free to edit it. It focuses on student actions. A companion question might be formulated for advisors to get advice.
I don't actually know how to make it CW on the site.
---
Title suggestion: Building a healthy relationship with your supervisor
Some graduate students and post-docs have reported serious problems with their advisors and supervisors. Some of the problems are severe enough to be career ending. Not all problems can be avoided but it is possible that some can be if the student or post-doc takes some actions in their first days of the new position. The goal is to build a solid and positive relationship with the advisor from the beginning so that small problems later don't escalate.
*What can a student or post-doc do, starting in their first days and weeks, to help assure a strong and positive relationship with a supervisor?*
There is no assumption here that it is all up to the student, but what can a person do in a new environment to maximize their chances of having a good and lasting relationship?
likely tags: advisors, graduate-study
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Based on my experience, and was thinking of it while returning from the conference! Why I arrived to this point, I was always respecting people, but probably there are advisor who dont like to see their students grow and shine, we are human being, even myself, sometimes I feel jealous but what retracts me from hurting people is conscience!
Honestly, me and many students will tell you that at the first couple months, you will see an angel PI and you will not recognize their behavior unless you go with the time! This PI was trying to looks like a cool and funny person, but I didn't know about their dreadful actions towards the senior student who was not allowed to defend his PhD although publishing in top-tier conferences which is a big question mark! My fault is not asking the students before joining, however, some students afraid to tell the truth because they could endanger them, another thing, there aren't alumni listed in the website which I see after my experience is a red flag. The good PI will be proud to put links about their PI and where they have arrived.
I do think even if you made a good relationship with your PI as probably I had the beginning, but when he realized that I want to publish and attend conferences, he felt jealous. With a reference to that I began to realize that he don't want any one to be successful, the toxic PI feels happy when people are desperate and they get their power from the weakness of others.
He was trying to suppress me from presenting my work although he doubted and forced me to leave and now he wants to put his name on my proposed methodology which is insane!
There are two roads to continue under psycho PI or leave it , and from my position after spending one year, I can say I am totally damaged mentally and physically as well, and it is not easy at all!
All the students want to learn and do research that they are passionate about . In the other side, the abusive PI is going to fabricate problems and make obstacles for the students to stumble their progress.
I dont know what could be the solution as I read stories from more than one decade and still the problem exists. That is made me wondering, whether academia is fake and fabricating non-existing problems to finds solutions, I dont know that makes me contemplating about academia.
Upvotes: 1 |
2018/10/15 | 504 | 2,170 | <issue_start>username_0: I have a question about my Academia Stack Exchange post: [is my spreadsheet considered a framework?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/118384/is-my-spreadsheet-considered-a-framework)
I posted a question about my methodology for generating a theoretical framework but some lads responded by asking some irrelevant questions(in my opinion) that could not help me solve my problem. I need some Academics' opinions on the matter . best regards<issue_comment>username_1: In my opinion, the issue is that it is not clear to me what you are asking about. There appears to be a lot of jargon (framework, domain, class diagram) whose meaning is not clear to others. I think this mm is making it difficult for people to figure out what you are asking.
The SE system is different than other online communities. Please take a look at our [help center](https://academia.stackexchange.com/help). What the comments were trying to do is guide you to provide information that people think might help clarify your question. They may not be the right questions to ask, but there is something unclear about your question.
Instead of being highly abstract in the question, you might want to try and provide more specifics. Instead of assuming the terminology is known, provide links or references to the key concepts, or better yet descriptions/definitions.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Your question is off-topic because it is about the *content of your research* which is explicitly off-topic for Academia.SE (see <https://academia.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic>). Since you are new to StackExchange, note that every stack has a definition for what is on- and off-topic, and it is decided by those communities. If you want a community to change what they define as on-topic the correct way to address that is to start a meta conversation about it.
In addition, calling out people who are trying to help (including politely letting you know your question is off-topic) and accusing them of being here for reputation alone are both ways to come off as rude, and "be nice" is a core principle behind the StackExchange framework.
Upvotes: 2 |
2018/11/13 | 621 | 2,544 | <issue_start>username_0: It's clear that you could reasonably use [supervision](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/supervision "show questions tagged 'supervision'") without using [advisor](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/advisor "show questions tagged 'advisor'"), but I'm confused as to how one would use [advisor](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/advisor "show questions tagged 'advisor'") without using [supervision](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/supervision "show questions tagged 'supervision'") as the advisor's job is to provide supervision (as seems to be noted in the description of [supervision](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/supervision "show questions tagged 'supervision'")). How would you pick whether or not to use both or just one when referring to advisors?
For example, how would you tag a question like [How to have productive meetings with Ph.D supervisor](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/103261/how-to-have-productive-meetings-with-ph-d-supervisor)? (Context: I submitted an edit to add both tags to this question.)<issue_comment>username_1: I think the terms are used interchangeably here. Usage differs by field and by place, but both terms seem to be used by writers for the same thing. In some countries doctoral study is actually a job, so "supervisor" seems more natural. In others it is purely an academic relationship. I doubt that it is worth the effort to try to make a strong distinction as the writers will write what they write in any case.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: Although I have not looked at the posts using each tag to see how the community has actually used them, I think it's important to note that one tag is [supervision](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/supervision "show questions tagged 'supervision'") and not **supervisor**.
The tag descriptions make it sound like they are overlapping, but I would argue that [advisor](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/advisor "show questions tagged 'advisor'") makes more sense in the context of a student asking how to interact with their advisor in some way (communicate something, choose an advisor, etc.) whereas [supervision](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/supervision "show questions tagged 'supervision'") seems more appropriate for an advisor asking about how to supervise their students.
Of course someone could also make an argument for the inverse.
Upvotes: 2 |
2018/11/13 | 1,205 | 5,189 | <issue_start>username_0: Proposition: The targeted reader of an answer isn't necessarily the OP who asked the question and therefore a general answer may be appropriate.
Background: Some commenters (and down voters) object if an answer is much more general than the question calls for or even orthogonal to the question. I write such answers quite often, and while the down votes don't disturb me, I wonder if some clarification of the purpose of an answer and of this site generally would be useful.
My belief is that the purpose of this site goes beyond just helping the person who posed a question. For that, any simple mailing list would be sufficient. It seems to me, however, that this site wants to be (claims to be, actually) something more, giving guidance to people who visit in the future and *who may have related, but not identical* questions.
For this reason, I believe that an answer that isn't directed at the OP, but gives background information and guidance to others is entirely appropriate. In particular, If a student has some particular issue in dealing with some administration, then in the future a person who has some control over changing administrative policies might read a thread and use it to design a better system. Having too-narrow answers won't really give the necessary guidance, I think.
I sometimes label my "beyond the horizon" posts as such, but not always. But a lot of readers, even some who have been here a long time and have accumulated quite a lot of rep, seem to object to such things.
As an example, see [this post](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/119962/what-can-be-done-about-a-disruptive-classmate/119966#119966), for which my answer is clearly of this sort. Clearly beyond the horizon. In fact, I wasn't directing it at the OP, as tried to say so in the post. Some commenters, however, seem to think that such answers that don't *directly* address the OP's needs are entirely inappropriate.
I can, of course, stop writing such things, but I think it would do damage to the site overall. I wonder what the community consensus is on this issue. It isn't a reputation issue, for me, but rather one about how the site is perceived, which affects the kinds of questions and answers that will be given. If it is only narrowly viewed, then it will be less useful IMO than otherwise.<issue_comment>username_1: It's true that the best answers help more than just the OP.
However, this is first and foremost a Q&A site, not a discussion site, so answers should answer the question. It's OK (even good) to include stuff that generalizes beyond the OP's situation, but not to write a post that doesn't address the OP's question at all, or that primarily addresses a different situation.
If an existing question inspires you to think about a related question and answer, you can always post the related question and also self-answer it. Just make sure the related question is a real, practical question, and not a "discussion prompt". For example, the answer [you wrote](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/119966/11365) would be appropriate (with some modifications) as *part* of an answer to the question "As an instructor, should I ask students to save all questions until the end of the lecture?"
Or you may find that (with modifications) it is appropriate as an answer to an existing question, like maybe [this one](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/36428/11365) in the case of the answer you were wondering about.
(I'm writing this with my user hat on, not moderator hat. This isn't some decree from on high, just my personal opinion.)
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: In general, I think generalizing answers is good, especially if they make explicit their generalization. I have argued elsewhere on Meta that the purpose of the SE model is specifically to produce a Q&A that is helpful to more than the individual question-askers.
An example might be to pose an alternative circumstance that would change the content/direction of your answer.
I am also supportive of "frame challenge" approaches to questions that help the OP recognize that they may be asking the wrong question or taking the wrong approach from the outset.
However, I think the particular example you pointed out is a bad example of generalizing or frame challenging, and to be blunt it is probably my least-favorite answer of yours. It really seems like you are just taking an opportunity there to tell an autobiography that does not directly relate to the question asked: it addresses beneficial aspects of question-asking in class and the problem of large class sizes. The OP's question was how to approach a possibly delicate situation where another student's accommodations are unfortunately impacting the rest of the class negatively.
Therefore, I'd like to frame challenge your meta question here: I think you are perceiving a displeasure from some in the community about generalized versus narrow questions, whereas I think the criticism of your example post is instead about an answer that neither answers the narrow nor the generalized question that was posed, and does not represent a relevant frame challenge.
Upvotes: 2 |
2018/11/22 | 1,303 | 5,777 | <issue_start>username_0: A recent question has caused me to think about the idea of *reproducible-research* and what the concept means. I think that, while it may be fairly common to use this term, that a better term would be preferable, so as to make an important distinction.
The term I would prefer for this would be *transparent-research* or possibly *verifiable-research*. These aren't quite the same, actually. Transparent simply means that the researcher has revealed enough that a reader can follow the reasoning completely. Verifiable means that one can demonstrate that the author hasn't lied in presenting conclusion. Both of these are valuable, of course, so my concern is with the naming, not the validity of the underlying idea.
Background:
-----------
Currently, it seems that the term is used for a fairly simple idea that is applicable to (I'm afraid) only some fields, such as computer science. The idea is that researchers should publish their code and data so that others can run *that* code on *that* data to assure that the original authors aren't misrepresenting their results. Run the same code on the same data - get the same results.
Of course, it has an additional benefit, in that the reader can examine the code to determine whether it is, indeed, the appropriate code to answer the research question. That is definitely a plus, but I'll suggest below that we need more.
The current concept isn't quite so good about the data, I think. Having a fixed data set only partially helps us come to the proper answer for deep questions. You learn more, of course, if you know the standards and techniques by which the data was collected (search terms for some sorts of data) than the specific data itself. If a technique works for only a single set of data it applies to *only* that set of data, rather than the larger question for which the data was gathered. If using one set of data gives one result, but a different set, gathered to the same standards, gives an opposing result, you have learned almost nothing.
My conclusion here is that the current idea of [reproducible-research](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/reproducible-research "show questions tagged 'reproducible-research'") is useful, it is weak and mis-named. It is weak because of the second idea above (fixed data set), but it is misnamed as it is not adequate to answer a more important question. But *transparent-research* seems to cover the current concept better.
The More Important Problem:
---------------------------
Recently it has become obvious that quite a lot of published research in the sciences can't be validated, not because the author doesn't publish enough information (which they probably don't), but because taking the same research *questions* and trying to answer them independently with different models, techniques, and data, leads to contrary results. While this can be due to flaws of statistical design in some sciences it seems to go deeper than that. Unfortunately this sad situation pervades a lot of educational research, which is dear to my heart.
I would prefer that **reproducible-research** as a term be reserved for questions that relate to this deeper concern. To do this, a researcher would need to reveal more, so that an independent party has enough information to attack the same research question, perhaps in a different way, but get better evidence as to the actual scientific truth, not just the appropriateness of the methodology originally used.
Why It Matters:
---------------
In the sciences we seek *truth* not just results. Often truth is evasive or impossible to achieve definitively, so we often use techniques that give us evidence of the truth, not (as in mathematics) proof of the truth. Statistical techniques in particular work to quantify the potential that our conclusions are wrong. In a study carried out (properly) with 99% confidence, replicating the study (properly) will yield an improper result 1% of the time. But you don't know which time, unless you *reproduce* the study independently many times. But the replications of the study need to be independent, and so can't use identical methods on identical data.
-- I may need to edit this or append to it. Thinking...thinking<issue_comment>username_1: I think the more important usage for SE purposes is what the general community has adopted as a meaning for "reproducible research." The general consensus is that it's closer to your first usage, but also much more widespread. It's starting to become a major concern in *computational* research across all of science and engineering.
The latter concern is also serious, but it's also harder to address. It's also part of reproducible research, but I believe that restricting the use of the tag to that specific issue does a disservice to the site.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I am not exactly sure what you want to achieve here. Tags mainly exist to make questions easier to find or to allow potential experts to subscribe to them. If you want to shape the usage of scientific terminology, tag names on this site are the wrong place to do this.
As it is currently used, the [reproducible-research](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/reproducible-research "show questions tagged 'reproducible-research'") seems to cover all that you describe and is still sufficiently narrow to only contain fifty questions.
I see no problems arising from this such as users not being able to find certain questions. It may be a tad more difficult in some cases, but this does not even remotely justify the effort of separating these tags and expecting our users to adhere to the distinction. The only thing we may change is to make the tag wiki a bit broader.
Upvotes: 2 |
2018/12/04 | 977 | 3,860 | <issue_start>username_0: ["Is it acceptable to shoot people if they annoy you?"](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/120966/is-it-acceptable-to-publish-student-names-with-the-label-stupid-question)
Well, that's not exactly what was asked, but it's pretty close. And then people write serious answers saying "No, that's not ok at all" - as if it's not trivial.
Is it just me or is that question and its answers kind of farcical?<issue_comment>username_1: Yes. When I answered the question it had a score of -1. When I read the question I thought it was pretty reasonable: I think this is inappropriate, but want to crowd source to make sure I am not crazy. My answer was basically a throw away answer of *yeah, don't do that*. Then it hit the HNQ and I now have a new highest upvoted answer.
Hopefully it will fall off the HNQ soon and it will disappear into obscurity and we will have another piece of evidence that the HNQ does not really promote good stuff.
The only real downside is a few users (including me) picked up 400 points of easy rep.
Overall I don't think the question, or my answer, or any of the other answers is a farce. I think it is simply the voting that got out of hand because of the HNQ.
Also a better answer would have addressed the legal issues and GDPR and the use of first name, last initial and providing the class year, and then probably concluded that it is not acceptable to shoot people.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: In a comment now moved to chat, I wrote this:
>
> It should be said, however, that in some countries this kind of public shaming happens sometimes during public oral exams. For instance my country is filled with horror stories of students publicly humiliated for a wrong answer, especially in certain fields like the humanities and medicine. And when I was a student I certainly witnessed a few episodes myself.
>
>
>
Maybe my short comment doesn't give enough idea of the level of shaming that happened, and probably still happens in some cases, but my main point is: *There are professors who think that this is perfectly acceptable behaviour, and so the question is not a farce.*
**And, well, an excellent answer would be one capable of convincing that professor that such a behaviour is not ok.**
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: The answer to the question is demonstrably not an obvious or trivial one, given the site that was referred to and the frequency with which one sees academics mocking the silly answers of their students.
Moreover, I'm not aware of any reason for which a question being a simple one justifies closing it.
Sure, it's not the best moment in the history of the site, but I don't see any reason to get worked up about getting rid of it.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: >
> Is it just me or is that question and its answers kind of farcical?
>
>
>
It’s just you.
To wit, one of the posted answers, posted by a well-known professor from the US, actually tries to downplay the severity of the online shaming described in the question, saying it is in “bad taste” but very pointedly refusing to denounce it as anything to get excited or particularly upset about. That answer currently has 16 upvotes. So, it’s not just in countries in Europe where there’s a history of professors behaving in a condescending and bullying manner towards students, as Massimo explained in his answer, that there are people for whom the answer to the question “is it acceptable?” is very much not obvious.
The question is not just a valid question but in fact a good question, and username_1’s answer with its upwards of 300 votes, far from being farcical, does a good service to the community by making it clear (to those relatively few people who apparently need it to be made clear to them) where the vast majority of people stand on this.
Upvotes: 4 |
2018/12/20 | 1,198 | 4,857 | <issue_start>username_0: [This question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/121920/7734) asks about studies about peer reviewing. It was voted to close as off-topic and one of the close voters gave the argument:
>
> This reads as if you want people here to do your research on a particular topic. That would put it out of bounds.
>
>
>
I understand this to refer to closure about the content of research – which we usually consider off-topic here. However, here the content of research is academia itself.
My question is: Should such questions about sociological or other research whose subject is academia be off-topic or do we make an exception for them?<issue_comment>username_1: They should be on-topic.
At the end of the day we exclude questions about the content of research because academics in general (i.e., the community of this site) are not interested in such questions or able to evaluate answers to them – this is better done by subject experts who most often have their own sites. Also these sites taken together receive far more questions per day than we do; the questions this community is about would drown in others.
However, in the case about research about academia, we also are the subject-specific community (maybe together with others like History of Science and Mathematics, Psychology and Neuroscience, a hypothetical Sociology SE, etc.). Therefore the above issues do not arise. Therefore, **such questions should be an exception of the rule that the content of research is off-topic**.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: I agree with [@username_1](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4382/63475), but I would distinguish between "content of research" meaning *results* and "content of research" meaning methodology/approach/the process of research. I think the opposition to the question linked in the OP wrongly conflates the prohibition on the "content of research" meaning methodology with asking for a referenced answer (i.e., "results").
I think questions about *methodology etc related to academic research should still be off-topic* and think this is consistent with @StrongBad's comment:
>
> *I think at some point questions about the nuances of the field of Education (the academic field that produces a lot of the research about academia) eventually become off-topic once they are no longer directly relevant to academics in general.*
>
>
>
Asking for *results* of academic research should be on-topic and has a tag [reference-request](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/reference-request "show questions tagged 'reference-request'"). Asking about *how you should do research into academia*, looking for topics to research within academia, etc, should remain off-topic as it relates to the process of doing research.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Unfortunately the tag wiki for reference-request isn't very helpful. How "specific" is the query here? The question reads as if the OP is looking for a few lines in a literature search on a topic. Whether the topic has to do with academia or not is, to me, irrelevant. The question seems to be trying to avoid closure for being "opinion based" the earlier one was. However, the question isn't based on a *problem* that someone in academia has. Answers will solve no problem.
A good question (or answer) on this site is, IMO, one that a reader can return to in three years and say "Yes, I can use that.". That isn't the case at all here unless you are researching a specific topic and need that lit search.
The question at hand, and sadly others on the current active list, are without such consequence or future usability. On learning that the "average" academic spends, say, three hours per week doing reviewing, my response would be (a) "That's interesting." and (b) "So what?". The standard deviation of such a result would be so large as to make any "average" meaningless. For myself, I either don't do any reviewing at all for months on end, or do it extensively for many hours over the course of a month depending on conference scheduling. But that is about the specifics of *this* question, not the general situation.
The help center says: "You should only ask practical, answerable questions based on actual problems that you face." I don't see any *problem* here other than a specific research question.
I still think it should be closed.
---
About the tag itself.
If I write a question of the form "I once saw some research on the significance about Mumbly-Peg among pre teen boys, but lost the reference. Can you help?", it would be a valid reference-request. If I ask for "I'm interested in the significance of Mumbly-Peg among pre teen boys. Is there research on that?" it would be, in my view something else. Specifically, it would read like asking others to do my research for me.
Upvotes: -1 |
2018/12/27 | 1,255 | 5,183 | <issue_start>username_0: I'm a bit concerned about [a recent post](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/103328) (now deleted, link for 10 k users only) which was a pretty aggressive accusation with both the specific supervisor and accuser clearly identified.
I think most of the answers and comments are directed towards helping OP understand why their accusations are likely unfounded, but I wonder if we want things like this to be part of Academia.SE. There is enough background here to pretty much absolve the lab involved in my opinion, but in other situations that may not be the case, especially circumstances where the facts/details are less publicly available.<issue_comment>username_1: However unpleasant they are, I think we should deal with such kind of questions. For two reasons.
1. It can be challenging to write one, but a balanced or straight answer to a thorny question can be extremely helpful to the asker and to future visitors. And I think that our community has certainly a number of people capable of giving good advice even in such controversial cases.
2. Once a non-anonymous question of this sort has been posted, all the mechanisms that are available to standard users and moderators to get rid of it or to make it anonymous are too slow or too weak to be effective, and the damage is already done. Better deal with it face up, then.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I wondered about the same thing regarding this question. I would leave it open:
* It could be that the person asking is really severely deluded. While I thing that the answers may or may not be helping him to understand that, there is a chance that they do
* The question in itself is not a bad one - I had an (much more specific) idea in a research proposal which showed up later in a paper of the group I applied to.
* Sometimes I also saw people failing in communicating due to their cultural background and research projects being transferred due to nepotism and/or racism
* Only after looking for some time it seems that this is not just an unplanned rant, but part of some attempt to defraud people - here the answers could also serve to people who have such a case in their team.
So the answers may be do not help the person asking, but others who are at a point in their scientific career where they would go down such a path could profit.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: **In general**, I agree with the [Massimo’s](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4386/7734) and [username_2’s answers](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4387/7734) that such questions should stay as long as they can be sufficiently anonymised.
They can help others in similar situations and as long as the personal links are borrowed in some edit history (and stay civil), we do not leave the impression of being a place for public accusations – which I consider very important.
Now, while **the specific question** can be sufficiently anonymised (I just did that before reading through the answers), all the upvoted answers depend on information the asker posted in comments or external links.
Even without removing any of this, this becomes very confusing and [highly individual](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3406/7734) advice which heavily depends on the one-sided details we are provided (even though even those seem to point against the asker).
This is of little use to future visitors and I do not think it can be made useful without a major editing job to the question and all answers, which would probably be too radical for an edit in some cases, removing major portions of some answers.
I would therefore opt to **delete this question** and (if desired) start from scratch, i.e., post a new question, that is sufficiently generalised and anonymised.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: I vote to delete this question. I agree with username_2
>
> In the meantime, it becomes IMHO more and more clear that the guy is a
> fraud, and not just deluded.
>
>
>
My answer isn't meant to help this guy, but to show his false accusations. I guess he just wants to be famous by public shaming other people.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: The OP is at this point clearly showing that he has a highly distorted and false world view of the effort involved in research leading to a successful publication. He is attacking with a religious zeal to convince others that he is under all manner of professional and personal persecution. No answer will be marked as one that correctly addresses his starting question.
I vote to NOT delete the question. Over time, I believe the content can serve as a worthwhile reference for others who may be starting out as ignorant of the research method and/or as religious in their zeal to prove some measure of personal persecution in the face of a distorted world view.
As desired and/or demanded by the guidelines, and as the effort permits, I agree that sanitizing references to specific details may be needed. I do not believe the general message will be significantly diluted by such an effort.
==> In the meantime, I vote to CLOSE the question IMMEDIATELY to further answers and comments.
Upvotes: 2 |
2019/01/09 | 750 | 2,749 | <issue_start>username_0: Up until 2016, [there were polls](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3561/19607) asking if we wanted to participate in the annual Winter Bash Hat Festivals. Why haven't there polls the past couple of years? I realize the votes have been overwhelmingly in favor of hats, so they might seem pointless, but being pointless is not a reason for not doing something (otherwise, we wouldn't have hats in the first place).
Was there some discussion? Laziness? Forgetfulness? Have we given up on any semblance of democracy?<issue_comment>username_1: In past years (2016 and earlier), site moderators received emails from SE announcing the upcoming Winter Bash *before* it started, and asking us to let them know before a specified date if our site wants to opt out.
There wasn't an email announcement this year (or in 2017).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: In addition to username_1’s and username_3’s comments, I’d also mention the rate of support in most of the polls was well over supermajority levels.
However, the fact is that nobody got advance notice of the Winter Bash. I had forgotten about it until I saw I had been awarded a hat!
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: I guess I will formally chime in. The [2018 Winterbash FAQ](https://winterbash2018.stackexchange.com/faq) says:
>
> Why are you doing this to us?
>
>
> For sites that have hats on by default, your moderator teams or your communities indicated that hats would be a fun, lighthearted thing to do. Why did we offer it in the first place? Because we thought it was a nice way to finish out another really amazing year. You can always decide you hate hats and turn them off.
>
>
>
In 2013, we had to tell SE if we wanted to be included (default was no hats). In 2014, they changed the default to hats, but asked us to respond either way. In 2015 and 2016, they did not even bother asking for responses to opt in and instead only asked for a response to opt out. In 2017 and 2018 they simply did not ask for anything. the idea was that support for hats was so decisive (most sites really love hats and a few really hate hats) that SE stopped asking mods if we wanted them or not.
There may have been some discussion regarding them stopping the discussion, but I really do not remember. In 2017, I asked moderators I noticed we did not get the standard email asking if we wanted hats or not. I asked other moderators from all the SE sites what they were doing and there was strong support that we probably did not need to poll users anymore. If someone else starts a poll and it becomes clear we don't want hats, I will let SE know that we don't want them anymore. In this way democracy is not really dead.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer] |
2019/01/13 | 692 | 2,866 | <issue_start>username_0: [Why is research at highly productive research institutions better than those at not-so-highly productive research institutions?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/122944/7734)
Unfortunately the answers to that question focus on critiquing how the rankings came about, which are not really relevant to what I want to ask. Clearly I worded the question poorly. I've already tried to focus the question by editing out the mention of Zhejiang University (depressingly this still led to responses about the anglosphere and whatnot even though I'd left in a note that I'm not interested in cultural factors), but it's evidently not good enough and people continue to interpret the question in a different way.
What I really want to ask (as I wrote in a comment to Thomas's answer):
>
> Assuming you are an academic, you'll have some idea where the best research in your field is performed. If you next compare where that is versus where the top universities in the world are, you should see a positive correlation. The question asks why there is a correlation.
>
>
>
I don't think this question is salvageable unfortunately. What should I do now?
* Start another question with "is research at Oxford in general better than at Southampton?" If the answer to this is yes, then I can start another question after that linking to this question. However this seems like an overly narrow question since it explicitly names two universities only.
* Start another question with "why is research at Oxford in general better than at Southampton?". Same issue as the previous option: it's narrow.
* Start another question picking universities by [THE reputation rankings](https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2018/reputation-ranking#!/page/0/length/25/sort_by/rank/sort_order/asc/cols/stats), which might sidestep objections based on ranking methodology; however it's not apparent to me that the universities with the best reputations also do the best research (looking at the list itself, they should, but in a vacuum there does not have to be a correlation between the two factors).
* Do nothing and accept <NAME>'s answer.
* Something else?<issue_comment>username_1: I am not sure what you mean by *best universities*, but for the UK you could ask if there is a correlation between REF ranking (research) and student satisfaction rankings, and if so why they are correlated.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: I think the problem with the original question, as well as all suggested modifications, is that there is not really a meaningful question. You seem to be asking why there is a correlation between a university doing research that is perceived as "good", and a metric that is based on how good the research at a university is perceived to be. It's really quite circular.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer] |
2019/01/23 | 1,067 | 4,135 | <issue_start>username_0: 2019 is here! And with the new year, as usual, comes a new iteration of **Community Promotion Ads**! Let’s refresh these for the coming year :)
### What are Community Promotion Ads?
Community Promotion Ads are community-vetted advertisements that will show up on the main site, in the right sidebar. The purpose of this question is the vetting process. Images of the advertisements are provided, and community voting will enable the advertisements to be shown.
### Why do we have Community Promotion Ads?
This is a method for the community to control what gets promoted to visitors on the site. For example, you might promote the following things:
* the site's twitter account
* academic websites and resources
* interesting campus story blogs
* cool events or conferences
* anything else your community would genuinely be interested in
The goal is for future visitors to find out about *the stuff your community deems important*. This also serves as a way to promote information and resources that are *relevant to your own community's interests*, both for those already in the community and those yet to join.
### Why do we reset the ads every year?
Some services will maintain usefulness over the years, while other things will wane to allow for new faces to show up. Resetting the ads every year helps accommodate this, and allows old ads that have served their purpose to be cycled out for fresher ads for newer things. This helps keep the material in the ads relevant to not just the subject matter of the community, but to the current status of the community. We reset the ads once a year, every December.
The community promotion ads have no restrictions against reposting an ad from a previous cycle. If a particular service or ad is very valuable to the community and will continue to be so, it is a good idea to repost it. It may be helpful to give it a new face in the process, so as to prevent the imagery of the ad from getting stale after a year of exposure.
### How does it work?
The answers you post to this question *must* conform to the following rules, or they will be ignored.
1. All answers should be in the exact form of:
```
[![Tagline to show on mouseover][1]][2]
[1]: http://image-url
[2]: http://clickthrough-url
```
Please **do not add anything else to the body of the post**. If you want to discuss something, do it in the comments.
2. The question must always be tagged with the magic [community-ads](/questions/tagged/community-ads "show questions tagged 'community-ads'") tag. In addition to enabling the functionality of the advertisements, this tag also pre-fills the answer form with the above required form.
### Image requirements
* The image that you create must be 300 x 250 pixels, or double that if high DPI.
* Must be hosted through our standard image uploader (imgur)
* Must be GIF or PNG
* No animated GIFs
* Absolute limit on file size of 150 KB
* If the background of the image is white or partially white, there must be a 1px border (2px if high DPI) surrounding it.
### Score Threshold
There is a **minimum score threshold** an answer must meet (currently **6**) before it will be shown on the main site.
You can check out the ads that have met the threshold with basic click stats [here](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/ads/display/4407).<issue_comment>username_1: [](https://twitter.com/StackAcademia)
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: [](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: [](http://chemistry.stackexchange.com)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: [](https://physicsoverflow.org/)
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_5: [](http://dissem.in)
Upvotes: -1 |
2019/01/29 | 1,612 | 5,922 | <issue_start>username_0: This is to share a case study about the "fastest gun in the west" issue discussed on Academia.SE [here](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3826/are-upvotes-skewed-towards-the-first-answer-to-a-question/3827#3827) and more broadly [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9731/fastest-gun-in-the-west-problem).
On [this](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/123593/in-a-yes-no-question-student-gives-the-right-answer-and-a-wrong-explanation) question, the sequence of events was:
* Buffy, Guest, and I all submitted answers on literally the same *minute*.
* Buffy's answer was immediately upvoted, and from there people piled on. Within a ~day, he was ahead by 40 votes; I think the score was something like 100-60. Our answers are very similar, so it's a bit strange that there was such a difference (I blame the dog picture...).
* Then, OP accepted my answer, meaning that my answer is displayed first, despite having fewer votes. The gap quickly began to shrink, and a few days later, I am ahead by 10, 216-205.
Since neither of us over edited our answers, this is a clear illustration that the top-rated answer gets a huge bias. [For that matter, I've seen similar behavior in close voting -- hard to stop the close train once it gets rolling -- but that's a separate topic.]
Of course, I don't particularly care about my imaginary points, but it does seem like an obvious weakness:
* Better answers submitted after ~10 votes are in are unlikely to be read
* This affects new users who can't even comment yet
* As Buffy points out, the same is true for downvotes too (though it seems like we downvote less on this SE than others), and arbitrary downvotes are a sure way to discourage new users.
We've discussed this before, but I guess my questions are:
* What *could* we do, mechanically? Does SE support solutions like hiding the vote totals for the first few hours, or is there simply nothing that can be done without getting the powers that be to write entirely new code?
* If we do have the power to make such changes, has the community already decided not to? The questions I linked seemed open to such changes, but nothing happened.<issue_comment>username_1: It's not something we can solve as academia.SE.
As you noted, it's been a known thing for many years over at meta.stackexchange.com ([Fastest Gun in the West Problem](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9731/fastest-gun-in-the-west-problem)). They even have a likely solution noted there, which is what [Reddit adopted](https://redditblog.com/2009/10/15/reddits-new-comment-sorting-system/) some years back. I imagine there must be counterarguments as to why that isn't a great idea. But regardless, so far as I know it isn't something that Stackexchange is planning to deal with :-(
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Some of this seems not to be "first answer bias".
You say that when your question became "accepted", then your answer started quickly accumulating more upvotes at a faster rate than buffy's, even though it was the other way around before. This seems to be like a "top answer bias".
I disagree with the other answer, which says that "it's not something we can solve as academia.SE". I believe this has been already fixed on Meta.SE where instead of sorting the questions by the number of votes (which I think is the default here):
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ezpIm.png)
the questions can be sorted by most recently active:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/qzzWk.png)
It's possible that MSE also has "votes" set as default and I just changed it some time long ago to "active" without noticing, but either way **we could easily make "active" the default instead of "# of votes" so that the first answer (or most voted answer) doesn't get an unfairly disproportional number of upvotes. We could even make a new one called "random".**
I do think these things would improve the site, because I find the "chain-reaction voting" to be a much bigger issue here than on any other site I'm active on (I have 1000+ rep on 7 sites and 150+ rep on 26 sites, and I created one site currently in Beta from scratch in Area51: so I've been on SE almost 24/7 for a while, as anyone who lead the launch of a site would be able to appreciate). I recently wrote a Meta post here about "chain-reaction voting" (on Academia.SE) too: [How do people here feel about chain-reaction downvoting of posts?](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4747/93303).
*Let me conclude with my opinion about why "top answer bias" (not necessarily "first answer bias") happens:*
I can at least speak from my own experience on Academia.SE: Recently I read an [answer by BryanKrause](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/148951/93303) for which I commented "this might be one of the best answers I've ever seen on SE, and I've saved it somewhere for me to re-read over and over again later", and I upvoted. However it was a long answer with a lot of substance, which I read slowly and nodded my head to the entire time. By the end of reading the post and reflecting so much over it, I remember being too exhausted to read all the other answers with the same amount of attention. I just double checked and it's true that I didn't upvote the 2nd or 3rd listed questions either!
**Often people read the first answer they see, and they might put a decent amount of energy into processing it or commenting on it, then they move back to whatever they were working on or whatever SE site they were on before being the HNQ list drew them here.** If the answers were set by default to "random" or "active" instead of "votes" or "oldest", then the "first answer bias" or "top answer bias" could be eliminated, without too much disadvantage.
Upvotes: 2 |
2019/01/30 | 611 | 2,231 | <issue_start>username_0: I found [Am I conveying disrespect if I omit my gender pronoun from a conference nametag?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/123994/am-i-conveying-disrespect-if-i-omit-my-gender-pronoun-from-a-conference-nametag) through the Hot Questions list. I was interested in posting an answer, but I don't see the answer box. I have 101 reputation here, but there isn't supposed to be a reputation minimum for posting answers. I also see answers from people with 41 and 17. Are there extra restrictions because it's a hot question or because there are already lots of answers (13)?
Someone else with reputation = 101 posted this comment, implying that they're having the same problem: "I don't seem to have the permissions, so I'll comment my answer."
Is it because most of my reputation is just the association bonus? That doesn't count towards answering protected questions, but the question in question is not protected, at least not when I view it:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/uGglt.png)<issue_comment>username_1: That question is [protected](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/52764/what-is-a-protected-question), which means you need to have certain rep to answer it. The association bonus doesn't count for that calculation.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: The question is protected. As you seem to know what that means, you are probably thinking to yourself *it doesn't look protected, there is usually a notice*. You would be correct, but somebody broke something ...
[Protection banner missing when I don't have enough rep to answer; closed and locked banners appear in wrong spot](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/322971/protection-banner-missing-when-i-dont-have-enough-rep-to-answer-closed-and-loc)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Sorry for the inconvenience; Protected questions should now show up as such: [Protection banner missing when I don't have enough rep to answer; closed and locked banners appear in wrong spot](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/322971/protection-banner-missing-when-i-dont-have-enough-rep-to-answer-closed-and-loc/323286#323286)
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer] |
2019/02/10 | 337 | 1,234 | <issue_start>username_0: Motivated by these questions:
[Case Study: First Answer Bias](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4414/19607) and [Are upvotes skewed towards the first answer to a question?](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3826/19607)
I propose a biased (biased towards people who use the meta site) study of AcademiaSE users to see how much of an upvote biases the first answer to a question gets (the "fastest gun in the west" problem) from "non-random" Academia users. To wit,
>
> For questions you read which have multiple answers, do you typically vote on an answer before reading other answers? (Answer by up-voting answers below. At least for this question, please read the answers first and upvote at least one.)
>
>
><issue_comment>username_1: I typically read most answers before voting.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_1: I typically vote on answers I like right after reading them but usually read several of the answers.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_1: I typically vote on answers I like right after reading them and often don't read further answers.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_1: **Other** (vote before reading, never vote, ...)
Please explain in comments.
Upvotes: 1 |
2019/02/19 | 1,213 | 4,463 | <issue_start>username_0: We have seen the definition of plagiarism numerous times on this site, more or less elaborated, but always in its core:
>
> Plagiarism is passing someone else's work as your own
>
>
>
I am all for questions which ask to [understand the concept better](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/124555/4249), or [understand the importance of it better](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/60995/4249), or are [encountering the concept of self-plagiarism for the first time](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/82437/4249) as a young researcher and trying to understand that, or [peculiar and particular situations involving plagiarism](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/65485/4249).
But, [this recent question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/125223/4249) (and I believe I have seen more similar ones before it, which is why I am posting to the meta, but can't dig them out right now) basically asks:
>
> I want to pass my friends work as my own, but additionally he *owns a pink elephant*. Is this still plagiarism?
>
>
>
(where *owning a pink elephant* could be any other completely irrelevant reasoning). It seems to me that this question (and many other alike) are basically asking:
>
> Is plagiarism plagiarism?
>
>
>
The answer to this question does not really contribute anything new to the site, the OP could have found this information out by glancing on most of our `plagiarism` tagged questions, and all the answers just elaborate on *"Plagiarism is passing someone else's work as your own."*, which can be seen in many, many other questions.
I downvoted the question in question, as I think it is a bad question. I was also thinking of casting a close vote, but none of the reasons seemed to be quite on the spot. Ultimately, I don't think it's a good question, good fit, or worth keeping, but since I can see four up-votes on it, I was just wondering whether this is really the community opinion.<issue_comment>username_1: Every single semester, I explicitly teach my students a slightly more elaborate version of
>
> Plagiarism is passing someone else's work as your own
>
>
>
And every semester, there is at least one instance of plagiarism by a student who has an existing (wrong or incomplete) understanding of what plagiarism is, and doesn't recognize the difference between what I told them and what they had previously understood.
For example, I think in [that specific question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/125223/4249), the OP had previously heard something like "If your project is the same as one of your classmates' projects, it's going to be flagged as plagiarism". When someone who has heard this reads
>
> Plagiarism is passing someone else's work as your own
>
>
>
they may think, "Well, I've heard it's plagiarism if I submit a classmate's work as my own, so that definition is basically the same as what I've heard". Then, given that (mis)understanding, they may still think it may not be plagiarism if they're not plagiarizing from a literal "classmate".
I don't think this misunderstanding is unique to the OP of that question - I've come across this before. I do think there is some value to explicitly addressing common misunderstandings of plagiarism in the Q&A format.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Let me say a few things about a more general issue. Most of the questions like this and other similar repeated questions come from newcomers with rep 1 or 101 and little experience elsewhere. Many don't know how the site operates nor what they can learn from tags until they get a bit more experience.
Likewise many newcomers don't know to distinguish this site from a "chatty" email list and so write some things that are superfluous. Comments in particular often become chatty.
I think we need to be a bit tolerant of all such novice "errors" and pass them to the help page or otherwise help them.
OTOH, self plagiarism is a special issue since, IMO, it isn't universally understood. Ten or so years ago few worried much about it, especially novice researchers, of whom we see a lot here. So, repeating the definitions, and the reasons behind them, seem to me to be a good thing.
But it would also be good to have a way to mark *canonical* questions and answers so that those who want to help can quickly find a way to redirect the OP to the answers they need before there is too much redundancy in the site.
Upvotes: 3 |
2019/03/02 | 750 | 3,132 | <issue_start>username_0: There seems to be a huge number of very low-rep users called "guest." Is this the same individual, or a small number of individuals, who are using "guest" as a burner account? Does this violate either the terms or community norms of ASE?<issue_comment>username_1: Only mods know if two accounts belong to the same user and we obviously cannot say anything. So without commenting on this particular user, a single user having multiple accounts is sometimes fine, but sometimes a flagrant violation. You cannot have two accounts to up vote your own content or artificially increase your reputation. If you are suspended you cannot create a new account to circumvent the punishment.
Some people create new accounts to ask (or answer) something anonymously. That is a valid use, as long as your accounts never interact. Some really high rep users want to be able to do things as a lower rep user and that is okay, more or less.
The most common case of multiple accounts is people either losing their login info or not understanding the system. If your see this, you can leave them a comment about how to merge accounts (contact us link at the bottom of every page) or flag it. (In this particular case, we are aware of the multiple accounts so please do not raise a ton of flags.)
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: *All the information I give here is generally available and does not come from my moderator privileges.*
First of all some general information on this:
* Having multiple accounts is okay, as long as they do not do something that cannot be done with a single account, which includes almost all interactions of the accounts: [How should sockpuppets be handled on Stack Exchange?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/57682/255554)
* Unregistered accounts are based on cookies. They cannot do certain things such as voting. See: [How do unregistered accounts work?](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/262909/2127008) and [Why should I create an account?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/help/why-register)
* The default avatar of any account is an identicon based on a hash of your IP or, if provided, your e-mail address. It is extremely unlikely that two identicons coincide by chance. See: [How is the default user avatar generated?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/17443/255554)
* Moderators have further tools to tell if two accounts belong to the same person.
Now, some observations and conclusions on the accounts in question:
* They have the same avatar, so they very likely come from the same IP or provided the same e-mail address.
The alternative is that they use the identicon image as a manual avatar (like I use a picture of a glass head), but then again, they intend to be identified with each other.
* They are unregistered, which makes the most common forms of sockpuppet abuse (in particular voting) unavailable to them.
If such accounts commit sockpuppet abuse, it is usually by circumventing rate limits, question or answer bans, or suspensions.
If you see any indication for this (or some other kind of sockpuppet abuse), please flag for moderator attention.
Upvotes: 4 |
2019/03/10 | 1,266 | 5,003 | <issue_start>username_0: I have fairly frequently been in the situation of being in the middle of providing an answer to a question when it is closed, leaving me no option but to discard my contribution or hope that the question can be re-opened.
It can be very frustrating to put in the mental effort to prepare an answer only to have it summarily rejected. Of course, this affects frequent contributors more than others.
I wonder if it is possible to let such "work in progress" be entered into the record when this happens.<issue_comment>username_1: The single direct effect of closing questions is that it prevents answers, for reasons such as:
* To give the asker the opportunity to clarify their question before existing answers get invalidated.
* To prevent the inevitable endless discussions answers to some questions provoke.
* To avoid the broken-window effect, i.e., new users getting the impression that they can get answers to certain questions here.
* To avoid redundant content, voting, etc.
* To avoid that askers commit pointless real-life mistakes by blindly heeding the inevitable wrong answer certain questions will attract (applies to many questions closed due to depending on individual factors).
* …
In short, we close questions because we think that answers to them would be bad.
Circumventing this defies the entire point of closure.
These questions should not be answered on this site, in the comments, and at times nowhere on the Internet.
Closure needs the five votes of high-reputation users (or one vote of a diamond moderator).
If it happens, there usually is a good reason for it.
So, the best way to avoid your problem is: **Do not answer questions that should be closed!** Roughly 16 % of your answers were on questions that were later closed. This is a rather high number, among the highest for high-reputation users on our site. (For comparison, it’s 6 % for me. [Here](https://data.stackexchange.com/academia/query/1002402/answers-to-subsequently-closed-questions) is a Stack Exchange Data Explorer query for this.)
That being said:
* If you think that a question was wrongly closed, you can argue against it (on Meta Academia if it takes longer) and vote to reopen.
* If you think that there is a valid question buried under a question, edit it and vote to reopen.
* If you think there is a valid, relevant question to which what you just wrote is the answer, write that question and [self-answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/help/self-answer) it.
* If the asker needs to clarify something, comment to let them know what and wait for them to do it.
While this happens, just save your answer in a regular file.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: I agree with username_1's analysis, particularly for very "off-topic" questions (too broad, about content of research, etc.). But as another user with ~16% of answers on closed questions, let me offer another viewpoint.
Consider a question like "I'm worried I ruined my life and could really use help, let me post my super long, specific-to-me question" ([example](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/126282/have-i-dug-myself-a-hole-that-i-can-not-get-out-of)). Such questions should obviously be closed as they violate our community norms; on the other hand, it is very unwelcoming to just downvote and close after someone took the time to ask for help. *There is really an opportunity to help someone here*, even if we know the question will likely be closed and we won't get much reputation in exchange for a good answer.
I know it's a bit heterodox, but in such cases, I have no problem with answering a question knowing it likely will (and should) be closed. As such, I would not be inclined to interrupt users who are in the middle of answering such questions.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: [This post on the main meta](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/91922/260800) explains why during the next 4 hours of being closed new answers can still be submit, and how to do this. This can be a good balance point for the disciplinary - flexibility issue, because we want two conflict things at the same times.
Not intentionally want to advertise, but I happen to discuss about the way to find the balance point in my article [A theory of perspective](http://lyminhnhat.com/2018/12/21/a-theory-of-perspective/?utm_source=Stack%20Exchange&utm_medium=Academia%20Meta&utm_campaign=Perspective&utm_medium=answer#balance_point):
>
> The secret to be flexible without having to compromise stability (e.g. violate rules) is to notice the struggle of others, because mitigating others' struggles is the reason why stability is born at the first place. Instead of worrying whether a behavior is moral or legal or not, we should check its ability to reduces the cognitive dissonances of everyone in long term. In the case of having conflicts, no one will feel that they have to compromise, but sees how their worry is maximally satisfied before it is actually satisfied.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 0 |
2019/03/11 | 2,093 | 8,948 | <issue_start>username_0: The mechanics
=============
Hot Network Questions (HNQ) are questions shown in the bottom right sidebar featuring from other sites of the Stack Exchange network that are considered “hot” by a heuristic that takes into account recent visits, answers, and votes.
There can be issues when one of our questions becomes an HNQ because its increased exposure leads to considerably higher number of visitors – many of whom are unfamiliar with our site and our community standards.
Moderators can now remove individual questions from the Hot Network Questions list ([announcement](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/325060)).
**This process is irreversible**.
After removing a question, we cannot decide that we want to allow it to go hot again.
How can we use this?
====================
Having a meta discussion about whether a specific question should be removed from the HNQs is not a good idea, because by the time the discussion has reached any sort of consensus, the potential damage has probably already been done.
So, we moderators have to decide on relatively quickly and on a case-by-case basis whether a question should be removed.
**If you feel that any question should not be an HNQ, please flag it for moderator attention and elaborate why.**
This naturally makes the most sense for questions that are already HNQs (which you can now [see in the revision history](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/324641/255554)), but if you think it is likely that a question will become an HNQ, but shouldn’t, feel free to flag it.
Please do not do this for questions that you consider in need of editing, cleaning up, closing, or similar.
Instead perform or suggest the respective edits, flag the problematic comments or answers for deletion, or flag for closure.
What questions should not be HNQs?
==================================
Occasionally, we will remove a question from the HNQs, when there is a serious problem, and given their individual nature, some of these problems are unforeseeable.
However, we as a community can agree that we do not want certain types of question to be HNQs and try to remove them as quickly as possible.
Therefore I am asking:
**Are there any categories of questions that we *generally* do not want to be HNQs?**
If you think so, please suggest categories in the answers:
* Suggest one category per answer.
* Do not suggest categories of questions that should be closed or can be salvaged with an edit.
* Provide a rationale why such questions being HNQs is a problem.
* Remember that at the end of the day we have to decide on a case-by-case basis, by answering the question: "Do we have this kind of problem on our site?"
Therefore a good rationale is more important than precisely defining the category.
* Use votes to indicate agreement or disagreement with proposed categories.<issue_comment>username_1: Please, don't remove questions from the HNQ list at all
-------------------------------------------------------
I think that the HNQ is a non-issue and we should not exclude anything, just leave the algorithms do their work (whether good or not). So, I add this as an answer because I think that we should give the community also the possibility to choose this option.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I think we should prevent [gender](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/gender "show questions tagged 'gender'") and [sexual-misconduct](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/sexual-misconduct "show questions tagged 'sexual-misconduct'") from being featured. While these questions are important for our community, I do not think they make for good advertisements. The answers often get the job done, but we don't have a user base that is expert in the nuances of these difficult questions. Further, they often attract poor answers from the HNQ that garner lots of up votes which makes them move from not good advertisement to poor advertising. Finally, they seem to attract a lot of discussion which eventually degrades into rude/offensive ranting, which becomes really bad for everyone involved.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: I propose to remove all questions where **the asker is a victim of sexual discrimination or misconduct** from the HNQs.
Note that this a more narrow category than [what Strong Bad proposed](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4457/7734).
For example, I would leave questions on how to battle sexual discrimination, avoiding conflicts of interest, and dealing with such issues as a third party.
Rationale:
While the topic of sexual discrimination and misconduct tends to attract trolling and other problems in general, I think this is a price we should pay for the positive effect of raising awareness on these issues.
Silencing the entire topic is exactly what some of the aggressors want.
However for questions by victim, the benefit of awareness is outweighted by the chance of hurtful comments that doubt the asker’s assessment, directly attack the asker, or even blatant trolling.
This is usually the last thing the asker needs in such a situation.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: I propose to remove all questions around the topic of **suicide or severe psychic health problems** from the HNQs.
Rationale:
* For many HNQ visitors this is a dire topic they do not want to be confronted with, to the extent that it could trigger problems itself.
Non-HNQ visitors of our site implicitly accept a certain risk of running into this topic by visiting a site on social topics.
I strongly suspect that titles mentioning *suicide* and similar are filtered out anyway, so this is for the questions where these filters fail.
* If the asker is suffering from such problems themselves, they almost certainly do not enjoy the extra attention HNQs give them.
Also there is an increased chance that some idiot leaves a hurtful comment.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: Why not "all of them"?
----------------------
I'm not sure myself that this is the perfect solution, but take this answer as a way to think about the benefits of HNQ.
What good comes to our community from a question being in the HNQ, usually? Most of the time, all that happens when a question enters it is that we get a bunch of votes and answers from people that are not very knowledgeable about academia. They tend to skew the votes, so that they do not reflect the opinion of university people anymore.
Also, the HNQ tends to promote click-bait questions and controversial issues, which (in my opinion) are not an effective way to advertise our site to new potential users. I'd see more value in a curated list of the best questions and answers, than in a contest on who can get the most clicks by attracting the attention of random users.
The HNQ benefits Stack Exchange more than it benefits us as a community, I believe.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: Anything that's a soft interpersonal or sociopolitical issue that doesn't require any academic expertise to answer.
As a Stack Overflow user who is neither an academic nor a user of Academia Stack Exchange, I find Academia's presence in HNQ consistently frustrating. Pretty much all from here that currently reaches HNQ is soft questions about interpersonal interactions that require no particular expertise to opine on. Yet when we users of other sites click through to them, we usually find ourselves pre-emptively silenced by the question being "Protected".
It's bad for us, because we suffer the frustration of not being permitted to answer with differing perspectives; on these broad questions about how to decently interact with other human beings, only the (disproportionately left-leaning and otherwise atypical) views of actual users of this site are permitted to be voiced in the answer section. That leaves us with only comments as a permitted way to engage with the issues, but those comments get nuked seemingly capriciously by the mods.
And it's bad for *you*, because it channels users into precisely the interactions you don't want. You end up with a horde of users who are just as qualified as you to answer the questions they're reading, but who you only permit to use comments to do so, turning every such squishy interpersonal question into a brawl in the comments section that your mods need to clean up.
Assuming that you're unwilling to simply stop using question protection on these questions, the *other* way you can stop this dysfunction by simply not letting these questions be in HNQ. If there's no particular expertise that someone who works in academia can bring to a question compared to a random member of the public, nuke it from the sidebar. Then you guys get to have the controlled discussion of social issues amongst yourselves that you seem to repeatedly want to have, free from disruption by the rest of us, and we get to go about our lives in blissful ignorance and with slightly lower blood pressures.
Upvotes: -1 |
2019/03/14 | 1,127 | 3,806 | <issue_start>username_0: I have a question to ask on the main site, and I want to ask on the meta first. My concern is that I may need to put links to my works, which can be perceived as hidden advertisement or making the question too narrow (individual factors). I'm not sure how to address that. Maybe you can ask me questions and I will answer. And if it's fine to put links, then I think having tracking links are fine too?
Below is my draft:
>
> I want to email to a professor to ask for his feedback on my work, and to know if he wants to recruit new grad student. Because I have many links and bullets to provide, I'm not sure if this is too much for the first contact? The professor is [<NAME>](https://eslingerland.arts.ubc.ca/), and the field is [cognitive science of religion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_science_of_religion). For a quick overview, here is his TEDx Talk: [Trying Not to Try: the Power of Spontaneity](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIdrptTwzQY&list=PLr_nm6f2KKDmVQ9LsVX_7nE72VzfXEsXF).
>
>
> Here is my draft:
>
>
>
> >
> > **Subject: Inquiry from potential graduate applicant**
> >
> >
> > Dear Prof. Slingerland,
> >
> >
> > To introduce myself, my name is Nhat, from Vietnam. I am writing this letter to ask if you take any new student this year, or if you can introduce a suitable professor for me.
> >
> >
> > My research interest is about how to connect Eastern philosophy with linguistics and psychology in one framework. My observations are explained in this article: [Connections between cognitive linguistics, cognitive psychology, Buddhism and
> > Daoism](http://lyminhnhat.com/2019/03/10/linguistics-psychology-buddhism-daoism/?utm_source=Stack&20Exchange&utm_medium=Academia&20Meta&utm_campaign=Perspective).
> > In summary:
> >
> >
> > * Communication cannot go anywhere because the partakers aren't aware that they are talking at a polysemy
> > * Tacit knowledge makes an obvious thing ineffable. Metaphors can help express it
> > * Understanding wuwei as "non-doing" can nurture psychological issues
> > * There are lots of negations in *Daodejing* and *Middle Way*
> > * Yinyang is best understood with double negation
> >
> >
> > The article is [well-received in Daoism community](https://www.reddit.com/r/taoism/comments/azg0bd/cognitive_linguistics_cognitive_psychology/). Accompanying with it is a proposed framework to illustrate and visualize Buddhist concepts like sunyata, nirvana, dharma, the transformations, transcendences and distortions of perspectives, and discuss it various applications: [A theory of perspective](http://lyminhnhat.com/2018/12/21/a-theory-of-perspective/?utm_source=Stack&20Exchange&utm_medium=Academia&20Meta&utm_campaign=Perspective). I hope you will find it interesting as well.
> >
> >
> > Thank you for your reading. I hope this letter finds you well.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
><issue_comment>username_1: From what I can piece together, you want to know if your draft email is good. That is not a good fit for AC.SE. If instead you want to know if an initial contact email to a professor can include links (and possibly links to your work, and possibly tracking links at that), that is a great question for AC.SE. That said, it does not require the draft email.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I agree with username_1 that the question should about the problems of links, not whether the draft is good or not. But I'm not sure if including a draft is bad too. From [Buffy's answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/126560/14341), it's evident that having it is useful for both the askers and answerers. Even username_1 answers this question mainly based on the information on the draft. So I think there is no problem with having it at all.
Upvotes: 1 [selected_answer] |
2019/03/20 | 658 | 2,180 | <issue_start>username_0: Recently I was reading and answering the question [Do I need to sit for TOEFL or SAT?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/125804/do-i-need-to-sit-for-toefl-or-sat)
I searched for relevant tags and saw we have three tags:
[Asia](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/asia) with 22 questions
[South-East-Asia](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/south-east-asia) with 1 question: [How should one advertise a program if it doesn't lead to jobs?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/120628/how-should-one-advertise-a-program-if-it-doesnt-lead-to-jobs)
[South-Asia](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/south-asia) with 1 question: [Is being socially reclusive okay for a graduate student?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/126092/is-being-socially-reclusive-okay-for-a-graduate-student)
Since the last two tags are not really useful and identical to the first tag, should these [South-East-Asia](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/south-east-asia) and [South-Asia](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/south-asia) be merged in to the [Asia](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/asia) tag?<issue_comment>username_1: No, the differences between South East Asia and South Asia are clear.
If a changes were to be made, perhaps removing the "Asia" tag as too broad would be an option.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: There are some international differences in what these phrases mean. For example, AIUI in the USA, "South Asia" means "India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan and Bangladesh" (maybe Nepal too). In other places that might be called "The Indian Subcontinent", and "south asia" might be taken more geographically.
I'm not sure whether "South-east asia" has similar non-geographic meanings. In my mind it refers to the peninsula that Cambodia, Vietnam, Thailand, etc., sit on, but that might not be true for everybody.
So, these meanings are different for different people.
I'm not sure what this means for the appropriateness of the tags, except perhaps that if they exist, the tag wikis need to be really clear.
Upvotes: 0 |
2019/04/02 | 5,081 | 21,050 | <issue_start>username_0: Introduction
============
One of the actualities of academia that is important to be aware of when using this site is:
**Academia varies more than you think it does.**
More explicitly: Academic practices strongly vary between countries, fields, journals, universities, departments, and even groups.
It is easy to arrive at the false conclusion that some aspect of academia is the same everywhere.
This is a problem that pertains to all levels of users on this site:
* Questions whose answers depends on the culture and regulations of individual institutions ([that operate below the national level](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3895/7734)) cannot reasonably be answered by us (or any other similar Internet site). We [close](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3406/7734) such questions since we have become tired of having a bazillion answers whose only substance is: “it depends”.
* Answers that assume that academia is homogeneous in some respect when it is not are at best confusing to some readers and wrong and misleading at worst.
I already noted this in [my answer to Welcome to Academia SE](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1212/7734), which got insanely popular.
However, given the restrictions and purposes of that question, it contains only a list of the most important examples – which is already quite long for something that is supposed to be a short introduction.
Yet, due to the above problems, an extensive list of inhomogeneities in academia would be a valuable resource for the users of this site.
Hence I am asking:
This Question
=============
In which respects does academia vary more than many people expect?
* Variations can be along different axes, e.g., between fields, countries, journals, universities, departments, or groups.
* Answers shouldn’t be an obvious consequence of the differences of subjects, countries etc., e.g., it is little surprising that work groups in theoretical physics don’t refer to themselves as labs, or that research in poorer countries focuses on less expensive subjects.
* Group answers into reasonable categories, roughly per tag on the main site. If you have something to add that does not fit into the existing categories, add a new answer (and link it in the table of contents below).
* When possible, link to relevant posts on the main site.
* This is a community wiki. Please feel free to contribute.
Table of Contents
=================
* [Publications](/q/4471#4472)
* [Authorship](/q/4471#4473)
* [Writing and Writing Style](/q/4471#4474)
* [Employment and Funding](/q/4471#4475)
* [Academic Life](/q/4471#4476)
* [Studying and PhD Programmes](/q/4471#4477)
* [Theses and Defences](/q/4471#4478)
* [Student Body Properties](/q/4480/#26466)
* [Academic Administration](/q/4471#5257)<issue_comment>username_1: ### Publications
* In some fields like computer science, conferences act as publication venues: you submit papers, they get peer-reviewed and disseminated. In most fields this is not the case and publishing your work in written form and presenting it at a conference are two different things.
* The duration of the peer-review process varies greatly across fields, journals and publishers, ranging from a few weeks to more than a year ([further reading](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/32768/7734)). Other stages in the peer-review process such as editorial assessment scale accordingly.
* Double-blind peer review (i.e., the reviewers do not know who the authors are) is the norm in some fields, while impossible or unheard of in others. Sometimes, only single blind reviewing is practiced (the reviewers know the identity of the authors, but not the other way around).
* The prevalence of publishing preprints (on the ArXiv or similar) strongly varies across fields and even subfields and so does the acceptance of this practice by publishers.
* Mentioning somebody in the acknowledgements requires their consent in some fields or for some journals ([further reading](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/110019/7734)).
* Some fields have a tendency towards many small publications (with the extreme being [salami publishing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Least_publishable_unit)), while in other fields, authors try to accumulate as much content into one paper as possible. In yet other fields, much or most new work is published as complete books. Relatedly, the average publication frequency of researchers differs strongly across fields.
* The average numbers of citations made and received by papers vary strongly across fields and even subfields. Relatedly, what is a high impact factor varies strongly across fields: Some mega journals that are regarded as a junk pile by some disciplines (due to their low impact factor) are sometimes erroneously held in a high regard by others (due to their high impact factor). Note that this is also affected by the impact factor only considering citations within the first two years, thus disadvantaging fields with long “response” times.
* Journal article formats are different in different fields and in different journals. Sometimes there is a strict format. Sometimes the author can organise their paper as they wish.
* In some fields, [submission fees are common](https://www.elsevier.com/authors/policies-and-guidelines/submission-fees), while in most ones [article processing charges](https://www.letpub.com/Journal_Submission_and_Publication_Fees_A_Review) or color printing charges are due only after a paper is accepted.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_1: ### Authorship
* In many fields, the order of authors in a paper indicates how much or how they contributed: The first author usually did most of the work, while the last one is sometimes the supervisor. Other fields order authors alphabetically.
* Depending on the field and even the journal, *corresponding author* can refer to the author who communicated the paper to the journal or the author to whom post-publication communication about the paper by third parties should be addressed ([further reading](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/84476/7734)). Among others this results in corresponding authorship being valued in evaluation or for funding ([further reading](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/84476/7734)) in some contexts, while this seems bizarre to those used to the other meaning of *corresponding author.*
* In some parts of the world, the PhD supervisor may be the first author even if the PhD student did most of the work.
* In some fields, papers with more than a handful of authors are rare. In other fields, one might regularly find papers with dozens or, in extreme cases, even hundreds or thousands of co-authors.
* In some fields, the authors’ affiliations on a paper indicate where the work was done; in others, affiliations indicate where the authors can be currently found.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_1: ### Writing and Writing Style
* In pure math, a paper’s introduction may just be “We consider the problem of X.” and not have a conclusion or summary. In other fields, you are expected to argue why a problem is relevant, summarise previous research, and place your own research in that context.
* The question whether single-author papers should be written using “I” or “we” depends on the field ([further reading](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/2945/7734)).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_1: ### Employment and Funding
* In some countries, PhD students are university employees, which means they get unemployment benefits, healthcare, and pension contributions like any other employees.
* In some countries, PhD students are getting paid, but it's legally a stipend, so the benefits are not the same, but every PhD student gets the money.
* In some countries, PhD students are getting paid if they apply for funding and get it. If they don't get the funding, they can still study just without money. In this case, some positions might be tied to specific stipends, so if you are hired/admitted, you don't have to apply for more funding, but this is not the case for everybody in the country or even in the department.
* In some countries, PhD students won't get paid for being PhD students, but they will have to do some paid teaching.
* In some countries, PhD students have to pay tuition (which might or might not be countered by stipends or teaching)
* In some countries, faculty contracts include twelve or more months of salary; in others only nine months.
* In some countries, the funding is based on impact-factor publications; in others, they do not care about this sort of thing.
* In some countries, prospective PhD students apply directly to potential supervisors; in others, they apply to a department.
All these may also vary between fields or institutions within a given country.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_1: ### Academic Life
* In some countries, universities don’t arrange academic or mental-health counselling services for students.
* In some countries or institutions, mass graduation ceremonies are a big thing. In others, most graduates just fetch their diploma from the respective office when they completed all the requirements (or receive it via mail), and mass graduation ceremonies are seen as something for people coming from the former countries and people who (or whose parents) like dressing up – if they happen at all.
* In some countries or universities, it is common to strongly identify with and be loyal to one’s university or to an institution within the university; in others, this is regarded as outlandish.
* In some countries, the academic year is interrupted by a large break during which campuses are mostly empty of students; in others, there are periods with classes that are interrupted by shorter breaks, while at least some students are almost always around for one university-related reason or another.
* What kind of dress is the norm or appropriate strongly depends on field and to a lesser extent on country. The same attire can be overdressing for a formal occasion in one field and underdressing for everyday work in another.
* Clothing requirements may also vary for practical reasons (e.g., no open-toed sandals in a lab; no strongly patterned clothing in a Deaf Studies course).
* In some countries, institutions, and programs, instructors are required to keep daily attendance records for all students registered in a course. In other programs, such a requirement would be considered offensive and a violation of academic freedom.
* In some institutions, how academic integrity cases (cheat, plagiarism, etc.) are handled is entirely outside the hands of the faculty member; e.g., the faculty member may file a report with a dean or other office, who entirely take over the job of investigating, passing judgement, and applying penalties. Or the faculty member may have responsibility for the investigation, and turning over any evidence to a judgement body. At other places, faculty are given wide discretion for the entire process, including the exact penalties to be applied. And some places may be a mixture of these (e.g., academic penalties decided by faculty; disciplinary penalties decided by administration).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_1: ### Studying and PhD Programmes
* In some countries, you have to decide on a discipline when you start studying, in others you start broadly and decide for a major (or similar) later.
* Some countries and programmes, you need to pass major hurdles before you can start studying such as good grades in previous education, entrance exams, or paying a considerable amount of fees. In others, you need only minimal qualifications to study, but passing the exams is a major filter. Depending on this, half of the students failing an entry-level course is a disaster or the norm. This is somewhat linked to whether students are regarded as customers.
* In some countries, there are no extensive university- or department-wide policies (on behaviour, cheating, writing reports, etc.).
* In some countries, there is a big difference between undergraduate and graduate studies. In others, this distinction does not exist or is merely marked by bachelor’s degree. For example, it isn’t even possible to accurately translate the words *undergraduate* and *graduate student* into the German language.
* In some countries, PhD programmes are purely research-based but require a master’s degree (which usually takes two years) for admission; in some they are purely research-based and require only a bachelor’s; and in some they require only a bachelor’s degree for admission but require coursework to be completed as part of the PhD. In the third case, the concept of “mastering out” exists. In the first (and second?) case, graduate schools do not exist or are mostly virtual structures (the author of these lines was a member of a graduate school that did not even inform its own students of its existence). Of course, there are variations of both schemes.
* In some countries, prospective PhD students apply directly to potential supervisors; in others, they apply to a department.
* In some countries, the PhD student chooses, or is assigned to, a supervisor only after some time (e.g. two years), while in some countries the student is to find a potential supervisor, willing to supervise them from the very beginning, before the actual application.
* In some countries and universities, it is the norm to attempt to keep past exams secret (and obliging examinees to do this), so they can be re-used in future exams. Elsewhere, this approach is considered naïve and bound to fail and exams are designed under the assumption that all previous exams are available.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_1: ### Theses and Defences
* In some countries and universities, you hand in your thesis to the examination office, which then distributes it to the examiners for grading. In others, you hand in your thesis to the examiners for grading directly. Yet another way is that you have to hand in a thesis that is already signed by your supervisor.
* In some programmes, you must defend your thesis before submitting it; in others, you can only defend a fully examined thesis; in yet others, thesis submission and defence are mostly independent.
* In some countries, bachelor’s degrees must be completed with a thesis; in others, this is optional or impossible.
* Some programmes prescribe a fixed time that you shall spend on a thesis (which in turn can even vary between comparable programmes). Depending on the department’s and even group’s culture, this duration may be strictly adhered to, or it may be the norm that you only register a thesis once you are confident that you can finish it in time. In other programmes, you are completely free on when you hand in your thesis.
* Some programmes have strict requirements on the length, layout, and structure of a thesis (which in turn strongly vary); other’s have no such restrictions at all.
* Some universities have no dissertation defence. Other universities call it a "pre-submission seminar" instead of a defence.
* The format of the “defence” — that is, the final thesis presentation/examination — varies very widely, from a public ceremony with multiple lectures (common in continental Europe) to a private oral exam (e.g. the *viva voce* of the traditional UK system). Usage of these terms also varies: often *defence* is used as an umbrella term covering all of these formats (as here); but often e.g. a *viva* may be considered as a different system entirely, not as a kind of defence.
* A defence often consists only or primarily of a talk by the candidate, but in some systems (e.g. Dutch and Scandinavian) members of the thesis committee also (or even exclusively) give talks.
* The length of a defence talk can vary considerably between programmes and even groups. In some cases, it’s just ten minutes; in others, it can take up to an hour. When the defence is an oral examination rather than a lecture, it may last longer, up to several hours.
* The admission and role of the audience in a defence can strongly vary. Some defences are completely open to the public; some can only be attended by other members of the university; some defences happen only before the examiners. The defence talk and the questions may be treated differently in this respect. Questions from the audience can also be treated completely different: In some cases they are forbidden; in others they are allowed but rare; in yet others they are common and encouraged; and in some cases, a defence is not complete without a question from the audience.
* The target audience of a defence may strongly differ even between groups. Some are supposed to directed at an expert audience familiar with the thesis. Others are supposed to be (mostly) understood by anybody from the field or even the faculty.
* The opposition to the presented thesis/dissertation may range from perfunctory, through merely curious, to making a serious attempt at rebutting the presenter's claims or the novelty and significance of the results.
* Customs after a successful defence vary greatly, from formal celebrations to [throwing food at the successful graduate](https://www.bustle.com/p/the-weirdest-college-graduation-traditions-around-the-world-53434).
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: ### Student Body Properties
* Some academic contexts do not have students at all but still fit within academia (e.g. the Institute for Advanced Study).
* Some have only what is usually called graduate students; others have only undergraduates.
* In some countries, an institution of higher learning may not be called a university unless it has graduate programs, or is a certain type; in others naming conventions have little relation to this.
* Some degree-granting institutions operate wholly within the online space, with nearly all part-time students; others only have full-time, on-site students. There are many, many ways to mix these nowadays.
* Some physical universities have nearly all students living off - often very far from - campus, while others are nearly completely residential.
* Which employee teaches what kind of student (or teaches at all, and how much) depends widely upon type of university, country, degree program(me), etc.
* Some student bodies are highly culturally and racially diverse, others are quite homogeneous. Sometimes certain programs are homogeneous, but not of the dominant ethnic group of the community or country. Some programs in a given university may recruit widely from other countries, while others at the same one will have nearly all local students. And of course some student bodies are homogeneous and local, but do not fully reflect the community surrounding the university.
* The same as the previous point, except regarding diversity of economic statuses. Naturally there are many times this point is strongly related to the previous point, but it is not always the case, particularly when students studying outside their country of origin is involved.
* Certain universities have a common language of instruction which is *not* the local language, or even the first (or second or third ...) language of most students. Sometimes this is because there is no clear common language and a lingua franca is chosen. Some universities are [bilingual](https://www.sun.ac.za/english/Lists/news/DispForm.aspx?ID=5154) or more.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_1: ### Academic Administration
* The role of the head of a faculty, department, institute, or similar can be seen as anything between:
+ a prestigious and powerful role that people strife for, requires years of experience (as a professor), and that people stay in for long times,
+ a nuisance that only distracts from more important tasks (such as heading a research group), that changes yearly based on an established rota, and where there are rules what arguments suffice to reject the role. Showing interest in the role is seen as a red flag.
* There can be considerable differences on how many layers academic administration has and how narrow their scope is, even within a country or university. For example, the structural hierarchy for the same topic at universities of comparable size can be *university → faculty for science → department of mathematics → institute for statistics* or just *university → faculty for statistics.*
* An elected faculty senate (academic senate), separate from the board, may exist as a representative body at the university level, or also at a faculty level (i.e., for semi-autonomous highest level departments), or there may be no senate and faculty may be represented on the unicameral board instead (if at all). Senate's responsibilities can range anywhere from ceremonial to strategy defining ones. Many academic senates consist of faculty only, others also represent students, either elected directly, or via an established student union, with the proportion of student representation ranging from symbolic up to one half of the senate membership.
Upvotes: 1 |
2019/05/09 | 443 | 1,811 | <issue_start>username_0: I have a gold badge for the phd tag. I'm not a moderator. But it seems that if I vote to close a question tagged with phd (at least as a duplicate), I can do it on my own, without votes from others.
I think this is probably a mistake as it gives a non-mod more power than we should have.
I vote to close a lot of questions but consider my votes as only recommendations, not the final answer. I've also complained when mods close questions with no other votes if I consider the question borderline rather than clearly off topic.
Is this intended behavior? If so, could we be warned before casting such votes that the vote would be definitive?<issue_comment>username_1: It is not a mistake, but rather a privilege: [Increase close vote weight for gold tag badge holders](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/230865/increase-close-vote-weight-for-gold-tag-badge-holders)
It only works on duplicates so it should only impact things that are generally less controversial. If you don't want to unilaterally close something as a duplicate, you can always leave a comment.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Following my comment suggesting you ask at the main meta if anywhere, and in agreement with @username_1's intuition that it would be unlikely to be fruitful, I decided to check what else has been said on Meta on this topic...
In an answer to a question asking [How Do I Opt Out of Privileges?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/231507/401068) referring to this particular privilege, Shog9 points out that users with this ability *also have a gold-tag ability in the opposite direction*. If you've made a mistake and marked something as duplicate and had it closed instantly when you were actually unsure, you can reopen it and your reopen vote is also binding.
Upvotes: 2 |
2019/05/24 | 617 | 2,578 | <issue_start>username_0: A user heavily edited someone else's closed question [I want a book to be translated into my native language?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/130945/i-want-a-book-to-be-translated-into-my-native-language) to change the question from focusing on a popular fiction book (which seems clearly off topic) to a hypothetical academic text book. The edited question seems to be on topic to me and likely to receive the votes needed to be reopened. It also seems to stray vary far from the OP’s question.
I personally think we should reject the edit and keep the original question closed. If the OP wishes to edit the question, or if someone else wishes to ask the new question, they can do that.<issue_comment>username_1: I'll make no objection. I thought my edit made for an interesting on-topic question and also commented apologies in advance to the OP. Anyone with sufficient rep to edit could change it back as was done. Fine. I have no issue with it.
I deleted my answer, as it applied more to the edited question than the original, which I agree was off topic. Again, no worries.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: I thought it was strange to edit a question that was clearly off-topic into something very different simply for the sake of "saving" it. It also introduces weird things, like the OP of the off-topic question gaining or losing reputation based on up/downvotes to a question they clearly didn't ask. I felt it would make more sense for the altered question to be asked as a new post.
I'm fine with any decision on the matter (I certainly wouldn't repeatedly revert).
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_1: Let me note that there have been other questions here that have been edited to change (IMO) the intent as it seemed to be expressed by the OP. I think that such things need to be handled consistently. It was that memory, actually, that seemed to give me "permission" to make the change.
I won't speak, however, in favor of allowing such changes and generally don't favor them. And I've hesitated as well to roll back those changes.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: Edits to questions by people who are not the author should never change the basic intent of the question. It's really, really rude to the author. If such an edit is proposed, it should be rejected.
I've been on the receiving end of such edits on another site, where my question has been changed into something different to what I asked, and IMHO into something asinine. I've had to contact moderators to get my name taken off it.
Upvotes: 2 |
2019/05/25 | 1,308 | 5,208 | <issue_start>username_0: This is a follow-up to [Should we reject an edit that fundamentally changes an off topic question on translating books?](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4489/7734), where Buffy [remarked](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4492/7734):
>
> Let me note that there have been other questions here that have been edited to change (IMO) the intent as it seemed to be expressed by the OP. I think that such things need to be handled consistently. […]
>
>
>
I concur that it would be good to establish a guideline regarding this to obtain consistency and thus I am asking:
**How far should we go when editing a question to prevent closure?**
* This is not about removing surplus questions when multiple questions are asked at once. (If desired, this could be addressed in yet another meta question.)
* This is about questions that have received (on-topic) answers already. We already discussed this case here:
+ [Preserving 'original intent' in closed questions?](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1573/7734)
+ [Should we edit questions to match how they were answered?](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1151/7734)<issue_comment>username_1: ### Proposed Guideline
I think two good lines to draw are:
* Answers to the edited question must still be potentially useful for the asker.
* The context of the question should not be distorted, i.e., no information should be added or changed. (Removing irrelevant details and including information from comments by the asker is fine though.)
### Rationale
The main thing that distinguishes the asker from other users is that they can accept an answer that helped them and provide further information if needed. If the edit is so drastic that this cannot be expected anymore, it is going too far. In this case the editor should ask a new question instead, since they are the master of the new question rather than the original asker.
Another take on this is that the author’s **underlying** intent should be preserved, by which I mean the problem that the asker wants to solve and not the question they are asking about it.
### Examples
* If somebody asks a question [shopping](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3657/7734) for a thing, it is fine to edit it to ask about *how* to find the thing (if the resulting question is sufficiently focused, no duplicate, etc.). Answers to this question still help the asker. The underlying intent (“I want help finding a thing.”) is preserved.
* If the asker describes a situation, but fails to ask an actual question about it, it is acceptable to make an educated guess about what the asker wants to know and edit it in.
* Changing the situation of a question on workplace etiquette in industry to an analogous one about etiquette in academia is not acceptable. Answers to the latter cannot be expected to help the asker and can be even misleading since academia is different from industry. (Instead flag such questions for migration to [The Workplace](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/), if they are otherwise fine.)
* It is not acceptable to “build a [boat](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/14470/255554)” from a question, i.e., to add “in academia” (or equivalent), if we have reason to believe that the asker is not in academia.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Let me comment on my actions in editing a question that started this conversation. The OP of the question asked about facilitating the translation of a popular, but non-academic, book. The question was closed - rightly so. Perhaps the OP asked the question thinking that academics could probably provide answers about getting translations done.
This is the current version of the question:[I want a book to be translated into my native language?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/130945/75368)
I then changed the question to one specifying the translation of an important academic book (but unnamed). My purpose was less to "save" the question, but to elicit answers (such as my own) which would actually help the OP with his/her question as well as those with a more on-topic issue of translation. My thought at the time was that any answer to the new question would probably also be valid as an answer to the question originally posed.
What I did wan't exactly a generalization so as to cover academia, but a question whose answers would likely be broader than either specific question.
But, I doubt that my edits would have been rolled back had I just done a pure generalization that covered both the OP's concern and typical academic concerns. Or at least, not rolled back as readily. I might, I suppose, just have removed the specific series title mentioned by the OP and left it at "book" or "book that I consider important". Would the same objection be made, I wonder?
So, in some ways, it may be more important to ask "What is useful here?" rather than to be too "picky" about details. If my question was useful, both to the OP and to others, then it might have been ok to leave it. Or at least have a conversation in the Ivory Tower first.
But note that I'm not arguing with the decisions made, but am interested in guidance for the future.
Upvotes: 0 |
2019/06/12 | 694 | 3,220 | <issue_start>username_0: What is our stance regarding questions asking for survey of institution’s regulations? Are they on-topic or off-topic?
For example, the question [When an academic researcher receives a gift funding from an industry partner, does the academic researcher's university take a cut?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/131793/452) asked for a survey
if the answer depends on the institution.
**Ask for a survey = ask for pointers to existing surveys (I'm not talking about surveying Stack Exchange users).**<issue_comment>username_1: For a survey to be meaningful you need to make sure it is somehow representative for some well defined population. The answers such a question on this forum will illicit are very unlikely to get anywhere close to that. In that case it just becomes a shopping question and should be closed. This forum can answer many but not all interesting questions.
---
The way I understand the question is that there is a tradition on this forum to close shopping questions and Franck is of the opinion that this definition is too broad and results in closing potentially useful questions. In particular questions asking for survey of institution’s regulations. The idea is that each individual answer is too specific to be useful outside that particular institution, but all answers together give an overview of the kind of regulations available. So the key characteristic that differentiates such a survey question from a regular question, is that it is the entire collection of answers that gives useful information rather than the individual answers.
As stated in my answer above I don't think that this is a good idea: we know quite a bit about surveys, and this is really not the way to do it.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I think you are asking about questions that are requesting a pointer to, and brief summary of, a somewhat difficult to find systematic evaluation of an aspect of *academic life*. As we all know, finding literature on a new topic can be hard, and very time consuming, if you don't know the right terms to search for. A good answer to such a question would either (1) provide a link to the study, a brief summary of the key findings, and maybe some of the key terms to help future searches in the area or (2) explain the key issues in the area, the relevant databases, and that a search of the those databases did not turn up anything. The answer might then go on to explain why such a study is difficult. A bad answer would say what an individuals experience is with a particular university, or small group of universities.
I think these types of questions are nominally within our scope. The problem is the questions tend to attract lots of bad answers and rarely provide good answers. They then often get swamped with attention and makes it hard for the community to manage them. I think a narrowly defined and clear question asking for leads regarding literature relating to *academic life* are on topic and should be left open. Broader and less clear questions should be actively closed and the OP encouraged to refine the question. Questions that are surveying the community about their experiences should be nuked.
Upvotes: 3 |
2019/06/14 | 1,501 | 6,087 | <issue_start>username_0: I've been using academic.stackexchange quite enthusiastically during a rough postdoc devoid of mentorship. However, since I am a young researcher and since some of the questions I want to ask are rather sensitive, I am careful about what information I disclose, my field being one of them. My specific field is small, and it wouldn't take much effort to figure out who I am if I disclosed my field on top of the other personal clues I've given in my questions. I've noticed others doing the same, probably for similar reasons. However, some would-be-answerers rather aggressively insist that I disclose my field in order to answer my question. I'm wondering if there is some way around this-- i.e., how to guard my privacy while still offering enough information for an apt answer?
I've already hidden other SE groups that I'm a member of, and changed my username (but I doubt that would deter an eager detective; at some point SE was even storing old usernames publicly, and @ tags to old usernames remain). I completely understand that practices change from field to field (and even from subfield to subfield). Yet there are real privacy issues at stake. I'm even considering just deleting questions after I get a satisfying response, but I know that defies the point of SE.
[This question](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/72/how-to-deal-with-different-disciplines-fields) is related, but does not deal with privacy.<issue_comment>username_1: Deleting a question after you get an answer is only possible if the answer does not have any upvotes. If you delete your question after getting an answer before it gets an upvote, that is a sure way to get a warning for a moderator and an eventual suspension.
The SE system allows you to create unregistered guest accounts and even multiple registered accounts (although you need to create new email addresses) for exactly this reason. All we ask is that if you create multiple accounts (registered or unregistered), is that the accounts never interact (i.e., no voting for yourself or leaving comments from one user on another users posts). The reputation you gain on these accounts will not be linked.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> However, some would-be-answerers rather aggressively insist that I disclose my field in order to answer my question. I'm wondering if there is some way around this-- i.e., how to guard my privacy while still offering enough information for an apt answer?
>
>
>
I haven’t checked the comments on your questions specifically, but my general impression of these comments (and my intention when I make them) is to allow us to give you a more helpful or to-the-point answer.
If you accept that we cannot do this or sometimes your question is too broad, I see no problem with you omitting this information.
To pre-emptively avoid these comments, I suggest that you explicitly state an your question that you will not name your field to avoid identifiability.
Note that if you can give a broad hint to your field (STEM, humanities, etc.; experimental, theoretical), this can still be helpful at times.
>
> I've already hidden other SE groups that I'm a member of
>
>
>
Note that this (sadly) does not make you completely unidentifiable.
Everybody who knows where to look can get to your network profile from a hidden account. (But not vice versa.)
>
> @ tags to old usernames remain
>
>
>
As [username_1 already noted](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4505/7734), if you want to avoid detection via this, it is legitimate to use a sockpuppet to ask questions.
On this and more legitimate tricks to avoid detection, see [this Q&A](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3944/7734).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: SE offers a feature to [disassociate your account from a question](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/96732/how-do-i-remove-my-name-from-a-post-in-accordance-with-cc-by-sa-3-0) upon request, as mandated by the CC-BY-SA license it uses. However,
* the procedure is rather cumbersome (you need to contact support, and I suppose your query is handled by a human);
* it is not guaranteed that all references to your username will disappear: it takes a while for the username to be deleted from the database, and then it will still be present in older data dumps, in the internet archive, etc. Your question has already been linked to your username and to all your other questions on the SE network, and, as the old meme says, [one does not simply delete something from the internet](https://i.stack.imgur.com/4taAk.png).
Hence it is best to post sensitive questions anonymously from the start, if it happens again in future. I agree that the user interface does not make it easy: a "post anonymously" button in the Ask Question page would help.
Now that you have already posted the question, a crude workaround to prevent further information leaks from your future activity on the SE network is: make a new Stack Exchange account and use that in future. I know it feels bad to lose all your reputation, but in the end it's just imaginary internet points.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: Do not post questions that put you at risk.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_5: The best precaution one can take is to dissociate SE Academia account from outer hints that would give away his identity. Also avoiding disclosing too much of specific details is the safe path.
Nonetheless, you know what? My bet is that in most cases, the fear of being identified is almost complete paranoia. This website has apparently few users per institution, and the most active ones do not seem eager to investigate into other user's private details. Stalking isn't as trivial as it may seem to the common user, and plus, most academics are still unaware of the existence and power of such Q&A websites.
Unless you're really bashing a hot shot in some online-savvy department in the US or UK, I think you have little to fear. In case you work in a non-English speaking institution, you ought to just chill.
Upvotes: 0 |
2019/08/01 | 1,501 | 6,106 | <issue_start>username_0: Hеllo,
I am asking here regarding the answer of user <NAME> to the following question: [Should I intervene when a colleague in a different department makes students run laps as part of their grade?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/134002/should-i-intervene-when-a-colleague-in-a-different-department-makes-students-run)
<NAME> described in the original question a situation where somebody was fired because "he forced himself on a secretary". This was edited to "other misconduct". Knowing what the original was, I find the words "other misconduct" far too weak and somewhat offensive because of events in my social circle. Based on a recommendation by Wrzlprmft, I am asking here to edit this.
I propose three solutions:
1. Change "for other misconduct" to "for sexual misconduct" or "for horrible deads" etc. (My English is not so good, maybe there are better words than "horrible". "Other" sounds too weak to me and sounds like "similar to the weighting issue above".
2. Remove that the person was fired. If one thinks that the reason of the misconduct is irrelevant, I think one should consequently also remove that the person was fired. After all, it is not relevant to the story B. Goddard is telling.
3. Put a comment there encouraging users to check out the edit history. Indeed, I did this but it was removed. Instead, Wrzlprmft commented that one should ask on Meta for editing.<issue_comment>username_1: I did most of the major editing on that answer. I was by no means trying to minimize how bad the described behavior was. My edit was a pretty coarse hack to remove what I felt was sexist content. At that level, I just didn't feel the description of the further misconduct was relevant. In hindsight, I totally agree that the additional misconduct being sexual misconduct and it being more severe is relevant. That additional behavior sounds like it was in fact sexual assault, so I would be happy, in principle, to see *other misconduct* changed to *sexual assault*.
Looking back now, I also think the edit to remove the later promotion was also too coarse, and probably should be left, to a degree. Something like *the behavior didn't seem to hurt his career as he eventually became dean, but in the end, ...*
While in principle I don't see a problem with the edits, the user is currently suspended (you can see this on their profile page). This means they cannot participate here or contribute to the revision. I personally would hold off on making the edits until their suspension is over.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: There was no "sexist content." The whole point was that the (certified feminist) female professor accused the male professor of being insensitive to female needs. She said a sentence to me something like, "He has no idea what a woman's relationship is to food." I think her assertion was that women are more emotionally attached to food. She was furious at the male prof for thinking that that women were just little men, rather than that women have a different body chemistry and a different metabolism.
As I said in the original post, "Don't ask me to sort this out." Sometimes feminism means treat women as if they were men. Other times, you have to be aware of the differences. Her accusations against the male prof was that his attitude was, "If they want to act like men, then I'll treat them like men."
Both the female prof and I protested to the provost. The forced dieting quietly went away.
I was not privy to the exact nature of his later sexual misconduct. I understand it was something like this: The secretary was making copies and he cuddled up to her from behind saying something like "need me to show you how to work that thing?" He is and was a pig of a man and she immediately filed a grievance. As I said, the pig was a buddy of the provost (how else do you get to be dean only 3 years after your Ph.D?) who tried to smooth things out, but she remained adamant and left the school no choice but to "let" the pig resign.
I'm surprised that, given that the first incident was considered sexual harassment, the subsequent sexual harassment was considered irrelevant. In the first incident, the harassment is subtle, but my friend ferreted it out. To prove that she was right, I included the second incident.
In the original question, then, I'm suggesting that the OP's situation be looked at through the lens of harassment. Thin, athletic students only have to run for 50 minutes, while the fat kids have to run 3 hours. With the butchering of my post, NONE of this survived.
Only on THIS stack exchange is there this bigotted culture of bullying people who don't talk just like you do. Most negative comments are "you should have worded that like this..." Almost never is the suggested change an improvement. Rather, it is usually some dumbing down of the language. Some people are not that bright, but they think they are, and whenever they get confused, they, very wrongly, think that 90% of people would be equally confused. But they are not.
The bottom line is, people who can wrap their incivility in a right sort of cattiness are allowed to be as uncivil as they please. Whereas the neurologically different people, who can be quite bright, but don't have the social skills to word every sentence in the ultra PC way, or see the need to connect every single dot for some non-so-bright bigot who thinks he should run things.
That the moderators refuse to even discuss this with me should be proof enough that they are afraid to have their bigotry exposed.
But nothing will change the fact that they let their own kind be as abusive as they will, while then using the reactions to that abuse as an excuse to suppress and bully their target group. "You're not autistic, you're an asshole."
We will find our voice soon and the mods here will be exposed for their callous indifference to and often participation in the bullying of the spectrum. If they had the tiniest bit of tolerance or conscience, none of this nonsense would have happened.
Upvotes: 1 [selected_answer] |
2019/08/06 | 407 | 1,683 | <issue_start>username_0: Many apologies for [Daughter wants to advocate physician-assisted suicide as her life goal. Shall she be professor?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/134238/75817). How do I edit it and make it on-topic? Thanks!<issue_comment>username_1: I am not sure you can, but your question is pretty unclear so maybe you can. It seems you are looking for recommendations about undergraduate programs to prepare your daughter for something. This is likely off topic. You say you think she wants to be a professor, but I am not sure how that relates to the rest of the question. Even if she wants to be a professor, a question about the best career path for becoming a professor is going to lead to opinion based answers. You should take a look at our [help center](https://academia.stackexchange.com/help) and familiarize yourself with our community.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: There's a legit question about whether/which academic jobs facilitate advocating for social/political change.
For example, advocacy is a terrible fit for most science departments: even departments that don't mind the attention will be vastly more interested in the professor's ability to run a successful research program (i.e., land grants and publish papers). Political science might be an option, but I think most departments focus on how policy decisions are made rather than the policies themselves. I know even less about philosophy/bioethics, but those areas do seem more interested in staking out a position. I think this could probably be fleshed out into a more complete answer with examples, though I don't know enough to do it myself.
Upvotes: 1 [selected_answer] |
2019/08/21 | 1,386 | 5,748 | <issue_start>username_0: I have been thinking about the general model on which the stack exchange sites work and I feel like academia.stackexchange is rather flawed. The model is essentially that lay practitioners are able to prove their experience in a socially recognized way (upvotes) and are therefore granted corresponding privileges. In this scenario, academia, however, the qualifications of the people answering ought to be more important. After all, the social consensus will only point to the answers which ought to be how things are, and might not really reflect reality. Without going into the details, if someone who has never been on say, a faculty hiring committee, rushes to answer how one's research might be judged and gains upvotes (or simply has no downvotes which are visible), then the person asking the question is not getting a good answer.
The gist of it is, that for this particular stack exchange, proving credentials ought to be linked to reputation stakes, atleast in terms of downvotes. Given that the number of faculty active here is at any point in time going to be fewer than the number of students and academic staff (research assistants, like myself), I feel that verified faculty ought to be awarded downvote rights.
**tl;dr:** Is it meaningful to allow answers from people who may not have experience in the area in which the answer is being sought?<issue_comment>username_1: I am still amazed that the community works and attracts high quality questions and answers and knowledge people. Further high quality answers tend to get up voted and low quality answers tend to get down voted, or less heavily up voted. Only rarely does something I think is wrong gain lots of support and it is usually a result of the HNQ list.
I am not sure the issue is specific to Academia.SE. There are lots of site, including so called "hard" sites where people could vote based on what they want to be true. It just doesn't seem to happen.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: I see the stackexchange system rather like a very democratic and efficient spam/filter system. The best answer might not appear always at the top, but in top 3. So I don't see how a premise is not fulfilled. It's a better filter/ranking system than google page rank at least ;-)
academia stackexchange is as democratic as all other stackexchange sites technically, but I would judge voting here as rather aristrocratic, on many non-popular important and academia-specific questions mostly knowledgable users are voting like on expert sites like mathoverflow.se. Unknowledgable don't even understand the question. A downvote is pointless. A downvote doesn't exist also in real academia, there are papers which get cited, there are no papers getting down-cited. Would be a pointless feature. Positive feedback is enough. The downvote here rather points moderators to remove obvious spam/off-topic. Important content you find here and in literature via search algorithms and upvotes/citations/likes/links to a website etc...
Last but not least, if a stackexchange site attracts experts depends on a lot of things. Mathoverflow.se works, theoreticalphysics.se did not and was closed:
[Why did Theoretical Physics fail?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/130361/why-did-theoretical-physics-fail)
But here the premise was wrong that high-level physics can work with a stackexchange format. For phyiscs in comparison to math/CS a forum format is much better. The physics.se site rather pushs professional physicists away due to the mass of laymen, popular and homework questions. This risk is not so high on academia.se as most questioner are PhD students, also for my taste the amount of undergraduate low level questions here in comparison to beta launching of this site is annoying, e.g. "How do I know if I have passion?" and alike questions.
Don't think in premises, it's complex technology and hundreds of users here, sometimes it works for a distinct site topic, sometimes not. No reason to become philsophic or too academic :-) I'm much more surprised a site like politics.se or skeptics.se is working with the stackexchange format than academia.se. Most answers here are rather simple to vote in order of correctness/importance...
Upvotes: -1 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: A few considerations:
1. Not every question here is only answerable by faculty. What you'd propose would actually have to have a level *and* field specific filter. Can I credibly talk about the experience of say, a graduate student in linguistics? Nope. How many years do I get before my postdoc certification expires?
2. I think people are not particularly shy about expressing their credentials if they think it matters for the question at hand.
3. Beyond whether or not StackExchange would even do it, tying an account's capabilities to a credential inherently creates identifying information for the account. There are those who would not participate in the system if that was a requirement.
Overall, I think it's pretty rare for me to find a question where an obviously wrong, "How I imagine academia to be" lingers as a top voted answer for very long.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: No. Decision making in academia is not based on credentials. It is based on peer review. Peer review is the best system we have for curriculum development and research. So it seems reasonable to assume it is the best system we have for stack exchange is also peer review.
I hope for a better system some day, as peer review has many flaws. But credentialism does not work. For example, the well-known error by Einstein that was rejected following peer review.
<https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.2117822?journalCode=pto>
Upvotes: 3 |
2019/08/26 | 982 | 3,825 | <issue_start>username_0: I want to ask the following question, but am not sure if it is appropriate for this site. Can you help me tell if it is okay to ask here? If not, can you point to a better forum?
>
> I consider myself part of the community of scholars. I have a few publications, but have worked (hard) in industry for more than a decade.
>
>
> I had a former colleague, one who works at a former employer, review a paper that I was planning to publish. They shared it internally, and the company requests that I not publish. They say: “The only people who would care are the competition.” I've put some decent hours in it. Do they have the right to do that, to tell me that I can't publish, if the content isn't theirs and/or isn't (remotely) confidential?
>
>
><issue_comment>username_1: The answer to your question mainly depends on four things:
* What exact contract did you sign with your former employer?
* What is the pertaining legislation?
* To what extent does the paper build on things you did, learnt, or similar while working for that employer?
* How much do you value your relationship to your previous employer?
I therefore do not think your question would be well received for two reasons:
* In its current form, we can only answer with: “It depends (on the above points).” [We tend to close such questions.](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3406/7734)
* It is not really about academia, but about intellectual property in an industry setting. Your employer probably does not care whether you publish in an academic journal, on your blog, or similar.
The only exception from this is if you think for some reason that your employer is challenging your right of publication on basis on the rules for academic authorship only, but that would be rather unusual.
As for obtaining an answer to your question, I strongly suggest that you answer the four initial questions. Obviously most of these can only be answered by yourself. If you need help to understand the relevant laws in general, your question may be suited for [The Workplace](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/) or [Law SE](https://law.stackexchange.com/). Note that on neither site (and the rest of the Internet) you will find free individual legal advice.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I agree with the bulk of wrzlprmft's assessment, but I slightly disagree with the conclusion. I think this *would* be an interesting question.
The first point is something you should include to the best of your ability in the question itself ("my contract limits my ability to...") and will probably address more in comments as users probe. The second one is partly what you're looking to find out. The third one, while specific to your situation, is only moderately relevant, as I'm not really sure that it matters that much. Assuming we're talking about work done at the company in question (and not, for example, a [WayMo/Uber situation](https://fortune.com/2018/02/05/waymo-v-uber-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-high-stakes-self-driving-tech-trial/)), the only work that matters is what you did. The last question about relationship is always a factor but something you'll always have to assess for yourself.
That all said, there are a number of visitors to this site who are academics working in industry, particularly in computer sciences. From our [FAQ](https://academia.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic):
>
> This site is for academics of all levels – from students to senior researchers – as well as anyone in or interested in research-related or research-adjacent fields.
>
>
> If you have a question about...
>
>
> * inner workings of research departments,
> * academic writing and publishing,
> ...then you're in the right place!
>
>
>
In that light, this definitely seems on-topic to me.
Upvotes: 2 |
2019/09/09 | 2,065 | 8,426 | <issue_start>username_0: For the [upcoming](https://academia.stackexchange.com/election/3) and future elections, could you please describe what it is like being a moderator on Academia Stack Exchange?
In particular:
* What are your most time-consuming or challenging duties?
* What are the specificities of this site?
**Acknowledgement**
Idea blatantly stolen from [Graphics Design Stack Exchange](https://graphicdesign.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3638/70044).<issue_comment>username_1: Nice question! Here's my two cents, with the caveat that this is only me; different mods moderate differently.
* **Time-consuming** – This is a fairly laid-back site to moderate. Sure, flags pop up and comments need to be migrated and occasional bad actors pop up, but the community is pretty mature by now. The number of bad actors is quite low. The most time consuming part is just dealing with mundane flags. Pretty straightforward.
* **Challenging** – Moderators need to be willing to make people unhappy. In almost all cases, the person you are making unhappy is making a lot of *other* people unhappy, hence the moderation. That said, the fact that your job involves unilaterally silencing/removing/disciplining bad actors does take a certain personality. Don't sign up for this job expecting everyone to like you.
On a similar note, you're going to make mistakes, and they'll be pretty public (*[cough](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/810/73)*), and you'll have to own up to it, or at least bear your frustration in silence. That can be challenging.
* **Specifics to Academia.SE** – There are a few of these, and my expectation is that if you're considering running for moderator, you should be familiar with general site mores. We tend to leave chat discussions running for longer than some other sites. We tend to treat off-topic questions somewhat strictly. In my opinion, we are a good deal slower/less inclined to close questions as duplicates than I think we should be. There are probably a bunch of other nuances, hopefully the regulars can help with this list.
---
*Edit to add:* @Buffy, touché. It's worth mentioning that this comment thing is a completely typical moderator brouhaha. You do something that (you think) is what the community wants based on history/old meta posts/community mores/"its what we always do"/whatever, and then 20+ people publicly disagree with/pile on you, and any reply you make will probably be used against you in some way. If you're the kind of person who would get really bothered by this, you may not want to be a moderator.
To be fair, this has been the most kind public disagreement I've seen in a while, so props to the whole community for not being meanieheads on this one.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: I am happy to add more if people ask specifics ...
To give you an idea of workload, as a team we handle about 150 flags and delete 500 posts a month. Most of the flags are related to obsolete comments and easy to handle and the vast majority of the deleted posts are comments, many of which are moved to chat. We contact users privately about rule violations and suspensions a couple of times a month.
Before becoming a mod on AC.SE, I was a moderator on a smaller beta site. This means I had knowledge about the tools and thought I understood what the job would be like. I assumed the worst part would be dealing with problematic users (the ones we have to contact by private message), but I was wrong. Our problematic users tend to either need to simply be told/reminded what the rules are or their behavior is so obviously problematic that all we have to do as moderators is go ***deleted*** (and I get to say it in my Strongbad voice). We really don't have many instances where we labor on a decision about what to do and when these cases do happen, a short discussion with the other moderators (both here and across the network) generally leads to a reasonable solution. I actually find it rewarding when my actions steer a user into becoming a valued contributor and when I can clean up obvious junk.
The thing that I find most difficult as a moderator is dealing with long chains of comments. Deciding when they should be moved to chat and which ones to leave behind takes a lot of time and thought. No matter the decision, people get upset. These comment conversations happen frequently enough such that after being alerted by flags, we act unilaterally (we if we screw up we can always un-delete the comments). Again, in terms of scope, while we don't track how many comment threads we move to chat, with only 500 deleted posts a month, we maybe move 15-20 threads in a month as a team.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: *Blatantly stealing from [my own answer on Graphic Design SE](https://graphicdesign.meta.stackexchange.com/a/3641/19174), but accounting for Academia’s peculiarities:*
First of all, the following are “duties” for the moderators as a team.
An individual moderator can always decline a specific task.
Also, a moderator can always take a break when they see fit.
I would group the main moderator activities into three categories:
### Flag handling
This can be all sorts of things from rudeness over migration requests to too many comments on a post. You can find some statistics on flag handling [here](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4392/7734), but it doesn’t tell you what kind of flags we get.
Most importantly, the amount of time consumed by different flags varies wildly. For example, a clear case of a question posted as an answer with an existing constructive comment can be handled in five seconds. However, a too-many-comments flag usually requires you to read the question, answer, and all the comments and then make a decision which should be left where they are, completely deleted, or moved to a chatroom.
The most prominent kind of flags in times of consumed handling time are certainly too-many-comments and individual comment flags. Since Academia by nature attracts a lot of comments, it also generates a lot of these flags.
### Investigating and addressing problematic behaviour
This can be users who are frequently rude, commit vote fraud, perform consistently bad reviews, post subtle spam, vandalise their own posts, etc. Moderators have the tools to investigate this and react accordingly, which usually involves at least a moderator message and often a suspension.
Such cases are more time-consuming than the average flag, but they happen less often. [In 2018, we sent 48 mod messages](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4392/7734), and this probably counts multiple messages, when there was some back and forth between the user and the moderators.
The challenge here is to gather the relevant information (with tools), read and assess it, decide how to react, and finally to communicate the result to the user in a constructive manner.
I second [username_2’s answer](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4536/7734) that one of the perks of Academia SE is there are very few users in the grey zone where you don’t know whether to do nothing, to warn, or to suspend.
On the other hand, since we deal with life-changing decisions, sensitive information, and ideologically charged topics quite frequently, things occasionally get serious.
Typical manifestations are suicidal users, users wanting to purge all their content from the site, and users calling you a nazi because you deny them their constitutional right to be an arsehole.
### Governance
Moderators can change some parts of the site’s interface and mechanics such as certain parts of the help centre, close reasons, tag synonyms, etc. In most cases, these are initiated by a community consensus. Moderators also act as an interface between the community and Stack Exchange (the company).
In my opinion, moderators also need to incite discussions on meta and propose community rules if there is a pressing need.
Sometimes, only moderators can notice such problems since they have access to more information and see the community from a different angle.
However, on Academia often the community takes the initiative here, and there are few such issues nowadays, since – at least as I see it – our policies have converged to something that works well and finds broad agreement within the community.
These activities can consume some time, but if they do, they are fortunately not very urgent.
Upvotes: 3 |
2019/09/09 | 1,492 | 6,127 | <issue_start>username_0: >
> **The purpose of this thread was to collect questions for the questionnaire. The questionnaire is now live, and you may find it [here](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4561/32458).**
>
>
>
Academia is scheduled for an election [next week, September 16](https://academia.stackexchange.com/election/3). In connection with that, we will be holding a Q&A with the candidates. This will be an opportunity for members of the community to pose questions to the candidates on the topic of moderation. Participation is completely voluntary.
Here's how it'll work:
* Until the nomination phase, (so, until September 16 at 20:00:00Z UTC, or 4:00 pm EDT on the same day, give or take time to arrive for closure), this question will be open to collect potential questions from the users of the site. Post answers to this question containing any questions you would like to ask the candidates. Please only post *one question per answer*.
* We, the Community Team, will be providing a small selection of generic questions. The first two will be guaranteed to be included, the latter ones are if the community doesn't supply enough questions. This will be done in a single post, unlike the prior instruction.
* If your question contains a link, please use the syntax of `[text](link)`, as that will make it easier for transcribing for the finished questionnaire.
* This is a perfect opportunity to voice questions that are specific to your community and issues that you are running into at currently.
* At the start of the nomination phase, the Community Team will select **up to 8 of the top voted questions submitted by the community** provided in this thread, to use in addition to the aforementioned 2 guaranteed questions. We reserve some editorial control in the selection of the questions and may opt not to select a question that is tangential or irrelevant to moderation or the election.
* Once questions have been selected, a new question will be opened to host the actual questionnaire for the candidates, typically containing 10 questions in total.
* This is not the only option that users have for gathering information on candidates. As a community, you are still free to, for example, hold a live chat session with your candidates to ask further questions, or perhaps clarifications from what is provided in the Q&A.
If you have any questions or feedback about this process, feel free to post as a comment here.<issue_comment>username_1: Here is a set of general questions, gathered as very common questions asked every election. As mentioned in the instructions, the first two questions are guaranteed to show up in the Q&A, while the others are if there aren't enough questions (or, if you like one enough, you may split it off as a separate answer for review within the community's 8).
* How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of valuable answers, but tends to generate a large number of arguments/flags from comments?
* How would you handle a situation where another mod closed/deleted/etc a question that you feel shouldn't have been?
---
* In your opinion, what do moderators do?
* A diamond will be attached to everything you say and have said in the past, including questions, answers and comments. Everything you will do will be seen under a different light. How do you feel about that?
* In what way do you feel that being a moderator will make you more effective as opposed to simply reaching 10k or 20k rep?
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: What question or answer of yours on meta best exemplifies your philosophy on moderation? Why do you feel this is the best example?
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: As a moderator, I find that comments are a tricky thing to deal with. Under what circumstances will you delete comments?
Note that there are lots of flags that comments are obsolete/no longer needed.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: What is your time zone? What is the time period you are available for moderating our site everyday? Please specify the answer in UTC format.
[Blatantly stolen from [scaaahu](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/947/929) in a past election.]
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Do you have any previous experience as a moderator, either on Stack Exchange or on other kind of communities (e.g. newsgroups, forums etc.)?
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: What is your stance about the current scope of Academia Stack Exchange and how this is enforced?
* Should we close any question that does not *strictly* comply with the current scope?
* Should we be lenient and keep open questions that can potentially generate good answers even if borderline off-topic?
* Should we narrow or broaden the scope?
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: *Extracted from [this answer with multiple questions to allow individual voting](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4538/20058)*
In what way do you feel that being a moderator will make you more effective as opposed to simply reaching 10k or 20k rep?
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: *Extracted from [this answer with multiple questions to allow individual voting](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4538/20058)*
A diamond will be attached to everything you say and have said in the past, including questions, answers and comments. Everything you will do will be seen under a different light. How do you feel about that?
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_4: Academia.SE frequently has questions rise high on the Hot Network Questions (HNQ); often these questions are on more controversial topics than the mean question here and attract visitors from across the SE community who otherwise don't participate here.
*What do you think the moderators' role should be with respect to HNQ list questions? How do you think presence on the HNQ list should affect moderation decisions?*
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: New users and posters tend to struggle more than experienced users. What would you do as a moderator to improve the onboarding and also improve the welcome felt by new posters to Academic SE?
Upvotes: 2 |
2019/09/12 | 2,715 | 11,736 | <issue_start>username_0: For a site about academia and helping users out with academic related questions, I have tried posting 6-7 times on that forum and each time have had my questions flagged as off topic or too specific. Despite me specifically stating I was looking for general direction and not specifics. I have had one user on that site, solar mike or something, following me around and flagging everything as off topic. I have also asked several times that if it's formatted poorly or too general, that I would appreciate being pointed to a more appropriate forum. Instead of helping out with that, just get a yellow "put on hold" notification from Stackexchange.
Before I came to stack exchange, I had heard a lot of negativity about it from Reddit users. How the site was over the top with toxicity, removes everything for being a duplicate, locking threads, etc. I wanted to see for myself, and at least in my experience, it seems to be true. Example: <https://www.reddit.com/r/cscareerquestions/comments/8ewwjc/is_it_just_me_or_is_stack_overflow_an_incredibly/>
TL;DR: Why do Stackexchange Academia users act with such hostility?<issue_comment>username_1: It is not really the people but rather the tools we have and the expectations of new users. The Stack Exchange system is unabashedly a question and answer site and not a discussion forum. The system works great when a user asks a question that fits the format well. When a question is a poor fit, it gets put on hold. The hope is that while it is on hold the person who asked and other community members will work together to make the question a better fit. The problem is that we don't have particularly effective tools to help a new user understand what makes a good question different from a bad question.
From the new users perspective, you have a question and the experienced users are shutting you down. That is obviously going to feel hostile. From the experienced users perspective, if the question is not a good fit, it needs to be shut down to keep the signal-to-noise ratio high. Sometimes they just shut it down, but often, they will try and point you in the correct direction. That direction is often read the help and a bunch of questions to try and learn what makes a good question. As hard as it might be to see, we are not trying to be hostile. We have a good idea about what works and what does not work.
In regards to your questions, I see three problems. The first is that the answers need to apply to lots of people and not just you, second we like questions to have "right answers", and third the right answer for your questions depends entirely on you.
For example, what classes should you take to prepare for a PhD in Political Science depends on obviously what classes a particular department requires, but more importantly on what classes you have taken, what you enjoy and what your specific goals are. In order to give you a good answer, we really need to know you. That of course means the answer is not useful to anyone else. If instead we give you a generic answer, then we are not really accomplishing our goal of providing high quality answers. The odds are the answer would just be excepts about admission requirements and required courses pulled from a few Political Science departments websites. Again, this does not help you or anyone. So instead of wasting our time and your time, we put the question on hold.
We are a site about academia in general but not the specifics of individual fields. There are specialist sites on the SE network where you can sometimes get helpful information (e.g., Biology and Physics), but there isn't one for Political Science. This means that the SE system doesn't really have a place for questions about Political Science. If you can frame your questions to be more field agnostic, while still asking what you want, it might help.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Having read through your questions, it appears that you are misunderstanding the purpose of this website. Academia.SE is a place for academics to discuss academia, in general. There are many concepts that are common to all academics—dealing with grants, working with administrators, getting stuck in research, teaching, etc.—that newcomers (or even veterans) have difficulty dealing with. This site acts as a forum for discussion on those types of topics.
However, no one on this site really knows each other. As such, any time people are asking questions very specific to them—what types of courses should I take based on my specific goals, how can I improve on my specific resume, how can I personally be more competitive for X—we can never help them sufficiently. As such, those questions are routinely closed as "too specific".
I fully appreciate that there is nuance here, as the distinction between "[how do I get a good letter](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/47373/73)" and "how can I improve my application" are sometimes subtle. This is often frustrating for newcomers... [you're not the first to have a closed question of this type](https://academia.stackexchange.com/search?q=improve+my+application+closed%3Atrue). That said, since we really can't answer these questions, for the health of the overall community we close them.
I'm sorry your experience has been so negative, but hopefully this will help you understand how this site *can* be useful in your academic life.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: The other answers try to explain why your posts were closed as "off topic", but I want to address other parts of your question:
>
> I have had one user on that site, solar mike or something, following me around and flagging everything as off topic.
>
>
>
I understand that it can feel like you're being targeted when the same name appears over and over on the list of those who voted to close your post. But if there's a user who votes on many posts, you'll see their name a lot - not because you're being followed, just because they're a frequent voter
>
> I have also asked several times that if it's formatted poorly or too general, that I would appreciate being pointed to a more appropriate forum.
>
>
>
Users of this site may not *know* a more appropriate forum to direct you to. They're frequent users of Academia Stack Exchange, they don't necessarily know what's in scope and out of scope on sites that are *not* Academia Stack Exchange. It's kind of like if the item you wanted was out of stock at a store, and you asked a store employee, "Excuse me, but if you can't sell me this item, can you at least tell me what other store nearby has it in stock?"
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: In my experience, the issue is that new users have not read, understood, and followed the information on this page:
<https://academia.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic>
Flagging your question is not actually hostile. It's just following the local customs.
As for <NAME> following you around, I'm sure he reads every question posted here and flags all the ones that should be flagged.
Finally, if you don't enjoy the content of this site, go elsewhere. This thing is basically a computer game, it's not really important. Personally, I do not even bother playing to win.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: *First, I am aware that I am the fourth moderator to answer your question. This probably happens because only we can easily see all your deleted posts. It is not our intention to pile up on you or similar. I am also aware that some of my points may be a bit redundant to the existing answers, but I want to keep the whole story in one place.*
We close questions for the following reasons (amongst others that are not relevant to your case):
* You ask multiple, distinct questions at once. This can usually be solved by reducing your post to one question. While other platforms tend to accept or even encourage questions being asked this way, I fail to see how this is an advantage.
* It is unclear what you are asking. In this case you can solve this by clarifying your question. There is no point in pointing you to other sites here, because we would first have to understand your issue and if we don’t, there is no reason to expect that others will.
* You ask for the recommendation, comparison, or evaluation of individual courses. We call this a [shopping question](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3657), and the linked FAQ explains why we do not like them. You may find other platforms that accept these questions, but beware that the answers may be wrong since they are usually only based on the experience of a single person choosing a single path in life (which is one of the reasons why we disallow such questions).
* [Questions that depend on your indvidual history and preferences](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3406/7734). Similar to shopping questions, you may find somebody who will give you an answer, but beware that giving you a useful answer requires somebody to familiarise themselves intensively with your specifics – which takes more time than most people are willing to spend for a stranger on the Internet. At the very least, this requires an intensive back and forth with you, which a question-and-answer platform is not suited for. For the career questions you have, the best person to ask is probably a professor at your alma mater, because they are somewhat familiar with your target field, already know your undergraduate programme, and know at least know you a bit.
* Duplicates of canonical questions. We use canonical questions to cover up some general information about basic topics that come up a lot and where we got tired of providing the same answer again and again with little variation. Sometimes it can happen that we close as a duplicate of a canonical question, because we cannot figure out from your question whether you know the basics. If you completely understood the canonical question, use it as a starting point for your question, in particular by showing us that it did not solve your problem.
One of the points I am trying to make here is that while we may be able to point you to another platform which accepts your question indiscriminately, what you want may not be what you need. From another point of view, if we thought that asking these questions anywhere on the Internet would be a good idea, we would probably not have closed them in the first place.
Another problem is that you appear to be treating question closure like whack-a-mole (with you being the mole): Once your question is closed or somebody comments that it should be closed in its current form, you delete it – instead of trying to edit the question to address the problems mentioned in the problems. You then post a question that often has the same problems, but is different in other respects, introducing new problems.
For example, [your very first question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/131577/7734) (“How can I get some idea of how qualified I am to do a PhD in International Relations”) can be turned into a good one if you remove the surplus questions and streamline the convoluted details a bit.
However, it never came to this since you deleted the question after a comment that guided you to get to know the site and improve your question and that your question **might** be closed (it never received a single close vote).
Finally, our users have been giving you a lot of helpful advice on how to improve your question and links to FAQs what question we close and why – which you mostly ignored. For example, we were advising you several times that your posts are difficult to understand due to being convoluted; yet you self-assess your most recent question to be rambling.
Upvotes: 2 |
2019/09/13 | 1,118 | 4,260 | <issue_start>username_0: [This question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/135907/73) about patent infringement yielded a few moderately contentious answers, as judged by the number of flags on the question. [One of them](https://academia.stackexchange.com/revisions/135933/1) simply stated that China was a dictatorship with little respect for the American patent system. That answer received [a lot of comment discussion](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/98587/discussion-on-answer-by-william-jockusch-my-research-paper-filed-as-a-patent-in) about whether the answer was sufficient or whether it was baseless accusations. I then [edited the answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/posts/135933/revisions), adding a number of links to sources on China's IP policy and removing the unsourced comments. A few people commented that my edits went too far.
Were my edits inappropriate?
*Note: Please try to disassociate the diamond here from the activity. If you don't wish to, that's your prerogative, but any 20k+ user can see flags on questions. I edited in the mindset of a member of this site, not as a moderator.*<issue_comment>username_1: >
> "One of them simply stated that China was a dictatorship with little respect for the American patent system."
>
>
>
"Simply stated" isn't quite correct, it also answered the question, and the statements about China are supporting information for the answer. The answer given is to do nothing.
I didn't see any reason for the answer to be flagged or edited. It's firmly critical, but reasonable.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: Just to post what I was thinking at the time, **no, this was not inappropriate**. The original question simply stated that "China is a dictatorship" (which is irrelevant here) and that they "have a national policy of hacking and stealing" (which both isn't true and is pretty slanderous). The edits added some background for readers unfamiliar with the actual situation. Granted, much of this is pretty public knowledge—I found all the links on the first page of a pretty straightforward Google search—but that doesn't mean everyone knows it.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: >
> You can't do much in China. China is a dictatorship, and it appears to
> have a national policy of hacking businesses to steal their code and
> data. No reason to expect them to respect your rights to your PhD
> thesis.
>
>
>
I don't see anything salvageable in there. The intention clearly is to write that China is a terrible country and has no IP protection at all. Replacing this with a correct nuanced view is against the spirit of this paragraph.
>
> As you say that your advisor works for a UK university, you might be
> able to do something there. I have no idea if that's a good idea or
> not. Similarly, if anyone tries to claim rights to your invention
> outside of China, it's possible you could do something.
>
>
>
So the author has "no idea" and says that some unspecified action might be possible or desirable or not, as long as it's not in China where it's certainly not possible.
This is augmented with actual facts which weren't even hinted at in the original.
>
> Lastly, while certainly suspicious, I wouldn't take it as proven that
> your advisor was responsible, at least not based on what you've
> written.
>
>
>
This last paragraph is good and important and the only reason I see to keep the answer around at all.
But it's the last paragraph, and so I assume it was vastly overshadowed by the anti-China views expressed in the first and second paragraph in the decision process of the up and down voters.
I think it's anti-democratic and against the spirit of this network to subvert the votes of so many people towards an entirely different answer.
If undesirable content is upvoted I think in general it makes more sense to:
1. Add good other answers and trust in the users to upvote them more.
2. I've also seen special notes added to answers (outside the answer text) which say that it's not up to the standards of a site.
3. As a last resort deletion is more honest than to change an answer into its opposite, even if it means the answer would be trimmed down to the one useful sentence.
(no hard feelings)
Upvotes: 2 |
2019/09/16 | 6,627 | 25,728 | <issue_start>username_0: In connection with the moderator elections, we are holding a Q&A thread for the candidates. Questions collected [from an earlier thread](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4537/32458) have been compiled into this one, which shall now serve as the space for the candidates to provide their answers.
Not every question was compiled - as noted, we only selected the top 8 questions as submitted by the community, plus 2 pre-set questions from us.
As a candidate, your job is simple - post an answer to this question, citing each of the questions and then post your answer to each question given in that same answer. For your convenience, I will include all of the questions in quote format with a break in between each, suitable for you to insert your answers. Just [copy the whole thing after the first set of three dashes](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/revisions/e8d27060-4042-427c-8243-033b830481fa/view-source).Please consider putting your name at the top of your post so that readers will know who you are before they finish reading everything you have written, and also including a link to your answer on your nomination post.
Once all the answers have been compiled, this will serve as a transcript for voters to view the thoughts of their candidates, and will be appropriately linked in the Election page.
Good luck to all of the candidates!
**Oh, and when you've completed your answer, please provide a link to it after this blurb here, before that set of three dashes. Please leave the list of links in the order of submission.**
To save scrolling here are links to the submissions from each candidate (in order of submission):
[<NAME>](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4564/20058)
[cag51](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4566/79875)
[M'vy](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4568/32458)
---
>
> 1. What is your time zone? What is the time period you are available for moderating our site everyday? Please specify the answer in UTC format.
> 2. New users and posters tend to struggle more than experienced users. What would you do as a moderator to improve the onboarding and also improve the welcome felt by new posters to Academia SE?
> 3. Do you have any previous experience as a moderator, either on Stack Exchange or on other kind of communities (e.g. newsgroups, forums etc.)?
> 4. What question or answer of yours on meta best exemplifies your philosophy on moderation? Why do you feel this is the best example?
> 5. In what way do you feel that being a moderator will make you more effective as opposed to simply reaching 10k or 20k rep?
> 6. How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of valuable answers, but tends to generate a large number of arguments/flags from comments?
> 7. How would you handle a situation where another mod closed/deleted/etc a question that you feel shouldn't have been?
> 8. What do you think the moderators' role should be with respect to Hot Network Questions list questions, given their potential for controversy and "passerby" users from the network? How do you think presence on the HNQ list should affect moderation decisions, given its frequency?
> 9. Comments can be tricky to deal with, and are often flagged as obsolete/no longer needed. Under what circumstances will you delete comments?
> 10. What is your stance about the current scope of Academia Stack Exchange and how this is enforced? Should we close any question that does not strictly comply with the current scope? Should we be lenient and keep open questions that can potentially generate good answers even if borderline off-topic? Should we narrow or broaden the scope?
>
>
><issue_comment>username_1: username_1’s answers
==========================
Here are my answers to the questionnaire. Some of the questions were already asked during the 2018 election: my opinion on these has not significantly changed during the last year and half and I've thus reported a few of the [old answers](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4034/20058).
>
> 1. What is your time zone? What is the time period you are available for moderating our site everyday? Please specify the answer in UTC format.
>
>
>
My time zone is that of Central European Time, UTC+1 (UTC+2 during summer time). I'm usually intermittently available throughout all day, but I cannot specify a fixed time period because my availability depends on my work schedule, in particular lectures, meetings and experiments. Overall, I may be available for from 30 min a day, to about 1 hour, depending on the days.
>
> 2. New users and posters tend to struggle more than experienced users. What would you do as a moderator to improve the onboarding and also improve the welcome felt by new posters to Academia SE?
>
>
>
This is an age-old problem that affects most if not all of the online communities, not only those from Stack Exchange. The components of this problem are the expectations of the newcomers, those of the community, the size of the community (one can guide just that much what thousands of people tell to each other), the composition of the community (yielding, for instance, an acceptance bias toward certain questions with respect to others), the limitations of the platform (discoverability of the help center, visibility and form of guiding messages etc.) and — indeed — personality of the moderators.
Honestly, I don't have a definitive solution, and probably no one has (see also the attempts from the Stack Exchange staff). What I did so far is to use comments, our Meta and chat to explain the source of the issues, to help to better understand the culture of the site, or to convice the community that certain questions can be on topic (I'm not claiming that I've been successful in any way). This is also commonly done by our moderators. I think that a few meta questions and answers exemplifying my approach to this problem can be the following:
<https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4044/20058>
<https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4371/20058>
<https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4111/20058>
<https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4258/20058>
[Could we please reopen these questions about salary and treat all salary questions in a uniform way?](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4269/20058)
[Double degree: why was this question closed as duplicate?](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3530/20058)
To sum up, I'd continue along these lines, maybe in a more systematic way.
>
> 3. Do you have any previous experience as a moderator, either on Stack Exchange or on other kind of communities (e.g. newsgroups, forums etc.)?
>
>
>
Yes, I've been an administrator and moderator of an Italian forum about circuit theory, electronics, physics and mathematics.
>
> 4. What question or answer of yours on meta best exemplifies your philosophy on moderation? Why do you feel this is the best example?
>
>
>
This one:
<https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/2027/20058>
Even though at first glance it might not seem directly related to moderation, I choose this answer because I think it exemplifies well my understanding of people's way of voting, and the way in which complains about up or downvotes should be handled.
>
> 5. In what way do you feel that being a moderator will make you more effective as opposed to simply reaching 10k or 20k rep?
>
>
>
Well, really, the tools that are at disposal of 10k or 20k users are really not so effective. In practice, as a standard user, one can only bring to the attention of the community and the moderators a possible issue. Then, a few actions are triggered by the collective action of the community (e.g. enough spam flags can trigger the automatic deletion of a post), but most of the other actions should be taken by the moderators.
>
> 6. How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of valuable answers, but tends to generate a large number of arguments/flags from comments?
>
>
>
I wouldn't deal alone: I'm convinced that problematic cases like this one should be discussed among all the moderators. I'd first propose to have a private chat with the user to convince them to avoid this kind of disruptive behaviour. I'd consider suspension as a last resort.
>
> 7. How would you handle a situation where another mod closed/deleted/etc a question that you feel shouldn't have been?
>
>
>
I think that for borderline cases we should leave the decision to the community. Therefore, I wouldn't reopen or undelete the question unilaterally, but I'd propose to the other moderator to agree on publishing a meta question to see what the community thinks about the closure/deletion/etc.
>
> 8. What do you think the moderators' role should be with respect to Hot Network Questions list questions, given their potential for controversy and "passerby" users from the network? How do you think presence on the HNQ list should affect moderation decisions, given its frequency?
>
>
>
This is a tricky point. [In this meta question](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3853/20058) I proposed that we introduce a post notice for controversial questions but, at the same time, I suggested in [this answer](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4455/20058) that we shouldn't remove questions from the HNQ list. The most upvoted answers in that Q&A suggest that we should remove from the HNQ list questions related to "suicide or severe psychic health problems" and when "the asker is a victim of sexual discrimination or misconduct": this is certainly a sensible thing to do, but I think that more should be done to prevent people in particularly difficult situations to give easily recognizable details when asking questions, because removing a question from the HNQ list is just too slow of an action to be really effective if someone has malicious intentions. Here, the Stack Exchange staff should provide more mechanisms to help this prevention (for example, with dedicated tag warnings, with [*improved visibility*](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/q/2218/20058)).
>
> 9. Comments can be tricky to deal with, and are often flagged as obsolete/no longer needed. Under what circumstances will you delete comments?
>
>
>
Comments are really another tricky point for at least two reasons. First, there is a clear discrepancy between the intended usage of comments from the Stack Exchange staff and the intended usage from many users. Second, it appears that moderators have limited tools to deal with comments. For instance, at present, comments can be moved to chat only once (there are suggestions to improve these tools, but we don't know if and when they will be implemented).
In principle, I think that comments should be deleted only when they are rude or offensive, or when they become obsolete. A long list of comments can be moved to chat, but I'd avoid deletion. However, for answers, I think that comments that point out significant technical, regulatory or legal flaws should stay attached to the answers and not moved to chat or deleted. Of course, this principles might not be fully applicable because of the limitations of the moderation tools.
>
> 10. What is your stance about the current scope of Academia Stack Exchange and how this is enforced? Should we close any question that does not strictly comply with the current scope? Should we be lenient and keep open questions that can potentially generate good answers even if borderline off-topic? Should we narrow or broaden the scope?
>
>
>
It's clear that we receive many questions that are off-topic according to the current policy, but it's also clear that there are several users who are willing to answers these questions because, well, it's useful. And we have many examples of borderline off-topic questions which generated wonderful answers ([this one from JeffE](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/2221/20058) is probably the archetype of such an excellent answer to a very personal question). So, in general, I'm inclined to be lenient, but I'd also suggest to those who think that answering certain types of now off-topic questions could be useful to a general audience to bring it up on our Meta to propose to broaden the scope. The important thing is to reach sufficient consesus to have a uniform treatment of certain questions. I'll be therefore happy to broaden the scope in case of well-conceived proposals.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Cag51’s answers
===============
>
> 1. What is your time zone? What is the time period you are available for moderating our site everyday? Please specify the answer in UTC format.
>
>
>
**Eastern Time (UTC-5).** I tend to check the site several times throughout the day, but would make my most sustained investments late in the night (e.g., 0400 or 0600 UTC).
>
> 2. New users and posters tend to struggle more than experienced users. What would you do as a moderator to improve the onboarding and also improve the welcome felt by new posters to Academia SE?
>
>
>
**Encourage personalized responses.** I feel vicariously sad when I see someone provide a detailed, specific, well-written question and they get downvoted and their question is closed as a duplicate of a super-vague question like “how do graduate admissions work?”. True, our scope excludes overly individualized questions – but a kind note explaining this, perhaps with an encouraging word, could bridge the gap.
>
> 3. Do you have any previous experience as a moderator, either on Stack Exchange or on other kind of communities (e.g. newsgroups, forums etc.)?
>
>
>
**Not on SE or similar.** Certainly I hold professional leadership positions, but nothing like this.
>
> 4. What question or answer of yours on meta best exemplifies your philosophy on moderation? Why do you feel this is the best example?
>
>
>
[**This one**](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4456/79875). For one thing, I have rather few to pick from (see below). But more generally, I think it’s important to remember that questions that seem obvious or uninteresting to experienced researchers can be exceptionally important, and not at all obvious, for new users. Given this, I dislike it when people make condescending remarks in the comments (whether toward new or established users).
>
> 5. In what way do you feel that being a moderator will make you more effective as opposed to simply reaching 10k or 20k rep?
>
>
>
**I view them as fundamentally different roles.** As a high-rep user, I focus on answering questions, voting, and editing questions. As a diamond moderator, my answers and comments will be much more forceful, and thus I will have to use them much more sparingly. On the other hand, being a diamond moderator allows me to help the community in a different way – namely, providing timely review of flags, and being much more active on meta.
>
> 6. How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of valuable answers, but tends to generate a large number of arguments/flags from comments?
>
>
>
**I would apply my judgment based on the nature of arguments or flags.** If it is just a matter of poor word choice or over-enthusiasm, I would post a comment to try to defuse the situation. If I think the user is really stepping over the line, I might try a friendly modmail, in coordination with the other mods. If there is really egregious conduct, then I would coordinate with the other mods about more decisive action.
>
> 7. How would you handle a situation where another mod closed/deleted/etc a question that you feel shouldn't have been?
>
>
>
**Very carefully.** The most common case is probably that the other moderator thought the question was unsalvageable, whereas I can take the time to (try to) salvage it. In this case, I would try to salvage the question (perhaps with a note to the other moderator to avoid misunderstanding). The community can always vote to close if they disagree with me. For more systematic cases, I would discuss with the other mod and/or open a discussion on meta.
>
> 8. What do you think the moderators' role should be with respect to Hot Network Questions list questions, given their potential for controversy and "passerby" users from the network? How do you think presence on the HNQ list should affect moderation decisions, given its frequency?
>
>
>
**For the most part, I would treat these questions as any other question.** Many users find us from HNQs, so I’m reluctant to cull questions from the HNQ list. Certain cases, though, are either so personal (e.g., mental health issues) or so subtle (e.g., nuances of particular academic sub-cultures) that we should discourage answers from non-academicians. This is generally in line with what the community has already decided.
>
> 9. Comments can be tricky to deal with, and are often flagged as obsolete/no longer needed. Under what circumstances will you delete comments?
>
>
>
**Sparingly.** Deleting comments is a drastic action. Still, I will consider (case-by-case) deleting:
* obsolete comments (e.g., suggesting an improvement that has been adopted)
* insults (e.g., beyond reasonable discussion or disagreement)
* clear-cut answers in the comments – after asking the author to post it as an actual answer. Of course, there are a lot of caveats here – I wouldn’t usually delete partial answers, or answers on closed questions that might be useful to the OP.
* Comments that disregard direct instructions, such as on controversial posts where users have been told that “comments may request clarification ONLY”.
>
> 10. What is your stance about the current scope of Academia Stack Exchange and how this is enforced? Should we close any question that does not strictly comply with the current scope? Should we be lenient and keep open questions that can potentially generate good answers even if borderline off-topic? Should we narrow or broaden the scope?
>
>
>
**I would not take drastic, unilateral action, but I do discourage closing interesting questions.** It seems like most popular questions get closed and then reopened, in some cases more than once. While moderators shouldn’t, for the most part, open or close questions single-handedly, my personal “stance” is to accept interesting questions even if there is grounds for closing them.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: M'vy’s answers
==============
>
> What is your time zone? What is the time period you are available for moderating our site everyday? Please specify the answer in UTC format.
>
>
>
I am currently living in the UK. I am usually off-work from 18:00 UTC and up until 0:00 UTC. Week-ends are usually a time where I do have more availability. Also, I am somehow available during work hours (i.e. 8:00 UTC - 18:00 UTC)., though in a more restricted fashion of course, but this should be enough to handle urgent matters.
>
> New users and posters tend to struggle more than experienced users. What would you do as a moderator to improve the onboarding and also improve the welcome felt by new posters to Academia SE?
>
>
>
Being that it is impossible to pre-educate newcomers, it is necessary to work with the already established experienced users. It is easy to get caught in the pitfall of group identity and exclude anyone who does not conform (I have been guilty of this before), and everyone at some point needs to be reminded of it. We need to raise attention when people behave incorrectly, and are discouraging newcomers to participate instead of giving them proper pointers to get better.
As to how to make newcomers get better, I think the best approach is to have them in the chat room, it's really easier to explain things there than in comments. Obviously all newcomers aren't necessarily keen on been thrown into a room full of people, so this is not a silver bullet. And sometimes a simple address in the comments will be enough. Moderators have a unique position that can allow mediation between the two parties.
>
> Do you have any previous experience as a moderator, either on Stack Exchange or on other kind of communities (e.g. newsgroups, forums etc.)?
>
>
>
I have moderated a lot of different places, from private forums to 5000+ members Facebook Groups. I also used to have mods privileges (reputation based) on some Stacks in beta.
>
> What question or answer of yours on meta best exemplifies your philosophy on moderation? Why do you feel this is the best example?
>
>
>
Unfortunately, I do not have much example to give from the AC meta. However, I have been quite active on other stacks in the past, most notably [Security](https://security.stackexchange.com/users/1574/), [Arqade](https://gaming.stackexchange.com/users/7709/) and [French Language& Usage](https://french.stackexchange.com/users/28/), and used to be active on [Meta](https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/158321/) as well
I would summarise my moderation philosophy here on slack as this: moderators should be as invisible as possible. The majority of moderation should come from the community itself. There are only a few things that requires a fully-fledged moderator, and even if some cases requires a swift and decisive action, it is in the end the community that defines how the community itself grows and where it's headed.
If I had to chose some meta topic to illustrate this it would be [this one](https://security.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3007/is-this-type-of-behaviour-acceptable/3008#3008) or [this one](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/96122/is-doesnt-work-for-me-a-reasonable-reason-to-downvote-an-answer/96124#96124)
>
> In what way do you feel that being a moderator will make you more effective as opposed to simply reaching 10k or 20k rep?
>
>
>
These tools are really designed for different things. The 10k/20k moderators tools brings the most experienced user in the community some way to shape it in a collaborative fashion. Also, unless there are many active high-reputation users, it is unlikely that action will be swift, and when it has to be that's when moderators have to come into play.
>
> How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of valuable answers, but tends to generate a large number of arguments/flags from comments?
>
>
>
I think that the best thing is to inform the user about it, communicate before taking any harsh action. Chat, message are here for this. In the last resort (if no improvements come out of this), I suggest to discuss it with the other mods and/or with the community to find the best answer to it.
I'm gonna use a quote from [<NAME>](https://security.stackexchange.com/users/485/rory-alsop) here, because I think it clearly states the goal here: "We need to encourage the good behaviours and be robust with the bad".
>
> How would you handle a situation where another mod closed/deleted/etc a question that you feel shouldn't have been?
>
>
>
Get in touch, communicate, get to know why and see if it was a 'close call', or if there is real hard reasons why this shouldn't be here. If it's arguable, try to find a suitable course of action by including the necessary people. We are all humans with different perspectives and not everything is a black and white situation.
>
> What do you think the moderators' role should be with respect to Hot Network Questions list questions, given their potential for controversy and "passerby" users from the network? How do you think presence on the HNQ list should affect moderation decisions, given its frequency?
>
>
>
There is a clear need to monitor these questions more closely. It's more than probable that this kind of question will require protection. In the general case, I think HNQ are a good thing, as it increases the visibility of the community. There could be some cases where this kind of visibility would be detrimental or hurtful to people. In which case removing them from HNQ would be advised.
>
> Comments can be tricky to deal with, and are often flagged as obsolete/no longer needed. Under what circumstances will you delete comments?
>
>
>
Comments that do not comply with the accepted etiquette of public forum should be deleted without question.
As for other types of comments, the question is often to see if the comment is detrimental to the question/answer. Sometimes an obsolete comment can help someone get an up-to-date source. Sometimes it would give a bad advice. It's mostly a case by case situation.
>
> What is your stance about the current scope of Academia Stack Exchange and how this is enforced? Should we close any question that does not strictly comply with the current scope? Should we be lenient and keep open questions that can potentially generate good answers even if borderline off-topic? Should we narrow or broaden the scope?
>
>
>
Scope is a complicated matter on StackExchange for various reasons. Overlapping scopes with other stacks, controversial topics and opinion based questions, to name a few. There are questions that clearly would not be good on any stacks, these clearly should be dealt with in a strict manner. For the rest, it is not just a matter for moderators, but also the community. If the people do not feel like the question should be closed, it can be an opportunity to see if it brings value to the site. If it does not, it will always be time to close it, and learn for next time. If it does, raising awareness of it on meta would be a good thing to do, so that the community can become aware of it, and have a say on whether they think it wants to see more of these questions or not in the future.
Upvotes: 2 |
2019/09/25 | 884 | 3,759 | <issue_start>username_0: Recently, [this question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/137528/98164) attracted a lot of attentions, surprisingly not just from new users even from experienced users with moderation capabilities, despite the fact that it is obviously off-topic and opinion based.
The other issue is that it took more than "2 days" after several flagging and reporting to close this question and remove spurious and spam answers, until the moderators closed it finally, despite the fact that many more relevant questions have gotten closed already less than minutes as off-topic or primarily-opinion based.
My concern is that it seems even experienced users with moderation capabilities don't care too much about guidelines that say what is on-topic and what is off-topic here in Academia.SE and don't have an equal approach to judge the questions. My guess here is that because this question, despite the fact that it is obviously off-topic, attracted a huge amount of attention (> 8k views until now) and as a result, people preferred to put some answers in the hope of getting reputation, which I think it worked very well [for some people here](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/137531/98164).
So I ask my question again: **Why there is no an equal approach to judge which questions are off-topic or primarily-opinion based?**<issue_comment>username_1: I don't think it's so obvious that it's off topic. I think it's borderline. I reviewed flags on it as a diamond moderator, and decided that it would be better to let the community handle it, rather than close it unilaterally, because it wasn't so obviously off topic to me. Some users thought that it was off topic, and voted to close. Some users thought it was an acceptable question, and voted to "Leave open" in the review queue. Some users thought it was a good question, and voted it up, or answered it.
Please don't comment "But it's so obviously off topic because..." - I'm not saying it should be reopened, or that those who voted to close were wrong. I'm just saying that what is obviously off topic to you, may seem acceptable to others, and I guess that's what happened here. Questions that are borderline tend to linger for a while before they are closed (if they are closed at all).
I think your guess that it stayed open because users thought it was off topic, but answered it anyway to gain reputation, is probably wrong. There are only four users who have close vote privileges who answered this question. There are many, many, many more users with close vote privileges who didn't answer the question, and also didn't vote to close. Obviously those other users were not motivated by reputation. The much more likely explanation is that the question wasn't so obviously off topic to them.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I disagree with quite a few assumptions in your question.
* You suggest that fact that the question was slow to be closed is a bad thing. In most cases, that's simply part of the culture on this forum... we tend to allow discussion to go on. Whether that's "bad" or not is a matter of opinion, and many of our users seem fine with this more laid-back approach to moderation.
* You also seem to suggest that moderators should have stepped in earlier. I think we, as a team, have made it fairly clear that we tend to operate with a very light touch. There are very few cases where we simply step in and shut something down, particularly more borderline cases like this one. Personally, I tend to wait for a number of high-rep users to vote for closure before casting the final (automatically binding) vote. This approach has worked well in the past, and I don't think its something the community is clamoring for us to change.
Upvotes: 3 |
2019/09/30 | 2,466 | 10,067 | <issue_start>username_0: Recently there has be a lot of discussion regarding [Firing mods and forced relicensing: is Stack Exchange still interested in cooperating with the community?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/333965/firing-mods-and-forced-relicensing-is-stack-exchange-still-interested-in-cooper). A number of moderators have resigned or are taking time off in relation to issues that arose out of SE's incompetence in instituting changes to be more welcoming to LGBT+ users. Some of the issues LGBT+ users face are well expressed by [Aza in their Resignation Notice](https://literature.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1195/resignation-notice). To prevent people who do not care about these issues from having to read on, the bottom line is that I will **NOT** be resigning or taking time off because I think I can be a positive influence in helping support the needs of our LGBT+ users. That said I am extremely disappointed by the SE team in their lack of support for our community and in particular the LGBT+ members.
The SE team is proposing changes to the Code of Conduct that I think will make it harder for moderators to ensure LGBT+ members are respected. SE employees removed stars from dissenting comments in the private moderator chat room where the changes to the CoC were being discussed. Further, [the most strongly dissenting moderator was fired](https://judaism.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5193/stack-overflow-inc-sinat-chinam-and-the-goat-for-azazel) and other moderators step down (e.g., [Gilles](https://cs.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1650/i-am-resigning-as-a-moderator)) in support of her. While I do not believe the fired moderator was without fault (in my opinion her behavior unintentionally hurt LGBT+ users/moderators), what SE employees have shared with us and how they went about removing her (including the timing on the eve of one of her most holy holidays) makes me feel betrayed because they have muddied the waters regarding their efforts to support our community.
About a year ago, SE revisited their [theory of moderation](https://stackoverflow.blog/2018/11/21/our-theory-of-moderation-re-visited/) and promised moderators **Trust. Support. Agency. Accountability. Autonomy.** The SE team has yet again failed to deliver on this promise and is again letting our LGBT+ users and moderators down. The SE team has lost an opportunity to proactively provide us with the support we need.<issue_comment>username_1: Frankly, holding elections in this environment, without informing users, or worse, candidates, that this was going on, was the wrong thing to do.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: In case it gets lost in all of the noise, <NAME> (Director of Public Q&A) posted an official response on Meta Stack Overflow: [An Update to our Community and an Apology](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/334248/an-update-to-our-community-and-an-apology)
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: @StrongBad, thank you for balancing your expressions of concern with a willingness to continue to stay constructive and to moderate.
I have been following the discussions, and while it certainly appears that the company's employees did not handle this situation well, I also am not impressed by the most highly voted responses of the community. In reading those reactions, I come away with an impression of people who have come to feel rather entitled based on their degree of activity in the StackExchange community.
Personally, I try to remember that at the end of the day, this place is really about the people who come looking for answers---most of whom never even ask a question. That some of us enjoy spending time here, providing those answers, and even building some community seems to me to be quite secondary.
We'll see how the company sorts things out on its end---frankly, I think that responding slowly and giving people a chance to settle down may be one of their best choices right now. In the mean time, carrying on with the things that brought people here in the first place seems like a good idea.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: Preamble
--------
Wow.. I stumbled on this subject when I went to SO.meta to post about perceived decline in quality of answers and increasingly level of garbage, so I was going to ask about whether or not there was a decline in interest as well as lapse of moderation.
It took a great deal of time to figure out the sequence of events and try to get the nuances of the whole ordeal, and I am sure there is a lot happening behind the scenes that we "mere mortals" don't get to see.
I don't have the rep to write this on the SE.meta where the "apologies" from the SE staff came out, so it partially relates to your post @StrongBad, and partially to the subject as a whole. I hope you forgive me if parts of what I write here don't seem relevant to you.
Speculating at the "why"
------------------------
I feel this is extremely discouraging but to some extent a natural consequence of the near exponential growth of SE sites.\* The main income of these sites is traffic so as the network grew, it needed to cater to a larger and larger crowd. The way I see it that has several critical and profound challenges (in no particular order):
1. It became harder and harder to have guidelines that was **relevant and agreeable for all** the communities.
2. **SE staff became more and more distanced from the community**, I remember the times where the SE staff would often post on Meta, and occasionally give insights to the way the company reasoned behind the scenes. They weighed in on feature requests as well as encouraged growth on newer communities
3. As the network grew hungrier for new users, and reach out to more people, the level of "noise" increased. Here I mean duplicate, low-quality questions and answers. The need for moderation increases as the crowd increases. This too has an important implication, as the community grows in size, the dissent also increases. Despite sometimes pretending otherwise, there are inevitable differences even within a community. What seems like a normal way to express an opinion to one person may come across as offensive or insulting to another. There are cultural components to that, as well as other personal factors which are clearly hard (if not impossible) to know in advance. So staff, moderators and users will likely clash at some point, inevitably so...
4. Together with the previous item, as the network grew the perceived value of the network may have changed in the eyes of the "subject-matter-experts", especially if the "noise" is not kept below a certain level.
Where I stand
-------------
All that being said, I am not sure where we are headed. I don't believe it'll be "business as usual" not after this much turmoil. I also don't believe things will be "fixed". Most of all I don't believe in the sincerity of the apologies provided by the SE staff.
Personally I don't really care about how they will do right by the people they have wronged, that's between company and the individuals. I don't care for the apologies, since I trust actions not the words.\*\* I also don't care much about the change of CoC relating to the use of pronouns (possibly because my native language does not use different pronouns based on gender).
What I **do** care about is how the company treats people who volunteer to improve their product. Let's remember one thing, the primary unique value proposition of this place is the fact that this is a place that brings "experts and enthusiasts" together, where we help each other solve our problems, learn and grow. **So we bring the value, they provide the medium.** In other words, we are the product not necessarily the customer. Let's try to keep that in mind.
Moderators especially voluntarily take time to improve the site, and to make sure there is productive, respectful and civil discourse. As far as I know (please correct me otherwise) community moderators get **zero** financial benefits for doing the extra work.
That's the real issue in my eyes, the network is too large, perhaps [too large to fail](http://gph.is/28O4JDe). So they probably feel (or felt) that roughing some feathers is not gonna be an issue. There will be people sticking around, or joining a year or two down the road, to provide the content. They treat their main assets as expendable objects. That's what I find the most troubling!
TLDR
----
Last but not least I have **no trust what-so-ever** for the staff/executives at SE, for no other reason than that they are representing a company. Companies have financial interests, and in general (at least in my experience) only care for their customers (or ethical/moral standpoints) when it's profitable i.e. when not doing that would be harmful for business.
Trust is an inherently human thing; I trust the people I can shake hands with, look into the eyes of, and perhaps, have a beer with. I don't trust anyone that's on the other side of the ocean from me, and more importantly has a vested financial interest in the subject matter.
That's what I would have liked to write as an answer to David's or Sara's "apology". You want to win back people's trust, show them you actually care about the community, and not see them as a business asset.
---
\* Not immediately relevant perhaps, but the company is based in NYC as far as I know and I am guessing at some point they have started to cave in to pressures of finances, reason in the more conventional terms of economics and profitability.
\*\* When I was reading the apologies provided by SE staff, specifically David and Sara, it is clear to me that the language has been carefully structured, probably heavily consulted by the legal team. In that sense, reminiscent of the apology letters/statements by professional athletes after some PR scandal.
I see no remorse, and no acknowledgement of what really went wrong. I also see no real change in sight. It's essentially; "*our game our rules, if you don't like it then stop playing*"
Upvotes: 3 |
2019/10/01 | 576 | 1,968 | <issue_start>username_0: Academia's [third moderator election](https://academia.stackexchange.com/election/3) has come to a close, the votes have been tallied and the two new moderators are:
[](https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/20058/massimo-ortolano) [](https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/79875/cag51)
They'll be joining [the existing crew](https://academia.stackexchange.com/users?tab=moderators) shortly—please thank them for volunteering, and share your assistance and advice with them as they learn the ropes!
Also, please join me in thanking aeismail who will be stepping down as moderator.
For details on how the voting played out, you can download the election results [here](https://academia.stackexchange.com/election/3), or [view a summary report online](https://www.opavote.com/results/5950916555440128/0).<issue_comment>username_1: Congrats to the winners, thank you to username_5 for also running and thank you aeismail for all you past work.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Thanks to all for your confidence / votes ... my happiness at being elected is tempered only by my sadness to learn that aeismail is stepping down.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Sorry to see aeismail go as moderator. I hope you can still participate at a high level.
And if the two new mods continue to contribute as mods as they have as members, the site will be in good hands.
Congratulations.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: Thanks to all those who participated in this election, and especially thank you aeismail for the work done so far!
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: Congratulations to both of you. You have many challenges lying in front of you now, and I wish you good luck to tackle all of them!
Thank you aeismail for all your good work as well, we will miss you.
Upvotes: 2 |
2019/10/05 | 2,570 | 10,368 | <issue_start>username_0: I have never understood why some answers-in-the-comments (or partial answers, or empirical data) are apparently allowed, while others get deleted. As I practice swinging this hammer, I find myself confronted with this more and more.
StackExchange's [guidance](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/19756/how-do-comments-work) is that comments should "ask for clarification on, suggest corrections to, and provide meta-information about posts" and warns that comments are subject to deletion.
In [this discussion](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1819/answers-in-comments), the upvoted posts explain why answers-in-the-comments can be good, while the downvoted posts suggest that they should be deleted.
In [this discussion](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3902/should-my-comment-have-been-deleted), it is suggested that our mods currently delete comments-in-the-answers if, and only if, they are flagged by other users (rather than proactively finding-and-destroying all instances).
In a comment to [this answer](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4536/79875), it is suggested that mods should do "what the community wants." So my question is: **how does the community want its mods to handle answers-in-the-comments?**
**Update:** Thanks for the discussion. We've decided to move forward with Wrzlprmft's suggestion to structure this discussion a bit more so we can produce a well-defined policy. Please participate in this discussion [here](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4600/79875)<issue_comment>username_1: Moderators should destroy all answers-in-the-comments they come across, perhaps after posting a reminder and inviting users to convert their comment to an answer. Perhaps there can be a grace period when there is no overlap between answers-in-the-comments and true answers.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_1: Moderators should destroy answers-in-the-comments that users flag, but should not proactively seek them out.
This seems to be the status quo, though it does lead to some confusion when some are deleted and others are not deleted.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_1: Moderators should leave answers-in-the-comments alone unless there is some additional reason why they should be deleted.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: Insofar as I can see, the only real cost to "answers in the comments" is questions that go effectively unanswered---in any question receiving significant attention, equivalent material from the comments typically quickly makes it into at least some answer.
Answers in the comments are also often *good* for people who want to be helpful anyway to a person whose question is off-topic and should be closed.
For on-topic questions that have their answers in the comments, I have often encouraged people to transform "answer in the comments" into an official answer, often saying that I would like them to do it so that I can vote for them. Many people respond well to this. When this fails, sometimes I add my own answer expanding on the comments.
My suggestion to moderators, then, would be:
1. For recent questions, don't worry about it. The situation will often resolve itself without moderator intervention with the aid of other users.
2. For older questions, add a comment suggesting that the comment transform to an answer---and maybe see if other long-time users will help with this as well.
But I don't see any particular reason to bother deleting them.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: Stack Exchange has a fairly clear policy on this I think - flag answers-in-comments, ask the poster to write an answer instead, destroy it after some time (days?).
If anything this community has historically been too lenient on answers-in-comments, not too harsh.
---
I actually feel pretty strongly about this. Answers-in-comments are sometimes witty and to-the-point, but rarely high-quality (they can't be, there isn't enough space in a comment). Yet, if you post a snippy (hence highly-upvoted) "answer" as a comment to the question, it's the first thing a user sees, even before the accepted / highly upvoted actual answers. **This breaks the Stack Exchange model where highly upvoted answers should float to the top**.
And this isn't even to speak of the other problem with comments, namely that they can't be downvoted, so a controversial comment is never kept in check by downvotes the way an answer would be. I truly think this trains people to write controversial and/or offensive stuff in comments rather than actual answers, which, again, breaks the way Stack Exchange is supposed to work. Kill them with fire, and kill them hard.
---
All that said, I am myself (very much) guilty of writing too many comments and too few answers. It's just so much easier to write a quick comment than a full answer, and the fact that one does not have to "fear" any downvotes for a terrible take only exacerbate this. The only way to combat this, in my opinion, is to more strongly implement the "comments are ephemeral" idea of Stack Exchange. In an ideal world, comments would be auto-deleted after a few days, but since we appear to not be getting this feature, the mods at least have my full support to aggressively delete comments (including my own, which, again I know I am writing way, way too much).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: While I welcome your initiative, I do not think we should answer the question how diamond moderators should act on this in isolation. If we want to act stronger on answers in comments, this must be encoded in a clear policy on when answers in comments should be deleted and how both, users and moderators, should act upon them.
I therefore propose to postpone this question and first decide whether we want less (or no) answers in comments in general. More specifically, I propose to ask first:
>
> What kind of answers in comments do we want to keep on the long run?
>
>
>
… and then see how we go about realising the result.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: I think rpg.SE has a good policy here. Quoting an answer by mxyzplk:
<https://rpg.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6534/3263>
>
> You should not answer in comments. Not partial answers, not full answers. Not "leads on" an answer. Not "I would answer but I'm tired/just woke up/am drunk so I'll just say this..." Not answers that you think aren’t good enough to post as answers. Not little helpful tips, not helpful suggestions, not useful anecdotes. These will be deleted. Answer in answers.
>
>
> And if your answer isn’t even good enough for you to want to put it in an answer post, just don’t post it at all then.
>
>
> Answering in comments does the following things.
>
>
> 1. It bypasses question closes. They're closed for a reason.
> 2. It provides an answer that can't be marked as an answer for future people's knowledge.
> 3. It contributes to long comment debates as you can comment on an answer, but it's unclear what you're commenting on in a comment thread.
> 4. It is "cheating" by locking your answer to the top. Answers with higher votes/accepted answers should go to the top to indicate their quality. Bypassing that by sticking your answer in a comment on the question is unacceptable.
> 5. It bypasses all our quality control mechanisms: we can't downvote your "answer", edit it, or comment on it to request clarification or improvements. Answers also bump a question to the top so that people will scrutinize the answer; comments don't do this.
> 6. It gets in the way of people who are busy using comments correctly to improve the question.
>
>
> The long and short of it is, every part of how how the site functions, all of which have lengthy justification as being part of the process of SE - rep, answers, accepts, edits, votes, etc. - is obviated by using comments for answers. So every good goal of all that functionality is nullified by this practice.
>
>
> Now, "but the hapless questioner could use that info!" In nearly all cases someone posts the same information in a (much more comprehensive) answer. Or take the time yourself to write a real answer. We don't like crappy questions or crappy answers, and we'd rather not have the Q or A than to have one that doesn't meet site quality (hence closes/deletes, part of the standard SE functionality). If you don't care enough to write a real answer don't, the likelihood that you're the only person in the world/on the site that knows that bit of info is very small.
>
>
> While users are welcome to steal the info in the comments to generate answers of their own, that will not slow the pace of dealing with the answers-in-comments via flagging and deletion.
>
>
>
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_6: I don't think the question here is as clear as you present it. This is because the site itself is more than just "ask a question - get some answers". Many of the "questions" are actually pleas for help in very difficult situations. Some of them are career ending situations. People "asking" these "questions" need advice and the advice they need isn't really question-answer amenable.
I think that as long as we accept that characterization of the site then some comments that "might be" answers need to be retained, though suggestions to the writer than they convert them to answers is usually good. I often do this, actually.
Another issue is that a lot of people, myself included, don't like to write single sentence "answers", even when a single sentence is all that is needed. But, often enough, that is all the writer of the comment has to say, given time and other constraints. Such answers are likely to be deleted in any case.
One other issue is that I sometimes vote to close a question as off topic for some reason, but the writer still desperately needs advice. I don't think voting to close is consistent with answering and seldom do it. But a bit of advice to the writer is still a proper (humane) thing to do. So, I'll write a comment - even a fairly extensive one.
People here need advice, not just answers.
I think the mods should use judgement, not a fixed rule. Some comment-answers are fine. Others should be converted to answers. Some should be deleted. But that is why the mods are people with experience in academia, not machines, and not mere administrators.
Upvotes: 3 |
2019/10/07 | 1,076 | 4,539 | <issue_start>username_0: *As I already said [here](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4590/7734), if we want to better define our stance on answers in comments, this has to be a community effort.
We have to clarify how we react to users posting comments as answers, how, if, and when they should be flagged, and when we want to delete them.
I therefore do not think that one meta question suffices to establish a well-rounded policy on this that most of us can get behind.
Therefore I will split this process into multiple questions, the first of which is:*
Which kinds of answers in comments (if any) do we want to keep?
===============================================================
### Procedure
* There are plenty of collections of general arguments against answers in comments.
Please have a look at least one of them to make an informed decision:
+ [Please don't write answers in comments](https://interpersonal.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1644/151) on Interpersonal SE.
+ [Should users refrain from answers (or partial answers) in comments?](https://rpg.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6533/7641) on RPG SE.
* **Post answers outlining a single type of comment that you want to keep.**
Types can be based on context, e.g., “comments answering questions that were not closed for shopping”.
Provide a rationale, with some examples, why these should be allowed.
Define your rationale as clearly as possible so we can build a practical policy around this.
* **Upvote answers you agree with; downvote answers you disagree with.**
* **Answers that have a score of 5 and at least twice as many upvotes as downvotes will be considered community consensus** (rule stolen from [here](https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1061/11354)).
If any other answers have a positive score, we will decide how to proceed on a per-case basis.
* **Do not post a blanket answer that no answers in comments should be accepted.**
Such answers will be deleted without warning.
The proper way to obtain this outcome is if no answer reaches the threshold for acceptance. (This is to prevent a self-contradictory outcome.)
You can post a blanket answer that all answers in comments are fine, but you better have very good arguments.
### What this is not about
Whatever the outcome of this question is, it will not be suddenly in effect.
We still will have to decide about implementation issues such as:
* How should answers in comments be flagged?
* How should moderators handle these flags?
* How do we react to users answering in the comments?
* How do we deal with old answers in comments?
While it is good to keep such practical concerns in mind when suggesting exceptions, this question is only about setting the goal.<issue_comment>username_1: **We should keep high-quality answers-as-comments on closed questions when there is little overlap between the answers and the comments.** In such cases, we can offer advice to the OP even if their question is not a good fit for our format.
Note the caveats:
* **High-quality**. Since there is no opportunity to downvote comments, this proposal does not extend to low-quality answers-as-comments.
* **Little overlap between comments and answers.** If the comment is already covered by an answer, the comment is essentially a "super upvote," which is not constructive.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_1: **We should keep high-quality answers-as-comments when they are posted to old, inactive questions and do not overlap with existing answers.** I am referring to answers-in-comments that are much younger than the question they answer.
We should still encourage the OP (or someone else) to convert the comments to an answer. But since the question is inactive and most of the answer-posting and voting is likely finished, the cost of deleting a valuable comment is usually higher than the cost of allowing answers-in-comments.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: **Generic, brief comment answers should be kept, including but not limited to those on questions that are otherwise closed for off-topic/too-specific reasons**
Examples would be general advice to seek some sort of professional counselling/therapy/mental health services, and advice that someone should ask their advisor/supervisor/mentor/PI.
These are general enough that they are unlikely to require down votes, and fit many situations that are otherwise not appropriate or not solvable questions for SE.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Do nothing. Answers in comments are not a problem that needs solving.
Upvotes: -1 |
2019/10/08 | 708 | 2,296 | <issue_start>username_0: The small ['liberal arts' tag](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/liberal-arts) is defined in the tag wiki as:
>
> Questions having to do with liberal arts subjects such as literature, languages, art, music, philosophy, and history.
>
>
>
However, several of the questions seem to be about liberal arts colleges:
* [Research statement for liberal arts college: how much detail should I go into?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/57560/research-statement-for-liberal-arts-college-how-much-detail-should-i-go-into)
* [Learning Style Issues](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/98816/learning-style-issues)
* [What are typical examples of "scholarly work"?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/138194/what-are-typical-examples-of-scholarly-work)
* [Where to find details on Bachelor degrees majoring in IT?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/119554/where-to-find-details-on-bachelor-degrees-majoring-in-it)
Whereas others are about liberal arts:
* [How to judge the quality of education of an art school?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/107034/how-to-judge-the-quality-of-education-of-an-art-school)
* [Is taking ideas from an art critic plagiarism?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/82185/is-taking-ideas-from-an-art-critic-plagiarism)
* [Colloquial forms (let's...) in articles](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/127932/colloquial-forms-lets-in-articles)
Should this be separated into two tags or otherwise cleaned up?<issue_comment>username_1: I would tend to say let's leave them be. Yes, there are two distinct meaning here, but :
1. the meanings are closely related (at least in the US system), and
2. the number of questions is small enough that it's probably not causing any real difficulties to have them lumped together.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: * Eliminate the tag as too vague
* Create a new tag for "Liberal Arts Colleges"
The current tag description is wrong. "Liberal arts" does not mean arts and humanities. The traditional meaning is grammar, logic, rhetoric, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music. Other sciences are not in the traditional list because they did not exist at the time the list was made.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer] |
2019/10/10 | 1,647 | 6,431 | <issue_start>username_0: The SE [Code of Conduct](https://academia.stackexchange.com/conduct) has been changed in regards to the use of pronouns when referring to users.
There is a fair amount of discussion at MSE [What does the Code of Conduct say about pronouns?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/336364/what-does-the-code-of-conduct-say-about-pronouns) and on the blog <https://stackoverflow.blog/2019/10/10/iterating-on-inclusion/>.
The changes can be summed up as "Prefer gender-neutral language when uncertain" and "Use stated pronouns (when known)".
In addition to the public discussion, there are also private discussion about how to enforce these changes. Based on these discussions it seems SE's take on the situation is that if you are trying to avoid a user's pronouns, then you are on thin ice regardless of if your objection is on religious, grammatical, or thought police grounds, or any other argument.<issue_comment>username_1: Thank you for this update!
I know it's a touchy subject at the moment, but just taken at face value I am actually rather happy about this new CoC and the thought behind it. Especially:
>
> Based on these discussions it seems SE's take on the situation is that if you are trying to avoid a user's pronouns, then you are on thin ice regardless of if your objection is on religious, grammatical, or thought police grounds, or any other argument.
>
>
>
I have to say that I support this line of thinking. If we want Stack Exchange to be a truly inclusive community, avoiding the use of a preferred pronoun because you don't agree with them isn't good enough.
That said, it seems almost like a theoretical issue on this Stack Exchange. From the top of my head I can't think of a single question / discussion here that did not fall into either "person clearly identifies as male -> use him", "person clearly identifies as female -> use her", or "no identifiable gender -> use them". It's my understanding that this is still completely ok with the new CoC.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: I only became aware of this policy and the controversy surrounding it yesterday. I wholeheartedly agree that the intent of the policy is admirable -- StackExchange should be inclusive of all gender identities. However, I am astounded by how poorly this has been implemented.
I think there are three issues that are causing uproar across the SE network:
1. Under the new Code of Conduct, gender-neutral language (e.g., using name only instead of pronouns) is not acceptable in certain circumstances.
2. Details of those circumstances are unclear. Where is the line drawn with respect to bad-faith pronouns? How do you decide if the intent of gender-neutral language is to avoid preferred pronouns?
3. StackExchange's management of the issue has not been reasonable. One moderator was summarily "fired" for unclear reasons ([allegedly](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/334248/an-update-to-our-community-and-an-apology) for repeatedly violating the CoC, but this is [disputed](https://cellio.dreamwidth.org/2019/10/05/stack-overflow-fiasco-timeline.html)). [Several](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/333965/firing-mods-and-forced-relicensing-is-stack-exchange-still-interested-in-cooper) other moderators have "resigned" or suspended moderation in protest, [including one moderator here](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4588/leave-of-absence).
I really appreciate what SE offers and I am saddened to see this issue becoming so acrimonious. (We hardly even use pronouns.) So I hope that these issues are resolved amicably soon.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Speaking from the "other side", I would like to commend you on your thoroughly professional summary of the acrimony:
>
> "In addition to the public discussion, there are also private
> discussion about how to enforce these changes. Based on these
> discussions it seems SE's take on the situation is that if you are
> trying to avoid a user's pronouns, then you are on thin ice regardless
> of if your objection is on religious, grammatical, or thought police
> grounds, or any other argument."
>
>
>
I'll finish with my point of view, but in maintenance of this high tone, allow me point out additional logs on this fire:
* Coerced speech (debatable, but hardly dismissable out of hand)
* The predictable and often demonstrated use of policies like this to exclude those who feel that words do not harm people, and who would like to go on using the English language
* Political and corporate standards of "truth" frequently differ from those verifiable through science, and hard sciences vs soft science display the same disparity
I bring up that last not to litigate the issue, but to point out that it still exists.
This new CoC shuts down conversation, even on the topic of sex/gender/culture issues, by making abominable any discussion which strays from a corporate-friendly approach.
Orwell's point was that if the language is controlled, then that which may be said is thereby controlled.
My most neutral analysis, which I think should be agreeable to a majority of SE users, is that this is an example of the corporate side of SE stepping across a line of propriety in what should be a community-managed matter. I understand and sympathize with the corporate motivation to ensure a squeaky clean, unassailably politically correct platform. I feel they have gone too far in providing this level of comfort to themselves.
My strictly personal position is this -- I am not about to use a bunch of made-up pronouns. Pronouns in English are a closed set. English of course lacks a dedicated second person plural (as distinct from the singular "you"), which is why it has evolved "y'all". No code of conduct anywhere states that I must use the term "y'all" in order not to offend pluralities. It's not the business of the organization which runs a website to police at that level. "Y'all" is debated on a continuing basis between those who like it and those who don't. Likewise, if I don;t like the neologisms "xe" and "tey", I should remain free to point out, without being abusive, that I do not recognize these arbitrary additions to the language. I would of course expect some flak for that.
I would not expect to be counseled by a corporate droid, or kicked off of a site dedicated to the sharing of knowledge through the medium of language.
Upvotes: 3 |
2019/10/13 | 1,057 | 3,400 | <issue_start>username_0: Now that [The code of conduct has been changed](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4607/19607), I found myself wondering to what extent non/gendered pronouns are a concern for people on Academia.SE. Do we have any data/rough idea about how many users of this site state preferred pronouns?
(Maybe the percentage of such users will skyrocket with the new CoC, but that also might be interesting to know.)
The reason I ask is that I wonder how much of a concern pronoun usage is on our site. In the event we have no data, I would be happy to hear anecdotal evidence (preferably from current or former moderators) about to what extent gendered pronouns and more generally language is an issue for our users.<issue_comment>username_1: If the *about me* is the only thing we look at, then not very many (~64 although I’m not sure if any are false positives or if I’m missing anyone). Run (and feel free to modify) [this query](https://data.stackexchange.com/academia/query/1124484):
```
select aboutme, id as [User Link] from users
where aboutme like '%she/%' or aboutme like '%her/%'
or aboutme like '%he/%' or aboutme like '%him/%' or aboutme like '%his/%'
or aboutme like '%they/%' or aboutme like '%them/%' or aboutme like '%their/%'
```
I’m sure some people mention their pronouns in their posts and comments, but it’s unlikely to be formatted as conveniently. And quite a few people people heavily imply what their pronouns are (e.g. by saying that they’re a woman).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: @username_1's idea was excellent, but the specific query checks only for the three most common pronouns and gets a bunch of false positives. If you query specifically for "pronoun", it checks for neopronouns as well:
```
select aboutme, id as [User Link] from users
where aboutme like '%pronoun%'
```
From this, as of this writing one finds the following 46 results:
* False matches, generally profiles talking about pronounciation: 7
* He, she, they, or "don't care" preferences: 25
* Preference for a neo-pronoun: 2: 1 ze/hir, 1 ne/nim/nir
* People being obnoxious, mostly clearly because they are upset about the recent code of conduct changes: 10
+ "englishisnotaconlangyoudontgettoinventnewpronounsanymorethannewtenses"
+ "we" (evidence: post about CoC change)
+ "the one who respects LGBTQ++, lavander, pink, blue, green, and everybody else, but considers the new SE CoC rules on gender pronouns an absurd and harmful stupidity"
+ "His Most Eminent Gracious Majesty"
+ Spivak pronouns, but "I Sexually Identify as an Attack Helicopter"
+ "His majesty, the infallible genius"
+ "–æ–Ω, –µ–≥–æ, –Ω–µ–≥–æ, –µ–º—É, –Ω–µ–º—É, –∏–º, –Ω–∏–º, –æ –Ω—ë–º"
+ "old fart"
+ "My third-person pronouns are I/me/my/mine. Use them or get banned, twansphobes."
+ "Voi use voi/void/voids/voids/voidself as pronouns" (evidence: comments about CoC change)
* Confusing statements: 2
+ "Preferred pronouns: none. Please use alternative sentence structures to avoid gendered and gender neutral language when referring to me."
+ "Preferred pronoun: The gender-neutral "it". As I'm an alien and my race doesn't have any sexes ..."
Furthermore, of the obnoxious or confusing profile statements, precisely one has any significant activity on this site.
Bottom line: respectful pronoun use on Academia.SE should currently be easy.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer] |
2019/10/21 | 819 | 2,804 | <issue_start>username_0: I find myself uncomfortable with the title of this question, but don't want to get into an edit war, and the question is at the moment both protected and close to closure: [Is it bizarre that a professor asks every student for a 3 inch by 5 inch photograph?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/138732/is-it-bizarre-that-a-professor-asks-every-student-for-a-3-inch-by-5-inch-photogr)
Calling any action by a staff member *bizarre* just precludes a sensible dialogue or response in my view. Perhaps the question wanted to find out how unusual is the request or how widespread this type of thing occurs.
Should I have just toned it down by an edit?
---
The [Cambridge English dictionary](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/bizarre) gives these synonyms:
>
> eccentric
>
> flaky
>
> freakish
>
> outlandish disapproving
>
>
>
Whereas [the Oxford](https://www.lexico.com/en/synonym/bizarre) gives these:
>
> **strange**, peculiar, odd, funny, curious, offbeat, outlandish, eccentric, unconventional, unorthodox, queer, unexpected, unfamiliar, abnormal, atypical, unusual, out of the ordinary, out of the way, extraordinary
>
>
> **fantastic**, remarkable, puzzling, mystifying, mysterious, perplexing, baffling, unaccountable, inexplicable, incongruous, irregular, singular, ludicrous, comical, ridiculous, droll, deviant, aberrant, grotesque, freak, freakish, surreal
>
>
> **outré**
>
>
>
---
So even the dictionaries have different views of the power of the word!<issue_comment>username_1: I don't think the word "bizarre" is too loaded with negative meaning, but to me it is more negative than "unusual". If the word bizarre was in the body of the question and I was editing it for another reason, I would probably change it. I would not edit the body of a question to only change the word "bizarre". In the word was used in the title of a question, I think an edit to only change the word would not be out of place. As the question is now closed, I would want to see a more substantial edit so we can consider reopening the question.
Getting into an edit war over the word is not useful. If the edit gets rolled back, bringing it up in meta or chat or flagging it would be fine.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: When I retitled the question and introduced the word "bizarre", I was deliberately reusing OP's language from the body text. To me it seemed like OP was asking whether this was "bizarre" rather than "unusual." In particular, the question seemed to be whether this was something they could complain about to administrators.
That said, I would not be inclined to start an edit war if someone were to change the word "bizarre." Perhaps "acceptable" would be a good choice.
Upvotes: 2 |
2019/11/18 | 1,358 | 5,318 | <issue_start>username_0: Some time ago, I had a [question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/138935/what-to-expect-when-pursuing-a-second-doctorate-in-an-unrelated-field) closed and marked as a duplicate. I found the experience to be quite bizarre-- [the post](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/17232/is-doing-two-phds-a-good-path) many claimed answered my question did not, from my view-- I had in fact read that post in detail before deciding to write my own question. Furthermore, I revised my question multiple times to make the differences clearer.
I wonder if part of the issue is that my question deals with possessing two PhDs at once, the very notion of which seems to trigger many academics. I suspect that many of the closers did not actually read the question or its revisions in detail, instead defaulting to the "two PhDs is bad/sad/mad" opinion and taking action to close the question.
So my meta-question is: how can I get the "duplicate" notice removed from my question? Someone already provided a great answer (which I accepted), so I'm not necessarily looking for further attention. It just feels silly for the "duplicate" marker to remain, as it undermines what I think is a distinct and real issue for many people.<issue_comment>username_1: Your question is pretty broad and has a lot of background. I think it really boils down to
>
> I want to know what to expect if I start pursuing a PhD in an unrelated field altogether, given that I have a PhD already. (Something like this post.) Possible considerations that don't have to be precisely answered: could my current PhD be a hindrance in getting accepted into a new program? Will my supervisors and colleagues see my past PhD as an asset, or as weird-looking mole they will try to politely ignore? What are other questions should I ask myself to make sure this is something I really want?
>
>
>
At the highest and broadest level
>
> I want to know what to expect if I start pursuing a PhD in an unrelated field altogether, given that I have a PhD already.
>
>
>
and
>
> What are other questions should I ask myself to make sure this is something I really want?
>
>
>
seem very related to the linked "duplicate" question and do not seem like great fits for the site. In this case the problem with the question being broad is that it overlaps with other things and it becomes difficult to focus on the unique aspects of the question. The rest of the gist seems different from the duplicate question and a much better fit.
>
> Could my current PhD be a hindrance in getting accepted into a new program?
>
>
>
and
>
> Will my supervisors and colleagues see my past PhD as an asset, or as weird-looking mole they will try to politely ignore?
>
>
>
Why not ask those two questions as stand alone and separate questions. Maybe from there you will see a way forward to getting at the deeper aspects of what you want to know.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I agree it's not a duplicate of the linked question, but I also agree with username_1 that it's quite broad. If you like, we could change the close reason to "too broad." Given the excellent answers already there, I would not want to substantially rewrite the question at this point (though you're welcome to open a new, more focused question as username_1 suggests).
>
> I wonder if part of the issue is that my question deals with possessing two PhDs at once, the very notion of which seems to trigger many academics.
>
>
>
Maybe, but I suspect (another) part of the issue is *concision*: your question is very long and contains a lot of extraneous information. I suspect you could easily reduce the length by 50%. Of course, this *shouldn't* affect the determination of whether it's a duplicate -- but reviewers are not perfect. It's easy to just read "a bunch of personal factors....two PhDs....yeah, it probably boils down to the same question."
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Apparently, I'm responsible for initiating the close reason. I did read the question in detail, but not the revisions that had not happened at the time. Here is why I voted to close:
Your question was "What should I expect if I do X?" The correct answer is "Don't do X." Therefore I consider the question to be a duplicate of "Should I do X?" because they have the same answer. There's no reason to have both questions on this site.
As edited, your question is primarily opinion based, so I don't feel it should be reopened.
I'm sorry you didn't like our answer to your question. You are not likely to get a better one elsewhere, because few people have two PhDs, and most of them are not like you.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_4: I have looked at the latest edit, and now it looks like the question comes down to:
>
> The answer to this question strongly depends on individual factors such as a certain person’s preferences, a given institution’s regulations, the exact contents of your work or your personal values. Thus only someone familiar can answer this question and it cannot be generalised to apply to others. (See [this discussion](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3406) for more info.)
>
>
>
Which is another reason it is not suitable for our format, so I have left it closed also.
Upvotes: 0 |
2019/11/22 | 1,646 | 6,421 | <issue_start>username_0: One moderator suspended [activity](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/333965/firing-mods-and-forced-relicensing-is-stack-exchange-still-interested-in-cooper/334390#334390)
>
> 'm a mod on Academia.SE. After reading the official SE response, I'm going to temporarily suspend my mod activities as well. The disrespect being shown to a well-respected volunteer simply trying to understand what is going on, combined with the terrible handling of the actual firing, combined with the non-apology apology, are a bit over the top.
>
>
>
I encourage The Powers That Be™ to reconsider all their actions here, and think deeply about the types of behavior they want to encourage in their community.
Another one wrote A request for [SE employees and CMs](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4622/a-request-for-se-employees-and-cms)
User Apparente was [suspended](https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/287826/aparente001)
That user was very nice and insightful, wonder what happened.
Everything I read it seems like moderators knew from the start of this year that something is going wrong, however they proceed with election for new moderators.
When I asked one user why she didn't apply for a position, she told me that big troubles are coming, now I understand on what she implied, however, if you all knew that why moderators kept us in dark? We as ordinary users how should react to these new changes on SE, are we somehow affected?
are our identities and location sold to third parties now?
Also moderators that suspend their activities commented or implied that they will come back, so what is the issue than?
We as the users are confused and would like to know more about the situation.<issue_comment>username_1: There seems to be a lot in your question. I will try my best to answer what I see, if I miss something, let me know ...
>
> What are implication for Academia SE users of recent licence changes and moderators disatisfaction and revolt?
>
>
>
The license was changed from CC 3.0 to CC 4.0. There are some immediate effects of that as the terms of the licenses are different. There is also the issue that SE has now set a precedent of retroactively re-licensing our content. This has raised the question of what prevents them in the future of attempting to re-licensing our content under a more restrictive license. The effect on Academia.SE users of the moderator dissatisfaction and revolt is pretty limited. We are still handling flags and user issues in a timely manner.
>
> Another one wrote A request for SE employees and CMs User Apparente was suspended That user was very nice and insightful, wonder what happened.
>
>
>
I requested something in that question for CMs. I doubt anything will come out of it. The linked user was not suspended on Academia.SE so there really is nothing anyone, but that user, can say.
>
> Everything I read it seems like moderators knew from the start of this year that something is going wrong, however they proceed with election for new moderators.
>
>
>
There are lots of things wrong, but I am confident that if we could go back to the beginning of the year, or even prior to the election scheduling, that few moderators would have predicted things going as poorly as they have. No one was trying to mislead anyone.
>
> When I asked one user why she didn't apply for a position, she told me that big troubles are coming, now I understand on what she implied, however, if you all knew that why moderators kept us in dark?
>
>
>
I have no idea what this user told you, but apart from things we are not allowed to tell you, we don't keep you in the dark. In general, the things we are not allowed to tell you are "relatively small" (like what an individual said or PII) or scheduled for a widespread announcement.
>
> We as ordinary users how should react to these new changes on SE, are we somehow affected?
>
>
>
I think each user needs to decide how they feel about the changed in the ToS regarding the right to sue, the ads and the fingerprinting associated with them, the re-licensing, and the public slandering of an SE user/moderator.
>
> are our identities and location sold to third parties now?
>
>
>
I am not aware of any public change to the policies regarding the use of our identities and location, but this is not something I have been following.
>
> Also moderators that suspend their activities commented or implied that they will come back, so what is the issue than?
>
>
>
I don't understand this question at all.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: The recent troublesome events have been extensively discussed on the main Meta, and I don't think there's anything significant we can add here.
>
> Everything I read it seems like moderators knew from the start of this year that something is going wrong, however they proceed with election for new moderators.
>
>
>
There was nothing wrong at the start of this year and the troublesome events took place when elections had already started. As a candidate, I was well aware of the ongoing discussion on the main Meta.
>
> if you all knew that why moderators kept us in dark?
>
>
>
I don't think anyone was "kept in the dark". During the election things were evolving and probably no one had a clear understanding of the ongoing events. Note also that people here participate with different levels of involvement. For many, events that are not specifically connected to asking and answering questions on this site are totally irrelevant. In other words, those who are interested in the meta-life of Stack Exchange may be a negligible minority.
>
> We as ordinary users how should react to these new changes on SE, are we somehow affected?
>
>
>
It's up to you: How do you consider your participation to Stack Exchange? How do you use it? How do you react to troublesome events in your life?
>
> are our identities and location sold to third parties now?
>
>
>
There's no reason whatsoever to think this.
>
> Also moderators that suspend their activities commented or implied that they will come back, so what is the issue than?
>
>
>
I don't understand this point. Suspending the moderation activity is a form of protest against certain actions from Stack Exchange, the company. Protestants may withdraw their action if the issues that led to the protest are resolved.
Upvotes: 2 |
2019/11/30 | 542 | 2,132 | <issue_start>username_0: I was just editing tags for a question with only the “untagged” tag, and I noticed that there doesn’t seem to be an “academic-writing” tag. Given that a number of our questions seem to be about the process and contents of academic writing, this seems to be an oversight; I’m wondering if it was deliberate, or if we should create an “academic-writing” tag to cover these sorts of questions.<issue_comment>username_1: It looks like there is a [writing](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/writing "show questions tagged 'writing'") tag already, with the description:
>
> Academic writing is intended for a critical and informed audience, based on closely investigated knowledge, and posits ideas or arguments.
>
>
>
Would "academic-writing" be a better name or synonym for this tag? Given the nature of the site, I'm inclined to think that the "academic" qualifier is implied. After all, questions about non-academic writing wouldn't be on-topic here.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: In addition to [username_1's answer](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4633/20058), there is also a [writing-style](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/writing-style "show questions tagged 'writing-style'") tag. I think that the two tags cover the range of questions we get here about academic writing.
We can maybe create the tag synonyms "academic-writing" and "academic-writing-style" (for symmetry). However, the [writing](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/writing "show questions tagged 'writing'") tag has already the synonym [scientific-writing](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/scientific-writing "show questions tagged 'scientific-writing'"). I'm not particularly keen on having a proliferation of tags, maybe it's better to rationalize a bit on this one.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Also on writing.SE, we handle writing questions, including academic ones, technical writing ones, and other non-fiction, so migrating to that site may be a useful option? (Not like Writing has any mods left, of course.)
Upvotes: 1 |
2020/01/01 | 1,974 | 7,336 | <issue_start>username_0: The question was closed. Currently, my closure reason comment has 25 upvotes. There are several bad answers. I cannot find any comments about reopening (too many to read them all carefully.) Why is the question open now?
[Why are female students evaluating my teaching worse than males?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/142194/why-are-female-students-evaluating-my-teaching-worse-than-males?noredirect=1#comment377757_142194)<issue_comment>username_1: Just answering the technical side of this: If you go to [the question’s edit history](https://academia.stackexchange.com/posts/142194/revisions), you can see that it was reopened shortly after being closed (and by whom).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: The question is open now because it was actually reopened by the votes of five users.
Once the question was reopened, since other comments were piling up, I deleted the few comments discussing closing and reopening because it seemed that there were no other objections (the fact it was New Year's Eve may be a reason, though). The deleted comments were:
* >
> I am genuinely curious. What is the purpose of closing? OP asks some
> useful questions that can potentially have good answers. Maybe others
> experienced a similar situation and can provide a general answer.
>
>
>
* >
> Voting to reopen. Even if there's not a simple, concrete answer, a
> good response could be something like how to go about a fact-finding
> mission. If this instructor wants help figuring out student feedback
> and improving their course to make a better environment for all of
> their students.. I mean, isn't that a really good sort of question?
>
>
>
* >
> Voting to reopen. Thanks for insights
>
>
>
I left your comment for the suggestion "Try asking your students", which may be valuable.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: ***tl;dr*–** The question was answerable because someone could post the information necessary to help the asker figure out what they were asking about. While this may've meant telling the asker that they had some investigation to do, that's perfectly fine – just like it's fine to give abstract answers on SE.Math or instructions on how to figure out a computer problem on SE.SuperUser.
---
Somewhat belated, but wanted to explain my reason for voting to reopen...
---
### Discussion: Good answers are maximally concrete, but sometimes that's still pretty abstract.
Hypothetically, say someone on SE.Math asks:
>
> If *x* + *y* = 2 and *x* = 1, what's *y*?
>
>
>
Then we'd tell them that *y* = 1.
But say someone asks:
>
> If *x* + *y* = 2, what's *y*?
>
>
>
Should we close their question for not having enough information? Or, is it okay to be abstract in saying that *y* = 2 - *x*?
I'd frame this as an issue of [folding](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fold_(higher-order_function)) [abstract syntax trees](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_syntax_tree). When we answer questions, we:
1. Parse the question.
2. Fold it as much as possible.
3. Post the result as an answer.
For example, when answering either SE.Math question, you'd probably arrive at the fact that *y* = 2 - *x*. However:
1. In the first case, you continue to find that *y* = 1 because you're able to.
2. In the second case, you stop and post *y* = 2 - *x* because that's as far as you can go.
Point being that questions are still answerable even if we don't have enough information to "*fully*" answer them.
---
### The SE.Academia question discussed in this SE.Academia.Meta question could be answered abstractly.
With respect to [this SE.Academia question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/142194/), it'd seem hard to give a concrete answer (like *y* = 1) to why the asker's female students gave them lower scores than their male students.
Still, it seems like we could answer it.
I'd suggest something like this:
1. Put yourself in the asker's shoes.
2. Imagine how you'd find the answer to this problem.
3. Fold it as far as possible.
4. Post the answer.
Of course, there'd be a lot of ways that you could, in theory, find an answer to the question.
For example, one possible answer might be:
1. Invent a time machine.
2. Go forward into the future to where there's thought-reading technology.
3. Bring that technology back to the present.
4. Use it to figure out what the students' reasonings were.
That'd be sorta like telling the SE.Math person that they should get a quantum-computer to find an approximate solution for *y*. Which, obviously, would be a bad answer despite technical correctness.
Instead, good abstract answers ought to be reasonably implementable. For example, a good answer might:
1. Present the space of likely explanations based on published researched or/and personal experience.
2. Suggest a practical methodology for narrowing down the presented possibilities to as few as possible (ideally one).
For example, a good answer might be like:
>
> Studies have shown that, when there's a gender disparity in student feedback, it's likely due to one of the following reasons:
>
>
> 1. Teaching style appealed more to one gender than the other.
> 2. Subject was more interesting to one gender than the other.
> 3. Students perceived instructor as having been sexist.
>
>
> In order to determine which of these common explanations may be applicable to your case, you should:
>
>
> 1. Perform [this inventory](https://academia.stackexchange.com/) to determine if your teaching style has a gender bias.
> 2. Check [this table](https://academia.stackexchange.com/) for gender preference statistics on your field, and then [this correlation](https://academia.stackexchange.com/) to estimate the expected effect on student feedback.
> 3. Consult with your TA's to get their opinions on if perceived sexism may've been an issue.
>
>
>
Of course, if the asker had included more information, e.g.
1. a detailed description of their teaching style;
2. a full description of their subject and course content;
3. feedback from their TA's on if there may've been perceived sexism;
then instead of posting the more abstract answer, we could fold it into a more concrete conclusion.
The point's just that we don't need to simply say something like
>
> Your female students were more bored by the subject matter than your male students.
>
>
>
if we don't actually know that to be the case.
---
### Conclusion: The question was answerable, even if not concretely.
In short, while there may not have been enough information to precisely explain the gender disparity that the asker saw in their student evaluations, a good answer wouldn't need to provide such a concrete answer any more than a good SE.Math answer would need to provide a specific number.
Instead, it's okay to give an asker a framework that they can use to find their concrete answer. For example:
1. If someone's asking for a solution to a math problem, it's okay to give an algebraic response instead of a number.
2. If someone's asking how to fix their computer, it's okay to give them instructions on how to diagnose the problem before actually telling them how to fix it.
3. If someone's asking about how to interpret student feedback, it's okay to give them instructions on how to go about examining that feedback.
Upvotes: 2 |
2020/01/16 | 2,077 | 8,510 | <issue_start>username_0: I have decided that I can no longer contribute my efforts to Stack Exchange and therefore I am stepping down as a moderator and planning on leaving the community. I will not be deleting my accounts or content, but I will not be actively participating. I have been thinking about this for a while and it is not related to any single event. Our community is welcoming and supportive. The SE Community Managers, past and present, are both knowledgeable and professional, but more importantly, they represent the community spirit that made SE great; they are amongst the greatest assets of SE.
When I ran to be a moderator [I said](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1009/929):
>
> My personal opinion is that the community opinion rules, so it will be difficult for me to be in disagreement with the community. I like to think that the SE policy is that the community opinion rules. If the community opinion is so against the SE opinion, the SE team has moderators who can handle it. If the SE team really pisses our community off, I would go to bat for our community in private (e.g., in the mod only teacher's lounge) and in our public chat and meta.
>
>
>
Over the past few months, it has become clear that my views of our community now disagree with SE policy. I have gone to bat for us, and I have been unsuccessful. I am no longer an effective agent for advancing our community goals, I have simply been biding my time until SE did something so horrendous that I felt no choice but to leaving. That is not a fair way to represent you, so I am stepping aside in the hopes that others can be more successful.
When I joined Stack Exchange 8 years ago, it was an awesome community that had awesome support from the company. They not only provided the servers, they had developers actively working to make the experience better and employees whose jobs were to build the community. Even before it was trendy, they cared about user privacy and the rights of our contributions.
Over time, SE became an awesome community with just enough support to keep the whole thing from imploding. At first it was simply that the support from the company did not keep up with the growth in the communities. Then SE started cutting support and diverting resources.
A year ago, SE began to transform into an awesome community where SE keeps the lights on and was not negatively interfering with communities. The core values of the company began to shift and outwardly it seems building strong communities was no longer the focus, making money was. Of course companies have to make money, but it made me uncomfortable contributing to SE if they were going to sacrifice their core principals to make a buck.
Most recently SE has become an awesome community despite the interference of the management. Volunteer moderators and community members are being asked to implement policies that SE thinks are right for us. They are not acting on our feedback or telling us why they are making the decisions they are. They are the boss, they have that right. What they do not have the right to do is act like the boss and then say the community is ["*built and run by you [users]*"](https://academia.stackexchange.com/tour).
In the 5+ years that I have been a moderator, I have learned so much. I thank you all for working with me. For those that I disappointed with my actions and in-actions, I wish I had more time to show you through my actions that I have taken your criticism to heart and have learned from it. Alas, all I can leave you with is empty words that I am sorry that I was not better.<issue_comment>username_1: >
> The core values of the company began to shift and outwardly it seems building strong communities was no longer the focus, making money was.
>
>
>
I'm confused about why you think this. The company was definitely founded to make money from the start. The initial focus on community was a step towards that. What is amazing here is that it was such a long-term strategy.
I do not see why you should expect a company to put anything ahead of profits. There are exceptions (social enterprises) but I never saw any signs Stack Exchange was an exception.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: **Thank you for your service!**
-------------------------------
We will miss you and your contributions as user and moderator. They were always excellent. The site will not be the same without you. All the best!
(I could try to write a long essay, but I don't think I could find the right words, so I will stop here.)
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: To a significant amount of researchers out there, life in academia is rough, even brutal and toxic. Poor students have their lives, hopes and dreams sucked out of their bodies, for the sake of production, of science, of progress, breaking the shackles of ignorance for the good of mankind. It is a heavy burden, sometimes too heavy.
*Wir müssen wissen, wir werden wissen!*
Most of the time, at a high price. We get stressed. We get lost. Sometimes, we cry for help in the hopes some blessed soul will lend a hand. It happens, thankfully. But some cries, most of them surely, go unnoticed. Students suffer to reach deadlines, to get papers accepted in conferences and journals, to get a good insight, to come up with innovation, to make a difference. They struggle so hard to not fall apart, to not break into pieces. It is common to hear *"Where's the revised version of your paper?"* instead *"What was the last time you ate? Are you hungry?"*. We want to harvest knowledge at the expense of the well being of students.
When in despair, where to go, where to find a escape valve?
I do believe one of the answers to this question is [this very website](https://academia.stackexchange.com/). You all bring hope to poor students that are struggling with their academic lives, providing technical advices and guidances without, however, losing the kindness needed to address such themes in a humanized way.
*And that is where you, Dr. StrongBad, really shines.* `:)`
We know each other from the TeX community. Sometimes, we have a nice conversation in the chat room. Speaking of which, the vast majority of the chat residents has a doctorate degree. These people are experts in their fields, work in renowed universities. But, when hanging out in there, we never cared about our OrcID profiles, our titles, our h-indices or any of this academic balderdash. We are just a bunch of wacky people having legimitate fun, helping and instructing each other the best we could.
Your work in this community reflects the exact same ideal we all hold dear. You are a superb moderator and you will surely be missed in this community, as well as in the TeX corner. I completely understand the motivations for your resignation, and I share your concerns with the future of SE/SO as well.
Thank you very much for making academic life a better, less frustrating experience for most researchers, scholars, lecturers and students out there! Kudos to you and to all the moderators in this website!
A great hug from the TeX community! Quack! `:)`
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: Maybe you'd reconsider. The only way this place can get better is if the people who care enough to contribute stay around and keep at it.
I hope it isn't just general burnout though. For that, a break might be enough.
---
Since this is the academia forum, let me add that the administration of universities also do some stupid and terrible things on occasion. But few faculty leave in protest. Many of us have experienced such things, I guess. The situation isn't exactly the same, since giving up volunteer work isn't the same as giving up a job. But, still, it is the ones that stay that have a chance to make a change.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: I'm adding an answer to point out the last interaction here, in case you missed it; it is now buried in the edit history. On April 2, @Wrzlprmft added the tag [status-review](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/status-review "show questions tagged 'status-review'") to this question, which (after a recent change) is the preferred way to [ask for SE staff attention on important posts in metas](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/345032/community-and-moderator-guidelines-for-escalating-issues-via-new-response-proces?cb=1). One week after, SE employee @JNat silently removed the tag without addressing the issue and without an edit comment.
Upvotes: -1 |
2020/01/30 | 1,370 | 5,578 | <issue_start>username_0: The question [How to answer the diversity question during faculty interview](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/143541/73) has attracted a few answers, but [one in particular](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/143572/73) stands out as being both rather non-politically correct and also quite accurate. I'm curious if/how the community wishes to deal with this particular. It's already had a few flags raised (rude/abusive, not an answer). I'll post my own thoughts in an answer below.<issue_comment>username_1: The answer is honestly quite accurate, but uses unnecessarily opinionated language. I would prefer if the answer would be simply factual, possibly as follows:
>
> This question has only one correct answer, unfortunately. Providing anything other than a positive "I support diversity through " is likely to significantly harm your application.
>
>
>
The above says the same thing as the current answer but without the attitude.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: At the moment I'm writing this, it is the highest voted answer. To me, that's the community's answer.
Deciding what to do about it in meta, is not what "the community wants" but rather what a the much smaller group who frequents meta wants.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: The answer is actually not an answer to the question. The question asks about what to say in response to the interview question. It specifically says "Which aspects [do] I need to cover to delivering a winning answer?"
The answer does not address that issue at all. It presumes the questioner is really asking about whether diversity is 'valid", and merely provides political commentary on whether they should go along with it or not.
We respond to this by downvoting. Also by upvoting the much better answers that there are to the question.
Let us also take not of the fact that writing this answer is the user's ONLY activity on Academia. It's a drive-by answer.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: The OP's post talks about "how" questions posed in the interview. "How" do you support X. That implies that the decision is already been made that X should be supported.
In that sense, the controversial answer and username_1's suggested version are both not really answers to the "how", or to the "what aspects" questions of the OP.
That doesn't make paulj's answer untrue; it *is* a political issue. Society put a political question to the university ("what are you going to do about diversity"). Whatever response the university gives is political. To do something about diversity is political; to not do something is also political.
I think that with cag51's edits that removed some incendiary language, the answer as it stands now represents a reasonable perspective. (Even if I don't really agree with the undertone.)
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: I think it's likely that the voting on this particular Q&A has been tilted by exposure to the Hot Network Questions, and the answer is by someone who hasn't participated on Academia.SE before. I have a bit of doubt that the answer is supported by any particular experience of the answerer, and instead is based on their biased view of what academia is and what academic hires involve.
It really seems like "HNQ bait" to me, rather than an answer meant to be helpful to the OP. I think it distracts from other answers that help OP to understand what is meant by these sorts of questions.
That said, I think it's difficult to moderate this sort of answer. I've downvoted it, and upvoted the other answers I think are actually helpful. I think that's all we can really do.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_6: Why are you so sure it's correct? Does the answerer provide any data suggesting that people who have a poor answer to such questions don't get hired? Have they sat on a search committee that eliminated a candidate based on this factor? This is anecdotal at best, and wrong at worst.
Then again, I suppose "I have no commitment to promoting diversity, and my actions will be counter to such efforts" would be a fine reason to not hire someone onto a campus committed to a diverse student body. I'm curious about whether "I haven't considered diversity issues" would eliminate a candidate, but until the answerer can provide some background establishing credibility, I have no reason to believe that the answerer has any more insight that I might.
Note that in the sense that the answer does not answer the asker's question, it's not a real answer. It's a rant.
In any case, I suggest it doesn't meet the "be nice" standard, as there are much less offensive ways to say the same thing, and the answerer hasn't even tried to phrase this nicely. I don't care if I'm personally offended, but there is a community standard, in writing. I may or may not agree with it, but via my participation, I signed on to it, and if I didn't want to adhere to that standard, I would stop participating.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_7: Imagine an answer to an analogous question on Workplace SE saying that if you attack the hiring manager's priorities or you criticize the stated organizational goals, you won't get the job. Well, duh. Why should they hire someone contemptuous of what they're trying to accomplish?
I'm pretty sure such an answer wouldn't do very well on Workplace SE. The difference here is that a lot more people think their uninformed opinions about academia are worth something. Also, the answer score may have been affected by the users that drift in from the HNQ. Just downvote.
Upvotes: 2 |
2020/03/10 | 1,592 | 6,447 | <issue_start>username_0: Many of the [citation-style](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/citation-style "show questions tagged 'citation-style'") questions, some of which are erroneously tagged [citations](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/citations "show questions tagged 'citations'"), show little or no research effort and can be answered by consulting the appropriate style guide. Some recent examples:
* [Bibliography format with multiple citations from same book? (APA)](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/144718/43873)
* [In APA, how would one cite the same source repeatedly with differing page numbers?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/143118/43873)
* [How to format the in-text citation of a Book's title, its authors, and its publication year?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/145136/43873)
* [Sorting Title of APA style reference](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/145216/43873)
* [How do I cite an article with no page numbers and only a DOI number (APA format)?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/144170/43873)
I would love to be able to flag these for closing for lack of research, but Academia.SE doesn't have this close reason. English.SE has the following close reason:
>
> Please include the [research](https://english.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5039) you’ve done, or consider if your question suits our [English Language Learners](https://ell.stackexchange.com/) site better. Questions that can be answered using [commonly-available references](https://english.meta.stackexchange.com/q/2573) are off-topic.
>
>
>
Would it be useful to have a "What research have you done?" type of close reason on Academia.SE, with a link to a meta Q&A that explains the level of research expected?<issue_comment>username_1: ### Summary
The ease of research is easily underestimated and we can produce valuable answers to such questions.
Therefore, we should not have a close reason or general policy to close such questions.
Instead, we can use existing mechanisms to deal with these questions: comment, downvote, and (in extreme cases) close as unclear.
### Canned Close Reasons
We can only have three custom close reasons.
Since the proposed close reason would be needed much less frequently than the existing ones (shopping, individual factors, generic off-scope), I would not touch this.
That being said, the canned close reasons exist to ease reviewing and provide more information for askers than the usual comments would.
They do not limit what we can close:
We can close questions for something other than a canned reason, in particular if we agree on this on Meta.
So, for the remainder of my answer I will be addressing the question:
### Do we want to close citation-style questions that do not show prior research?
In general, prior research is not a strict requirement for Stack Exchange questions anymore.
Stack Exchange aims to be the thing that you find when you search the Internet for certain questions.
Still, single sites can decide that they do not want certain types of questions without evidence of prior research.
To take the example you mention, on language sites (like English Language & Usage or German Language, which I moderate), the asker has to argue why a dictionary did not help (in most cases).
This is not because we want evidence that the asker consulted a dictionary (they usually have); this is because we cannot give them a helpful answer without knowing why the dictionary did not.
Otherwise we can only create or cite a dictionary entry, which is pointless:
Dictionaries already exist and do a far better job at it than Stack Exchange sites.
Finally note that bad questions that can be answered by a dictionary are a major problem on language sites.
I do not think this translates to questions about applying citation style guides:
* It is a real no-brainer to find something in a dictionary, in particular a digital one. Finding something in a style guide is far more difficult. You may still consider it easy, but then you probably know the relevant keywords, etc.
* A concise summary or application of a style guide to a specific case makes the Internet a better place as it allows people to get the desired information quicker than otherwise. Replicating a dictionary entry doesn’t.
* We are not overrun by citation-style questions, let alone those without prior research. In fact roughly half of the questions you cite at least mention some prior research (though it could be more detailed).
Finally, there is a meta reason to avoid this kind of closure: It will be misunderstood and abused by some close voters (which happens frequently on language sites). For most questions on this site, it does not make sense to require of prior research.
### What can we do instead?
* Downvote. That a question that could be easily answered by a quick look in the pertinent style guide is a valid reason.
* Leave a comment asking the asker to edit their question to elaborate why their research did not help them. Keep in mind and mention that this is to better understand their problem and thus be able to better help them.
* In extreme cases, e.g., where the asker already provides a quote from the style guide that appears to answer their question: Close the question as unclear.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Let me give a less "formal" answer than [username_1's one](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4670/20058).
In my experience, style guides are seldom complete, and are frequently of not-so-easy interpretation, especially for novices. I saw people advocating the closure of questions about style by saying "read the style guide!", when the style guide doesn't even exist, or is either incomplete or seldom respected by the journals that should adopt it (along the years, I had a few fights with copy-editors who, in the first turn of proofs, made changes which were against their own journal style guide).
>
> I would love to be able to flag these for closing for lack of research, but Academia.SE doesn't have this close reason.
>
>
>
What you would love, in view of the above, would be a very bad idea for this community, leading to its impoverishment. A lot of us have spent many years reading style guides, interpreting their nuances, and seeing them applied by the copy editors: I think we should be willing to share this knowledge, without the constraints of a bureaucratic close reason.
Upvotes: 2 |
2020/03/11 | 791 | 2,541 | <issue_start>username_0: I don't know how much help I can be, but I've created a [chat room](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/105448/online-learning-chat) where people who suddenly find themselves in a situation where they have to entirely change their teaching toolset in the next few weeks can post resources, or at the very least, collectively whine.
I suppose this meta-thread can also serve as an exchange of sorts, if no one objects.<issue_comment>username_1: This is a good idea. I was also wondering about this in regards to software shopping questions. We've had at least three recently:
[Creating a secure test environment for a lab practical](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/145321/creating-a-secure-test-environment-for-a-lab-practical)
[Alternatives to big-name proprietary remote-lecturing tools](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/145280/alternatives-to-big-name-proprietary-remote-lecturing-tools)
[Software to live-stream presentations](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/145222/software-to-live-stream-presentations)
Two of which are closed, and one which I expect will be. But at the same time, this seems like a reasonable site to come to in order to find this sort of information. Should we direct these sorts of questions to the chat?
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I created [a Meta post](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4680/7734) to welcome and guide people visiting our site for this particular reason, collecting relevant questions and giving instructions for new questions. Please contribute, in particular by collecting relevant questions.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: A few other groups are also busy in this field and open to participation:
* [EFF](https://www.eff.org/issues/covid-19)
* [FSFE](https://wiki.fsfe.org/action/edit/Activities/FreeSoftware4RemoteWorking)
* [FSF](https://libreplanet.org/wiki/Remote_Communication)
* [IFLA](https://www.ifla.org/covid-19-and-libraries)
* [NOYB](https://noyb.eu/en/interrupted-transmission)
* [SFC](https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2020/mar/17/remotetools/)
In other languages:
* [Chapril](https://www.chapril.org/-services-.html)
* [Continuité Pédagogique](https://www.continuitepedagogique.org/)
* [Framasoft](https://framablog.org/2020/04/04/pour-un-plan-national-pour-la-culture-ouverte-leducation-ouverte-et-la-sante-ouverte/)
* [iorestoacasa.work](https://iorestoacasa.work/)
* [Italian Wikibooks](https://it.wikibooks.org/wiki/Software_libero_a_scuola/Solidariet%C3%A0_digitale)
Upvotes: 0 |
2020/03/11 | 3,197 | 13,283 | <issue_start>username_0: I posted the gist of this as an answer to the meta thread on faculty support during the corona virus, but it was suggested that it might make sense as its own question. **What questions should be closed as “shopping”?**
* Here’s the [meta thread from 2017](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3657/why-was-my-question-put-on-hold-for-shopping) that the documentation links to. The points of interest contain “a commercial online service”, [linking to another discussion](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4062/what-to-do-with-questions-asking-to-evaluate-commercial-online-services) on that specifically.
* Here’s an older [discussion from 2015](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1902/shopping-questions-revisited)
* And [another from 2015](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2038/defining-shopping-questions)
And then we have current posts where people are asking for lists of software that can be used to teach remotely, in light of the corona-virus closures. Here are three:
* [Creating a secure test environment for a programming lab practical](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/145321/creating-a-secure-test-environment-for-a-lab-practical)
* [Alternatives to big-name proprietary remote-lecturing tools](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/145280/alternatives-to-big-name-proprietary-remote-lecturing-tools)
* [Software to live-stream presentations](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/145222/software-to-live-stream-presentations)
Two of these are closed, and the other has a close vote. These have been very slow to earn closure votes, with the still open one sitting at one vote for several days, which suggests a lot of the people who spend time in the review queues don’t see them as closure-worthy. But at the same time, the language on commercial software seems to directly relate. There are two related questions here:
1. It seems to me, when I read our official documentation, that these count as shopping questions. Is there another interpretation I’m missing?
2. Should we be closing these sorts of questions (if not off scope for another reason)? If not, does it require a change to the language in the rules?<issue_comment>username_1: As you say, two of these questions are closed. The third seems like it might be salvageable: the title text ([Creating a secure test environment for a lab practical](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/145321/creating-a-secure-test-environment-for-a-lab-practical)) does not ask for a specific "shopping" recommendation, but the second paragraph does seem like it is asking for either a software solution (which is shopping) or technical help (which is off-topic). Perhaps someone will edit it, or perhaps it will be closed, but it seems like things are generally working as they should.
>
> These have been very slow to earn closure votes, with the still open one sitting at one vote for several days, which suggests a lot of the people who spend time in the review queues don't see them as closure-worthy.
>
>
>
One possibility is that users found the resource requests useful/interesting even if they are technically off-topic, and so chose to "skip" voting on the question. Perhaps the recently-created [chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/105448/online-learning-chat) will fill this need.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Status Quo
==========
There has never been a clear consensus whether shopping questions extend to software.
Hence it is missing from [the shopping FAQ](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3657/why-was-my-question-put-on-hold-for-shopping).
Having a policy for this is long overdue.
I suggest:
Suggested Policy
================
1. Do not close questions on how to solve a practical problem that is specific to academia or teaching. If the answer is to use a software (commercial or not) with certain features, that’s okay. Such a software can be explicitly named, but a good answer provides a list of alternatives (should they exist). It is even okay to ask such a question if the answer is most likely a software.
2. Do not close questions that seek recommendations of software for purposes that are specific to academia or teaching, for example software for managing grades, courses, citations. However, such questions must adhere to [these established rules](https://softwarerecs.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic) from Software Recommendations SE.
3. Close questions that seek recommendation of software that has a more general target audience, e.g., software for general video broadcasting or collaborative editing. These are best asked on [Software Recommendations SE](https://softwarerecs.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic). Very roughly speaking, telling people to use a software for collaborative editing is within our expertise and scope; telling them which collaborative-editing software is best is not (when they already know that they want a collaborative editing software, and have no further academia-specific needs).
4. If possible, edit questions to those described in Point 1, i.e., asking how to solve a problem. This even applies to questions as described in Point 2.
### Rationale
There are two purposes of closing questions (that are relevant here):
* Avoid questions that we cannot answer or whose answers we cannot reasonably evaluate.
The proposed policy limits questions to those which really need the expertise of academics (as opposed to general software specialists), so this is fulfilled.
* Avoid questions that are not well suited for the Stack Exchange format in general, e.g., due to having no objective best answer.
This is why we close questions shopping for journals, universities, fields, and similar.
The existence of Software Recommendations SE shows that such questions can work – if they adhere to strict guidelines on the specifics of the software.
Such questions are not anymore about “What is the best citation software in general?” but “What citation software fulfils fulfils my specific requirements?”.
In contrast to questions shopping for journals or universities:
+ these requirements can actually be described within the scope of a question
+ there is little risk of the typical bad answers to shopping questions (e.g., from people blindly championing their field, university, etc.),
+ we are not giving anybody the illusion that we can reasonably make a life decision for them.
### Your Examples
* [Creating a secure test environment for a programming lab practical](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/145321/7734) should not be closed as per Point 1: The question is asking for solving a specific problem, not necessarily with software. For example, a valid answer to this question could also be that it is inherently impossible to achieve the desired behaviour.
* [Alternatives to big-name proprietary remote-lecturing tools](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/145280/7734) and [Software to live-stream presentations](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/145222/7734) fall under Point 2, though they seem duplicates of each other.
Point 4 avoids unnecessary closures, [XY problems](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_problem) and the resulting comment explosions, and focuses questions on our main area of expertise.
### “I agree with everything but Point 2”
Please feel free to suggest the respective alternative as a separate answer, so it can be voted upon.
You can either copy my policy and modify the respective part or write something like “username_2’s answer, except Point 2”.
Ideally provide a rationale.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: (Disclaimer: I am the author of [Alternatives to big-name proprietary remote-lecturing tools](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/145280/alternatives-to-big-name-proprietary-remote-lecturing-tools) )
First of all: we make the rules
-------------------------------
We are free to consider on-topic whichever questions we deem answerable or useful to academics. The fact that "no shopping questions" is a thing, in general, should not prevent us from accepting these questions. If we believe they are good ones, we can make an exception or modify the scope of the "shopping" definition.
Are these useful questions for academics? In my view, **yes**. Using software to teach, do research and write papers is a part of our work. These questions are intrinsically more answerable than university-shopping or conference-shopping questions.
Softwarerecs.se is a bad idea for specialized needs
---------------------------------------------------
I have already it written several times in comments, but I believe [softwarerecs.se] is a bad idea. **Suppose you need to find a good linear algebra book; would you ask a linear algebra expert, or a "book expert"?** Questions on the software needs of academics are much more likely to receive a useful answer from the audience of our site than from the audience of softwarerecs.se.
We people who use conferencing software for teaching have different needs than the other users in industry. For instance, I imagine that typically people in industry do not have a video-conference with one person speaking most of the time and 200 other passive users who are mostly listening and should not have their mics on all the time. They (often) do not need to share and record written notes, or to reproduce complicated mathematical formulas in chat.
To sum up, I think that **this is the right site for this kind of questions**, and that **we should amend the definition of "shopping question" to make them on-topic** if they are not on topic already.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: Suggested Policy: Close questions that seek recommendations for software for teaching purposes, for example software for managing grades, courses, lectures, and citations.
Rationale: These questions are **uninteresting** to site users. Most of them will also be opinion-based, as the different software companies have mostly copied each other's features. Most people only have experience with their own institution's software licenses, so for proprietary software few people will have broad experience to inform their opinions.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_5: I would like to focus on 2 out of the 3 debated questions, as I believe that 2 of them fall into the same category: "Software to live-stream presentations" and "Creating a secure test environment for a programming lab practical". The first, I voted to close as shopping question and the second I voted to leave open.
The guiding principle for me is what would constitute the accepted answer.
I think that the same rationale would also apply for the highest upvoted answer, but first for reasons of brevity and second, because we are talking about the closing of a question, it seems closer related to the OP than the upvotes, I base the following discussion on the accepted answer.
The first question asks for software recommendations for streaming presentations in an academic environment. Framed as such, natural answers would entail what the posters' experiences with such tools were in the past (e.g. Skype, Slack, Teams, ...). Suppose now it attracts three answers, each listing three suggestions with the rationale why the tool did work for the poster (i.e. we are looking at "complete" answers of similar quality). What would the criteria be for OP to accept the answer? What he likes best? What he ends up using? The first answer? In my opinion this ceases to be Q&A and becomes a forum post all inclusive with extensive chat-like commenting. Members of the community will tend to upvote based on their preferences and perhaps even downvote based on their bad experiences with the tools, again, because there is no other inherent quality that might differentiate the answers. Further, what would be the benefit for a prospective reader? Plagued with the same question, happy to have found it already answered, how would he interpret the answers? Simply put, such questions merit a discussion and lists of preferences. I guess that it also could be construed as opinion-based under circumstances, but either way, closing material.
Further, this is the epitome of "boat programming" question. I.e.: "As an academic, what tools should I use for live-stream presentations in order to facilitate lectures, office hours and exams?". The same tools are used in industry, family meetings, online role-playing games, etc. for a reason: the use cases are the same (need to communicate with a group, possibly with video support, share documents, present, etc.). So, the fact that the tool is for academia makes it in no way different or more special.
As for the second question, although it could be seen as a shopping question, there is a another question, more relevant to Academia SE, underneath: how do we secure the integrity of exams that are forced to be conducted remotely. A serious question which warrants serious consideration and quality of answers, which would also be applicable to other readers. This is also a good example, as one can compare the answers in both questions. So, at worst, this question needs some editing for clarification, but I wouldn't consider it a shopping question.
Upvotes: 2 |
2020/03/12 | 3,785 | 12,414 | <issue_start>username_0: The current COVID-19 crisis impacts academia in several ways: teaching and exams are moved online, conferences are cancelled, travel is restricted, etc.
If you are here because of this, here is a brief introduction to our site and resources that may help you.
### Finding existing questions
We have the tag [covid-19](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/covid-19 "show questions tagged 'covid-19'") for questions specific about the Corona crisis, but older questions about [online-learning](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/online-learning "show questions tagged 'online-learning'") and similar may apply here as well. We maintain collections of questions and external resources sorted by topic:
* [remote teaching, learning, and exams](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4681)
* [conferences](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4682)
* [other](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4683)
### New questions
If you have a question that is not covered by this, please [ask it](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/ask/).
Please ensure that your question is focused and clearly states which information you need.
Be aware that the following questions are not suited for our site:
* Scientific questions on immunology and epidemiology can be asked on [Medical Sciences](https://medicalsciences.stackexchange.com/) or [Biology](https://biology.stackexchange.com/).
* General travelling questions can be asked on [Travel](https://travel.stackexchange.com/) or [Expatriates](https://expatriates.stackexchange.com/).
* [Math Educators SE](https://matheducators.stackexchange.com/) and [Computer-Science Educators](https://cseducators.stackexchange.com/) may help you with questions that are specific to teaching in those fields or that are about teaching outside of academia (e.g., at high schools).
* Questions on the regulations of individual institutions can only be answered by those institutions and may be quickly outdated in light of the crisis. Please see [this FAQ](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3406) for more information.
* Questions whose answers will be mostly based on speculation about upcoming political and administrative decisions and the further development of the crisis [are not suited for this site](https://academia.stackexchange.com/help/dont-ask) (and you won’t get good answers anywhere).
### Chatroom
We also have a [chatroom for online learning](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/105448/online-learning-chat) and [our general chatroom](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/2496/the-ivory-tower) where you may find informal help.
However, to talk there, [you need 20 reputation on the site first](https://academia.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/chat).
### Contribute
If you can, **please contribute**, in particular by curating the lists of relevant questions.
If you find any question that should be referenced here but isn’t, please add it.
You can also link relevant resources on other Stack Exchange sites or the Internet in general, but please mark them by stating where they point.
If you can provide better or complementary answers to some of the relevant questions, this is also very welcome.
You can propose other things we can do as a community [here](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4673/7734).<issue_comment>username_1: Remote teaching, studying, and exams
====================================
### General and Other
* [Tips for transition to online classrooms given university shutdowns in response to COVID-19](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/145370)
* [How to get students to use the course forum?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/83224)
* [What makes an online course a valuable learning experience for a student?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/49881)
* [How much work is preparing a MOOC-ish course](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/54275)
* [How should faculty implement STEM classes that require hands-on lab experience in online learning platforms given COVID-19 pandemic?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/145732)
* [How shall we teach math online?](https://matheducators.stackexchange.com/q/18031/75) (Math Educators SE)
* [Tools for running classes remotely](https://cseducators.stackexchange.com/q/6236/25) (Computer-Science Educators SE)
* [Please do a bad job of putting your courses online](https://anygoodthing.com/2020/03/12/please-do-a-bad-job-of-putting-your-courses-online/) (blog post about time investment and differences between emergency online teaching and regular one; somewhat US-specific)
* [Advice to those about to teach online because of the corona-virus](https://www.tonybates.ca/2020/03/09/advice-to-those-about-to-teach-online-because-of-the-corona-virus/) (Tony Bates)
* [Online Teaching with the most basic of tools – email](https://homonym.ca/published/online-teaching-with-the-most-basic-of-tools-email/) (Homonym)
* [So You Want to Temporarily Teach Online](https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2020/03/11/practical-advice-instructors-faced-abrupt-move-online-teaching-opinion) (Inside Higher Ed)
* [What Teachers in China Have Learned in the Past Month](https://www.edutopia.org/article/what-teachers-china-have-learned-past-month) (Edutopia)
### Other Collections (all external)
* [Educause](https://library.educause.edu/topics/information-technology-management-and-leadership/covid19)
* [Distance Design Education](https://distancedesigneducation.wordpress.com/) (blog dedicated to the eponymous topic, but with broader applicability)
### Exams, Exercises, and other Evaluation
* [What methods can be used in online exams to genuinely test the students' knowledge and capabilities?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/145494)
* [How to detect cheating when students take online quizzes or exams from home?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/145102)
* [Can online recording of work area at home be made a mandatory criterion for passing exams midway through a course?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/147884)
* [Creating a secure test environment for a programming lab practical](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/145321)
* [YouTube video assignments?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/145362)
* [Online tool for receiving student files](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/16250)
* [How is a Coursera exam typically conducted?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/3611)
* [Are online exam proctoring services efficient and trustworthy?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/114001)
* [Should a professor give students a take-home exam when the answers might be available online?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/79083)
* [Other students can easily cheat on a test and the grading system is relative – should I cheat and what else can I do?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/147978)
* [How to prevent cheating on take-home exams](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/38073)
* [Fellow student asked question from take-home exam on Stack Exchange](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/102064)
* [How to design online tests and prevent cheating?](https://cseducators.stackexchange.com/q/6231/25) (Computer-Science Educators SE)
* [What evaluation methods can be used that don't involve testing but are adaptable to online courses](https://cseducators.stackexchange.com/q/6234/25) (Computer-Science Educators SE)
### Lectures and interactions
* [Alternatives to big-name proprietary remote-lecturing tools](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/145280)
* [Software to live-stream presentations](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/145222)
* [How do you record your lectures?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/10214)
* [How to create PDF of slides with audio?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/2862)
* [Etiquette or useful guidelines while making video lectures](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/13875)
* [How important is seeing the face of the instructor?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/61282)
* [Is there any system that enables online office hours?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/42639)
* [How much effort does it take to record video courses?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/9221)
* [Using Discord to support online teaching](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/145389)
* [My professor is not teaching his online course himself, but uses publicly available videos instead. Is this appropriate?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/145820)
* [Online Whiteboard Application with Simple Latex Support](https://matheducators.stackexchange.com/q/18030/75) (Math Educators SE)
### Course Design and Material
* [Online vs hard copy, which texts are students more likely to read?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/107721)
* [Are there any legal issues in having someone's book as the basis and as a textbook for an online course?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/14257)
* [Digital media rights for online courses (US)](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/56906)
* [Can you describe a required online science course that used discussion well?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/19944)
* [How to read a textbook for distance learning coursework - do I need to work on fact recall, or is understanding enough?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/7514)
### Humour
* [<NAME>
– I will survive (teaching online)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCe5PaeAeew) (YouTube)
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_1: Conferences
===========
* [How to deal with the COVID-19 outbreak while organizing a conference?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/145068)
* [Can I put an invited talk on my CV if the conference was canceled?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/145328)
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_1: Other questions and resources pertaining to the COVID-19 crisis
===============================================================
### Publications
* [In this time of crisis, would the journals Nature and Science prioritize papers about COVID-19?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/145243)
* [Has the rate of papers uploaded to arXiv changed due to Covid-19?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/145583)
* [How does the COVID-19 crisis affect durations of peer review and editorial handling?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/145539)
* [Acknowledging local government for quarantine measures](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/145638)
### Remote collaborations, job interviews, etc.
* [What are useful tips and tricks for collaborating remotely?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/2071)
* [How could one prepare for a telecon interview for a government lab?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/36886)
* [Advice/guidance when interviewing for a faculty or postdoc job via Skype or phone?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/1137)
* [What kind of video conference software do academics use?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/43940)
* [How to present a paper via skype?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/64873)
* [Evaluation criteria for 3-minute teaching demonstration over Skype?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/101890)
* [Coronavirus, school lockdown and future uncertainty](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/145238)
* [Asking for status of faculty position search during coronavirus pandemic](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/145516)
* [How can I best adapt my seminar slides for a virtual presentation?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/145877)
* [A few simple tips for better online meetings (COVID-19 edition)](https://www.media.mit.edu/posts/a-few-simple-tips-for-better-online-meetings-covid-19-edition/) (MIT Media Lab)
### Employment and Applications
* [Postdoc position "on hold" due to covid-19](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/145653)
* [academic job offers during Coronavirus](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/145566)
* [Who might lose a job in academia due to covid19?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/145962)
* [Can I still ask my prospective advisor (guide) for a confirmation letter in the middle of Covid-19](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/145807)
* [Can PhD programs rescind their PhD offers from this cycle due to COVID-19?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/145677)
### Working from home or without direct contact
* [Working from home tips from our experienced remote employees](https://stackoverflow.blog/2020/03/12/working-from-home-tips-from-our-experienced-remote-employees) (Stack Overflow Blog)
Upvotes: 4 |
2020/03/24 | 1,502 | 5,732 | <issue_start>username_0: A low reputation user posted a very short answer. The answer had a net 13 upvotes. A moderator deleted the answer giving the reason that "It adds nothing whatsoever to the earlier answers and has no lasting value. Moreover it mocks the asker."
Votes indicate the first reason is wrong - it was a high quality answer. The accusation of mocking was completely baseless. I would like the moderator to apologize to the answerer for the personal attack of calling the answer "mocking."
Matters of answer quality should be decided by vote.
(question edited, I was reading the wrong policy)<issue_comment>username_1: ### Background
The answer in question was posted on [this question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/145763/7734), which is a hot network question with 2k views as of now.
The answer’s full content was:
>
>
> >
> > Am I putting undue weight on this [...]?
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> Yes.
>
>
>
At the time it was posted, there were two other answers in the same direction (but with explanation). At the time it was deleted, it had +17|−4 votes. In the comments on the answer, there was some discussion going on whether this should be a comment or not, etc., with the highest voted comment saying that this should not be a comment.
### My Decision
I deleted this answer for two reasons:
* It is rude for the reasons I elaborated in general [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/345478/255554).
Specifically, the answer mocks the asker and nothing else by implying that they are too stupid to find out the answer themselves (or similar).
Just consider how you would feel if somebody replied to [this question of yours](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/133177/7734) only with “not at all” and that answer got a highly positive score.
There is a small chance that this was not intended as rude, but even then we have to assume that it will be perceived as such and should be deleted for that reason (mind that I only deleted this and did not nuke this with a *rude or abusive* flag coming with further repercussions such as a −100 reputation penalty).
* It adds nothing whatsoever to the existing answers (at the time of its posting). It is common SE policy to delete such answers, even though they rarely happen on our site, where different answers along the same lines usually offer different approaches of explanation or similar.
I stand by my decision.
### Further Thoughts
* >
> Votes indicate the first reason is wrong - it was a high quality answer.
>
>
>
Do you honestly believe that this answer has a high quality?
(If yes, what features make it high quality?)
Votes rather indicate that some users, presumably HNQ visitors, like to pile up on mocking the asker.
In fact, given that most HNQ visitors cannot downvote, that answer has a rather bad vote ratio (+17|−4).
* >
> Matters of answer quality should be decided by vote.
>
>
>
This is not a matter of quality.
Quality is not really a deletion reason and not the reason why I deleted that answer.
(Yes, there is a *very low quality* flag, but all posts that could be flagged with it can also be deleted for other reasons.)
* We usually implicitly assume for all questions that they are asking for an explanation.
Going by this, the answer in question can additionally be deleted for not being an answer to the question.
* Whatever that answer is, it is clearly not a comment as it does none of the things comments are for.
You called this answer a comment, indicating that you do not think it should be an answer.
As it should neither be an answer nor a comment, only deletion remains.
* If we accept such answers, somebody could go around and post one *yes* and one *no* answer each to a huge portion of our questions.
They could then delete the least popular answer after a while.
Do you want that?
* >
> I do consider shorter answers to be better in many cases.
>
>
>
I agree that a more concise explanation can be better than a long one:
It may be easier to grasp or simply convey the same content in shorter time.
But here we are talking about no explanation whatsoever.
There is nothing to grasp.
I can skim almost any answer in the same answer in the same time to get its tendency (if not, it should be arguably edited to add a summary or similar).
In this specific case, the first line of the [current top answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/145765/7734) (which was there first) already contains as much as the answer in question.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: As much as I love short answers—and I really *do* love short answers both here and in real life—, I think that the deleted answer was way too laconic in that it failed to explain the reason for which the below highlighted part of the question is presumably wrong:
>
> Am I putting undue weight on this, or **am I right to think that, if I'm going to devote an entire day (sometimes two days) to peer-reviewing an unknown colleague's paper, and since I anyway cannot say yes to all the requests I get, I might as well do it for authors who don't appear to take this effort for granted?**
>
>
>
Note also that before the deletion, the author had been invited in a comment by <NAME> to expand their answer:
>
> it'd be better to expand this answer with another paragraph that gives some reasoning behind the statement.
>
>
>
But to this invitation, there was no follow up, not even an explanation of why such a short answer would suffice.
Overall, I therefore think that the deletion was warranted, even though I don't think that *yes/no* answers should be considered rude—I definitely don't think that this was the intention of the answer's author—and I'd advise against flagging as such.
Upvotes: 2 |
2020/04/22 | 697 | 2,527 | <issue_start>username_0: [This](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/147940/leaving-academia-at-39/1) question entitled as "Leaving academia at 39" basically asks advice from people who had similar experience during their academic career. I believe that his question is highly relevant to academia, and very beneficial for people who have the same issues.
The most voted question in this site is [How should I deal with discouragement as a graduate student?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/2219/how-should-i-deal-with-discouragement-as-a-graduate-student). Referred question is absolutely open-ended, the answer is based on purely personal experience, but nevertheless, it considers a very common problem among academics. Therefore, I believe that it is a valuable question and should not be closed ever.
Hence my point;
Why is a question which considers a very common, and very important thing in academic life is closed due to the reason *being off-topic*?<issue_comment>username_1: I think the question we were hoping OP would ask is this one:
>
> Is it common to leave academia after 40? What factors should I consider when deciding whether to leave?
>
>
>
I would that would be a great, on-topic question.
But instead, the question was:
>
> Does anyone have managed [sic] to leave academia after 40? And are you happy with the change? I need to hear happy stories.
>
>
>
Our Q&A / voting format is not compatible with story requests (how would we vote for the "best" story? Or the "happiest"?).
If we had caught this at an earlier stage, I would suggest that we edit and reopen. But there are now half a dozen answers (including the top one) that provide anecdotes.
So, I recommend that OP (or someone else) asks a new, answerable question. We can then post a comment in the closed one linking to the new one.
**Edit**: Looks like OP has edited the original question along the lines of the above and the community voted to reopen. So, perhaps, problem solved.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: >
> What factors should I consider when deciding whether to leave academia?
>
>
>
This is off-topic because it is not about academia. That's implied by the word "leave".
The question is also should be closed as needing clarity because it does not specify the asker's goal. No career advice is going to help if there is no goal.
>
> I am completely depressed
>
>
>
The asker appears to need a councilor or therapist, not career advice.
Upvotes: 1 |
2020/04/24 | 1,733 | 6,685 | <issue_start>username_0: We regularly get questions from people who describe symptoms of depression or anxiety. These are very common mental health problems. Some askers explicitly say they are depressed or anxious and it is disrupting their lives. Others only imply it.
Often, but not always, these questions are closed as unclear. This makes sense. It's hard to ask a good question when you are distressed.
Is there a way we can direct these askers to appropriate help? I think it's pretty clear this site is not the help these askers need.<issue_comment>username_1: There has been considerable [discussion](https://softwareengineering.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6256/do-we-have-any-responsibility-to-take-any-action-if-someone-says-theyre-thinkin) about how to handle suicidal users, both [on academia.SE](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4353/should-we-react-when-somebody-says-theyre-contemplating-suicide) and [elsewhere on SE](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/243700/whats-the-official-se-response-to-serious-mentions-of-suicide-or-self-harm-in-p). Your question is about a mental health crisis rather than suicide, but I think Shog9's answer from the first link applies to both:
>
> I hate to sound callous about this, but... This isn't a support group; y'all probably aren't trained to deal with the outpouring of grief and despair of someone you've never met [...] there's a decent chance that leaving a post like this around could end up just making things *worse*.
>
>
>
Shog9 then describes a (now widely-adopted) procedure [for suicidal users], which Strongbad summarized in the second link as:
>
> (1) close with an appropriate message, (2) flag for mod attention, (3) mods (or users) call in CMs.
>
>
>
I would suggest using essentially the same workflow here:
* **Close.** If there is an on-topic, answerable question, we can answer the academia-related question while acknowledging that there are likely additional mental-health-related issues that need to be addressed but are beyond our expertise. If the mental health is the primary or only issue, we can close the question.
* **Flag**. For more serious issues, or if we are concerned that the post itself will lead to harm, flag for moderator attention. Mods will review and can lock, close, or delete the question as appropriate.
* **Call in CMs**. CMs are spread thin right now (and for the foreseeable future), so we would generally resort to this for only the most serious issues.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: First of all, **we should not relax our rules** for these questions out of pity or fearing to fuel the crisis by our rejection. When we cannot reasonably answer a question, the asker being in a crisis won’t change that – it will only make the damage done by answers worse. For example, consider questions closed for depending on individual factors due to making life decisions for the asker: Answers to such questions (other than: “it depends”) are dangerous because they suggest that we (random people on the Internet) can make such a decision. This is exacerbated if the asker is in a mental crisis, because they may be particularly responsive to these suggestions and the stakes are even higher.
However, **we should not bluntly reject the asker**, but acknowledge their pain, explain why we cannot answer their question (if any), and guide them to getting help, be it on our site or elsewhere. One interaction on this site that I am most proud of is turning a mess of a question by a suicidal asker into one that could be reopened and got answers that probably actually helped the asker.
Here is a lists of points to follow with such a question:
* Always **flag for moderator attention**. Even if no further action is required at the moment, this makes us moderators aware of the question so we can keep an eye on it and take swift action if necessary (e.g., when somebody posts a rude comment).
* **Try to salvage the question**: Is there anything in the question that we can answer? Or is there any valid question that straightforwardly arises from the asker’s situation? If yes, edit the question to focus on this and explain your edit in a comment.
* Otherwise, always **flag or vote to close** if necessary. If such questions are answered prematurely, it only makes it more difficult to sort out the mess. The earlier they are closed, the better.
* **Leave comments to help the asker:**
+ Show your compassion for their situation.
+ Explain why their question is not answerable in its current state (or explain your edits). If you voted to close as a duplicate, explain that if the duplicate does not help, they should edit their question to explain why.
+ Encourage them to seek professional help about their mental-health issues (unless they haven’t clearly indicated that they already did this). If the asker is suicidal, you can find some ready-to-use comments [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/243700/255554).
* **Make an extra effort to guide the asker to salvage their question:**
+ Make it very clear which information is missing.
+ Think very hard about alternative valid questions the asker may have about their situation and suggest them.
* **[Follow the question](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/345661/255554)** so you can quickly respond to edits, potentially rude comments, etc. Remember that you can retract your close vote.
* If you see such a question make it to the hot network questions, raise a flag so moderators can undo this [according to our policy](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4459/7734).
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: This is just one option: We could have a question
>
> Where can I get help if I am feeling anxious or depressed?
>
>
>
This question could be used for closing questions that cannot be salvaged by marking them as duplicates.
Ordinarily this would be an off-topic question.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: I think it can be appropriate to give *very generic suggestions* when people seem to be disturbed in a manner that suggests they might benefit from seeing a therapist/counselor/psychologist. Even many people who have no long-term mental health issues can benefit from these sources of support; I think suggesting them is fine but be *supportive* rather than *pushy*.
What is, in my opinion, **NOT APPROPRIATE** is to offer your diagnoses. Don't say "you have depression, get help", don't diagnose someone's obsessive compulsive disorder, don't diagnose someone's personality disorder or the personality disorder of their professor or anyone else they are interacting with. It's never necessary to do so.
Upvotes: 3 |
2020/04/25 | 1,053 | 4,540 | <issue_start>username_0: [Is this statement on doing a PhD in Germany as a foreigner accurate for mathematics?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/144960/7734) was closed for being primarily opinion-based. It actually failed to be closed in the close queue, [receiving three *leave open* votes](https://academia.stackexchange.com/review/close/84975), and was only closed from votes cast outside the queue.
While this question is on a series of claims, which would make an opinionated answer, it asks for their correctness, which is mostly objective. Most answers to this question (including one by me) do focus on this factual correctness and why such anecdotal claims are problematic. While there is still some subjectivity left, I would consider this a case of [good subjective](https://stackoverflow.blog/2010/09/29/good-subjective-bad-subjective/) and it the question and most of its answers are arguably less subjective than many on this site.
I therefore propose to reopen it. (I cannot push this question to the reopen queue, because my vote would immediately reopen it.)<issue_comment>username_1: The question is about someone's opinion, but the answer (which is no, the opinion overgeneralizes) is not opinion. So technically it is not off-topic.
I suggest down-voting the question for trolling. It is implausible that someone experienced with PhD programs in Germany would make the claims stated in the question, that overgeneralizes that severely, unless they were trolling, immature, or excessively angry.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: I lean towards thinking that the question should remain closed, though I could see it going either way.
The question has some positives and some negatives. On the positive side, it inspired answers with excellent information. On the negative side, it is fairly broad, argumentative, and calls for opinions.
In an ideal world, I would suggest that it remain closed (as too broad), and replaced by multiple separate questions, where each question asks about the accuracy of one factual claim.
Currently, the question comes off to me as "here's a long rant I read, is it really true?". The text we're asked to respond to contains both factual claims and judgements/conclusions/opinions, without separating the two out. Because of the mix of the two, I don't know how to answer the question ("is this really the case?") objectively. One can respond to the factual claims objectively, but responding to the opinions and conclusions seems like it calls for opinions.
Ideally, I think it would be more constructive to separate out the specific factual claims made in that argument, and then ask specifically about each of those in a separate question, and leave judgements and advice and opinions out of it, and then ask people who answered with concrete evidence to answer those individual questions. That's in an ideal world where doing all of that work is feasible and successfully leads to all the information being preserved in separate questions. I don't know whether that will actually happen.
I should also share a personal bias: I tend to be wary of posts with a strongly-expressed argumentative position, that ask us to respond to that position; I'm not sure they make a great prompt for a great question. So, it's possible I might be reacting to that aspect of the question as much as anything. It probably shouldn't affect the decision of whether to close or not, but it probably does affect me.
That's just my view. I don't see this as clear-cut. I can understand how people would come to different views. For instance, given the outstanding information contained in the answers, I could appreciate a view that the positives outweigh the negatives. I could also appreciate a view that says that Academia.SE regularly deals with calls for opinions and advice, and as long as they are supported by evidence, that is acceptable.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: I would suggest that we **edit and reopen.**
I suspect some of the close votes may have been induced by the vague title and long quote. It seems almost like a "writing prompt," which may have rubbed people the wrong way. Editing may address this concern.
But it is clearly an interesting question. While there are subjective elements (and German academia is a big place), I think academics familiar with the German system could provide "expert analysis" of the claims. So, it seems at least as answerable as many of our questions.
**Edit:** I have taken a stab at editing the question.
Upvotes: 1 |
2020/04/29 | 2,014 | 8,002 | <issue_start>username_0: Background
==========
With [recent changes to the closing system](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/346638/255554), we can now tailor the texts for custom close reasons to different audiences:
* One text that informs close flaggers, voters, and reviewers when the close reason should be used.
* One brief text that describes the close reason to everybody seeing the question. (It also gets shown in the two following cases.)
* One text to guide the author of a question with improving it, getting help elsewhere, or similar.
* One text to guide users with the [close privilege](https://academia.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/close-questions) how to improve the question or guide the asker.
For example, this is what the author of a question closed as *not within the scope of this community* will see:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/vrPG1.png)
I think this is great since we do not have to have a single text that works on all occasions anymore and have more room for tailored guidance and being more welcoming.
What happened
=============
I worked together with the other moderators to make use of this system.
The new close reasons went active just now.
The changes retroactively apply to old questions closed with the respective predecessor close reason.
Why did you not ask us earlier?
===============================
The new texts should not contain any surprises; they reflect existing policy.
Since there is more room and the texts are more targetted, there is little risk of the result being accidentally worse than the status quo.
Also, it is rather difficult to grasp which text goes where without seeing the result in action; I got a few things wrong at first myself.
I therefore considered it better to have you review the result in place, and suggest changes if necessary.
This question
=============
I’ll post one answer for each of our custom close reasons containing all the texts.
Please use comments to suggest improvements and similar.
Should any complex issues or disagreements arise, I will create separate questions as needed.<issue_comment>username_1: Shopping question
=================
**Close reason:**
This text is shown when selecting a reason while flagging or voting to close:
>
> ### Shopping question
>
>
> The answer to this question would be an individual university, academic program, publisher, journal, research topic, etc., **or** a list, an assessment, or a comparison of those. The question seeks help choosing or finding these. See [this FAQ](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3657) for details. Note that [questions for software solutions are acceptable](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4675).
>
>
>
**General post notice:**
This text is shown under a closed question to everybody:
>
> **Closed.** This question is what we call a [shopping question](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3657). It is currently not accepting answers.
>
>
>
**Post-owner guidance:**
This text is shown under the general post notice to the author of a question:
>
> If you can, please **edit** your question to ask how to make your choice in general and without naming any particular options. If you can, specify an aspect that you are concerned about. Note that simply anonymizing the choices usually does not make for a good question. Please read [this FAQ](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3657).
>
>
>
**Privileged-user guidance:**
This text is shown under the general post notice to user with the [close privilege](https://academia.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/close-questions):
>
> Please consider whether you can edit the question to be about how to make the choice and without naming particular options. Otherwise please guide the asker and vote to reopen the question if appropriate.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_1: Strongly depends on individual factors
======================================
**Close reason:**
This text is shown when selecting a reason while flagging or voting to close:
>
> ### Strongly depends on individual factors
>
>
> The answer to this question strongly depends on individual factors such as some person’s preferences, some institution’s policies, the exact contents of some work or the asker’s personal values. Answers to this question would be far too speculative, broad, or would **primarily** consist of: “It depends on X.” See [this FAQ](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3406) for details. Note that questions on the rules of institutions that operate at national or international level are permitted.
>
>
>
**General post notice:**
This text is shown under a closed question to everybody:
>
> This question was **closed** for [strongly depending on individual factors](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3406). It is currently not accepting answers.
>
>
>
**Post-owner guidance:**
This text is shown under the general post notice to the author of a question:
>
> The answer to your question strongly depends on the policies of some institution, the exact contents of your work, some person’s preferences, your personal values, or similar. Only someone familiar with them can answer this question and it cannot be generalized to apply to others. Importantly, only somebody who knows you very well can make life decisions for you. Please read: [Why was my question put on hold for depending on individual factors?](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3406)
>
>
>
**Privileged-user guidance:**
This text is shown under the general post notice to user with the [close privilege](https://academia.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/close-questions):
>
> Please explain to the asker why we cannot answer their question and who may be able to do so. If there is a suitable question the author can ask about their situation, guide them towards it or edit the question if you can.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_1: Not within the scope of this community
======================================
**Close reason:**
This text is shown when selecting a reason while flagging or voting to close:
>
> ### Not within the scope of this community
>
>
> This question is about the content of research, education outside a university setting, or otherwise clearly outside our community’s scope. Note that questions on undergraduate education are within our scope [unless about undergraduate admissions, life, and culture](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3300). — If you can, leave a comment to guide the asker to an appropriate site for their question and help them to improve it before reposting.
>
>
>
**General post notice:**
This text is shown under a closed question to everybody:
>
> **Closed.** This question is not within the scope of this community as defined in the [help center](https://academia.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic). It does not accept answers.
>
>
>
**Post-owner guidance:**
This text is shown under the general post notice to the author of a question:
>
> If your question is about the content of academic research or teaching, there likely is [a Stack Exchange site](https://stackexchange.com/sites) dedicated to your field. Please ask it there. Questions on math or computer-science education outside an academic setting may be suited for [Math Educators](https://matheducators.stackexchange.com/) or [Computer Science Educators](https://cseducators.stackexchange.com/). Please familiarise with the guidelines of those sites before asking there.
>
>
>
**Privileged-user guidance:**
This text is shown under the general post notice to user with the [close privilege](https://academia.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/close-questions):
>
> If applicable, guide the asker to an appropriate Stack Exchange site for their question. If the question has other problems (such as being a homework dump), guide them to improve their question before reposting it.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 2 |
2020/05/05 | 946 | 3,708 | <issue_start>username_0: I may have fallen into a bad habit. A few questions get asked that don't require much thought or analysis to answer. Often the answer is "ask your advisor" or "contact that journal". The OP needs some help but the question is anything but earth-shattering.
I've been "answering" quite a few of these in comments lately and would like advice on the validity. A one sentence "formal answer" to such questions seems like overkill.
[Here is an example](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/148728/75368) of such a question, though this one may be a the limit of where a real "answer" could be given.
Some of the questions of this kind are personal and may have little value for a future reader. Not all are like that. And many of these sorts of questions seem to be coming from new users.
So, assuming that there isn't really much to say and the "answer" is very short, is it really fine to answer in comments for such things. The alternative might be to just ignore the question or close it, leaving the OP unsatisfied and needy.
Moreover, there doesn't seem to be a really appropriate listed "reason to close" for many of these.<issue_comment>username_1: Unfortunately, even though *you've* seen that question a million times, the *user* is asking for the first time. The overly brief "don't walk, run" style comments, while cute and good for upvotes, frequently don't give the context needed by the OP. I agree with Jon that this is probably a sign of burnout. Take some time off from those questions and focus on the meatier ones.
This is assuming the user is posting in good faith; if they're not, all bets are off.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> Moreover, there doesn't seem to be a really appropriate listed "reason to close" for many of these.
>
>
>
The questions you describe are exactly what the close reason *[strongly depends on individual factors](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3406)* is made for. One of the reasons we have this close reason is because we got tired of one-line answers like you describe. Another is that we do not want somebody to come along who think that they can answer this question, which may be misleading. To quote from the [new usage guideline](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4712/7734):
>
> Answers to this question […] would primarily consist of: “It depends on X.”
>
>
>
I do not think that closing such questions is not at odds with helping the asker. If a question gets closed with that reason, the asker already gets guidance nudging them in the right direction, but of course this is somewhat broad. I see no harm in leaving a specific comment along the lines of:
>
> Sorry, but we cannot possibly answer that question. You have to ask your advisor or somebody who knows them very well.
>
>
>
This was one of the cases were [we agreed that answers in comments are okay](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4600/7734).
---
Regarding the specific example, you posted, I am somewhat undecided whether it falls into this category. We have some information to make an educated guess here (as opposed to just a guess), but then it is still a guess.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: If a question has a short, trivial answer, the question makes sense, and the question is on topic, then I strongly encourage you to post a short, trivial answer.
There are a great many answers on this site which include lots of irrelevant details. Your short, trivial answer is better than those answers.
No harm is caused by answering off-topic questions, or by answering questions that have little value. It does not matter if you post these answers as comments or answers.
Upvotes: -1 |
2020/06/11 | 428 | 1,763 | <issue_start>username_0: So I have noticed that two of my answers get downvoted each day.
I have seen other posts that mention the system notices serial downvoting, but will the system notice two a day across several days?
I know that the system will revoke downvotes of say ten in a row as that is easily spotted but will it pick up insidious downvoting that is slow?
If the system will not, then how do I proceed? Getting an answer that it won’t be spotted and can’t be changed will suggest the system needs changing.<issue_comment>username_1: I can only see it happened once, [yesterday](https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/72855/solar-mike?tab=reputation), but given the close proximity this does look like targeted voting. The script runs in the early UTC hours so it's safe to assume it didn't detect this.
As mentioned in the FAQ [What is serial voting and how does it affect me?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/126829/295232), you can flag one of the affected posts for ♦ moderator attention, but with only two votes there's nothing much for them to see either (source: I'm a moderator on three other sites in the network). I'd recommend doing that if the pattern continues (and is not reversed automatically).
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: The system will not automatically reverse this kind of downvoting, but it will eventually still show up and you can flag one of your posts for moderator attention and we can then investigate this.
I your particular case, there are indeed some hints of somebody systematically downvoting you. I will investigate these and address them as appropriate. Since this may involve Stack Exchange staff (as only they can see and undo individual votes), this may take a while.
Upvotes: 3 |
2020/06/13 | 1,342 | 5,273 | <issue_start>username_0: In accepted answer to this question:
[A free papers search engine](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/150373/7319)
@Allure states that:
>
> Your friend is probably thinking of Sci-Hub. Warning: it's likely illegal, including to use the service (as opposed to uploading stuff onto it), in most jurisdictions. If it's not already illegal in your jurisdiction, the trend is towards illegality (i.e. lawsuit after lawsuit has been ruled on, and they are usually in favor of the copyright holder).
>
>
>
The first claim is qualified with "likely"; but - @Allure knows this not to be the case, since we've [debated](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/86414/7319) it before. He should, at least, have mentioned that his claim is contested (and not marginally; to my limited knowledge, the opposite of his claim is the truth - downloading from Sci-Hub for the purposes of research is likely legal in most places in the world).
The second claim is a factual one. I admit I have not made any sort of legal survey, but I have not seen evidence that this is the case; and given the other dispute, I doubt such evidence exists.
Now, I can comment on the answer, but it would be the 10th or 15th comment, while the answer itself - other than the claims of illegality - is useful, and is the accepted answer.
What should I / can I do, seeing how I believe readers are being misinformed?<issue_comment>username_1: >
> What should I / can I do, seeing how I believe readers are being misinformed?
>
>
>
You could post a competing, self-contained answer that includes your point of view and references. I realize that late answers are at a huge disadvantage in the voting, but they can still be useful.
Your other option, which you mention, is to add a comment. Readers are more likely to keep reading if they know that the first answer is controversial.
Beyond that:
* [Moderators do not delete bad answers](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/89453/should-moderators-delete-bad-answers). We generally delete answers and comments for procedural reasons, not substantive reasons. And mechanically, there is no way for us to change the answers' order or score.
* In this case, once the debate reached a certain length, a flag was automatically triggered (this happened after you created this post). For this procedural reason, I moved the discussion to chat and added a comment summarizing the debate (and linking this post).
My personal opinion:
* I have no problem with this answer. I appreciated the "likely" caveat, and it seems self-evident that there **might** be legal issues associated with accessing copyrighted, non-free information without paying.
* Indeed, there are so many jurisdictions, and things are changing so quickly, that I don't think anyone could say with any confidence that it is definitely legal or illegal generally. Perhaps it may have been better for OP to say that it "may" be illegal rather than "likely" being illegal, but this is starting to split hairs.
* My only quibble about the answer is that the statement about the alleged "trend" toward illegality is unsubstantiated.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: You should vote on the answer.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Is this a joke or just a massive troll? einpoklum knows very well that [his answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/120356/84834) has been [refuted](https://law.stackexchange.com/a/33647/15133), yet he's trying to claim that there's a debate.
Analyze einpoklum's answer for a moment. There are two points. The first says section 60 (c) allows the use of SciHub, which was explicitly treated and refuted by phoog in the Law SE question. Plus it ignores the other articles of law referenced in DPenner1's answer. Just because X doesn't break one law doesn't make it legal if it breaks other laws. The other point is an outright appeal to emotion. Wikipedia puts it very well, appeals to emotion "[are] a logical fallacy characterized by the manipulation of the recipient's emotions in order to win an argument, especially in the absence of factual evidence." einpoklum knows the evidence is against him, hence he's appealing to emotion.
einpoklum further goes to claim that the trend towards illegality is only "alleged", when DPenner's answer explicitly cites two examples that illustrate the trend: ACI Adam and Filmspeler. ACI Adam ruled that the private copying exception must only apply to lawful sources, which SciHub is not. Filmspeler ruled that streaming copyrighted content is no more legal than downloading it, which means that even if one could view SciHub papers without downloading them, it is still illegal. Both these rulings closed loopholes that could've been used to argue that SciHub is legal.
This entire affair is very much like evolution vs. intelligent design. It's well-established that evolution is a much better explanation than ID, but ID defenders try to claim that there is debate and so we should be fair and "teach the controversy".
I am disappointed the mods are not deleting einpoklum's attempts at misinformation. Yes, mods do not delete bad answers, but by attempting to make an illegal act seem legal, einpoklum goes beyond "bad answer" to being actively dangerous.
Upvotes: 0 |
2020/06/22 | 3,700 | 13,064 | <issue_start>username_0: Yesterday, I asked a question in Academia.SE: [Are there any scientific papers that were retracted by the publisher due to the reader comments?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/150829/are-there-any-scientific-papers-that-were-retracted-by-the-publisher-due-to-the)
**Disclaimer:** I am not racist, and I am fully aware that this paper was written with crooked intentions. I do not approve the motivation of the authors who published this study.
With this said, I genuinely wondered whether there are any other publications that were retracted with the same *official* reason:
>
> because of the sources cited within the article, and critical comments from readers.
>
>
>
[Wrzlprmft](http://thttps://academia.stackexchange.com/users/7734/wrzlprmft) stated [in the comments](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/150829/are-there-any-scientific-papers-that-were-retracted-by-the-publisher-due-to-the#comment402197_150829):
>
> I am closing this question because:
>
>
> 1. Taken literally, it asks for a
> list with no best answer.
> 2. The next best question is whether this is
> commonly accepted practice, however, until the retraction notice is
> published, it is not clear what this is.
> 3. Even then, the question
> must outline clear criteria on the answers to avoid being overrun with
> people sharing their opinion on the retraction.
>
>
>
So, I looked up some questions. Those are the ones I immediately found when I typed "are there" in the search box:
* [Are there any trustworthy Mathematics fee-based open access journals?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/42090/are-there-any-trustworthy-mathematics-fee-based-open-access-journals)
* [Are there any examples of legal issues with academic fraud?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/134906/are-there-any-examples-of-legal-issues-with-academic-fraud)
* [Are there any guidelines for labeling axes in plots/graphs?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/18357/are-there-any-guidelines-for-labeling-axes-in-plots-graphs)
* [Are there any researcher digital identification services or directories, similar to ORCID and ResearcherID?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/28240/are-there-any-researcher-digital-identification-services-or-directories-similar)
Which tells me that (1) is not really a reason to close a question.
Also, (2) is plain wrong, because in the very same link I have posted, there is [official retraction announcement](https://www.journals.elsevier.com/personality-and-individual-differences/announcements/rushton-and-templer-article), and I have written that verbatim in the question.
As for (3), I am willing to give examples from the **top questions** in Academia.SE:
* [How should I deal with discouragement as a graduate student?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/2219/how-should-i-deal-with-discouragement-as-a-graduate-student)
* [How to avoid procrastination during the research phase of my PhD?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/5786/how-to-avoid-procrastination-during-the-research-phase-of-my-phd)
* [How to avoid being falsely accused of harassment by a student?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/98176/how-to-avoid-being-falsely-accused-of-harassment-by-a-student)
* [How to read papers without falling into a rabbit hole?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/68605/how-to-read-papers-without-falling-into-a-rabbit-hole)
None of those questions meet the criterion: “[T]he question must outline clear criteria on the answers to avoid being overrun with people sharing their opinion.”
[<NAME>](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/users/63475/bryan-krause) comments encouraged me to check some questions that are answered by the users who voted to close my question for *opinion-based*:
* [What are some good ways to keep students coming to lectures?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/57619/what-are-some-good-ways-to-keep-students-coming-to-lectures/57621#57621)
* [Reasons for not releasing bottom-line answers to old exam questions?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/99332/reasons-for-not-releasing-bottom-line-answers-to-old-exam-questions/99342#99342)
* [How to avoid and address a lack of gender diversity in grant proposals?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/150500/how-to-avoid-and-address-a-lack-of-gender-diversity-in-grant-proposals/150503#150503)
* [What am I being paid for? (postdoc)](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/150244/what-am-i-being-paid-for-postdoc/150255#150255)
* [How to write the data section when data is reused from a previous work?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/149445/how-to-write-the-data-section-when-data-is-reused-from-a-previous-work/149446#149446)
* [I believe my PhD dissertation was unfairly graded too low (cum laude): what should I do?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/139502/i-believe-my-phd-dissertation-was-unfairly-graded-too-low-cum-laude-what-shou/139558#139558)
* [I got the following comment from a reputed math journal. What does it mean?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/126547/i-got-the-following-comment-from-a-reputed-math-journal-what-does-it-mean/126564#126564)
If the above questions are not opinion-based, I firmly believe that my question is very much **not** opinion based.
---
I asked the question over a simple debate with my colleagues. They claimed that there are many papers retracted without any solid reason, I claimed that there should be at least one clear reason or the follow-up actions should be taken.
By follow-up actions I mean:
1. Re-evaluation of all the publications that took the approval of the same reviewers and editors.
2. If the sources used are not credible (as in the *official* notice), then the papers those are based on those resources, in which 15 of them are published by Elsevier, should also be retracted.
3. It should be clearly stated that why are the resources not credible, and how was it determined after eight whole years. Because the paper in question is a survey paper, and one cannot claim it was falsified data because the data they provide were already published many years ago.
Facts:
1. I have formed my question very well, and clear.
2. This is a genuine question, stated out of curiosity, without any provocation or comments on the matter.
3. The answer to my question can be one example, or many examples. There is absolutely no restriction in the [rules of the site](https://academia.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic) which states that I cannot ask a question of which answers can be many.
4. None of the reasons that were stated as the reasons for closing are accurate (see above).
My question:
Why was my question voted to close, and was closed by one of the moderators? Has Academia SE become a place where we cannot even ask questions due to current political situations?<issue_comment>username_1: 1. My first point is about taking your question (“[Are there] other examples which the publisher retracts an article because of […]”) literally.
This is admittedly not the best approach, but it’s one which you have to expect others to take when answering and which is easy:
If the literal question is already clear and without any problems, that prevents a lot of problems right from the start and we do not have to go much further (except for bewaring of the [XY problem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_problem)).
Unfortunately, your literal question has the problems I described:
It asks for a list and presumably a lot of answers will be equal and going by your introduction, some answers won’t satisfy you, e.g., if we provided you with an article that has been retracted because half of the citations point to nowhere.
Now, while the literal approach highlights some issues with your question, I do not think this is how you wanted your question to be understood, which brings us to the next point.
>
> So, I looked up some questions. Those are the ones I immediately found when I typed "are there" in the search box:
>
> […]
>
>
>
Some of these questions are indeed problematic given our [current rules](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3657) and what we know to work well and I closed the [first one](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/42090/7734) for that reason.
If my vote didn’t unilaterally close, I would also close the [last one](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/28240/7734); feel free to cast a close vote if you agree.
Others have not been answered with a list of items because they were not taken literally, which brings us again to the next point.
In general, there are some old questions which should be closed but aren’t.
If you stumble upon them, please flag or vote to close.
2. >
> Also, (2) is plain wrong, because in the very same link I have posted, there is [official retraction announcement](https://www.journals.elsevier.com/personality-and-individual-differences/announcements/rushton-and-templer-article) […]
>
>
>
Said retraction announcement ends with:
>
> The retraction notice is currently being finalized and will appear in the journal imminently.
>
>
>
My understanding of this is that we can expect a detailed elaboration of the retraction in the next weeks.
At the time I posted this answer, the [article in question](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.02.015) showed no sign of the retraction. Now, two weeks later, it does and this notice is clearly different from what you linked.
While questions about the rationale of the journal may be appropriate on this site, we can only speculate about this rationale from the brief outline given in the announcement.
I do not think any good can come from this kind of speculation.
3. >
> None of those questions meet the criterion "the question must outline clear criteria on the answers to avoid being overrun with people sharing their opinion."
>
>
>
Here, the topic of your question indeed is relevant as it makes it considerably more likely that it will escalate into a debate about the retraction itself, attract trolls and racists, and cause other problems.
The comments your question attracted so far already give a taste of this.
This is not primarily your fault, but good intentions do not suffice to prevent this.
A good (but not perfect) way to avoid such problems is to be as specific as possible about the answers you want (again bewaring of the [XY problem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_problem)) and thus excluding pure opinions, etc.
So: Yes, I am putting your question under higher scrutiny, but not to censor the topic but to ensure that it stays within our guidelines and to be able to have questions and answers about it without attracting trouble.
In general, closing a question is about avoiding answers and thus – strictly speaking – it is not about the way the question is phrased or intended but about the answers we expect it to receive.
Often this does not make a difference, but here it does:
I closed your question because it bears a high risk to attract a problematic collection of answers in its current state for several reasons.
---
You also revealed your motivation ([the Y to the X](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_problem), if you so wish):
>
> I asked the question over a simple debate with my colleagues. They claimed that there are many papers retracted without any solid reason, I claimed that there should be at least one clear reason or the follow-up actions should be taken. By follow-up actions I mean […]
>
>
>
There are many opinion-based aspects about this: What exactly constitutes the *solid reason* your colleagues talk about? You on the other hand talk about what should be done. We do not answer how the world should be here, we can only discuss how it is. Yes, we have [ethics](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/ethics "show questions tagged 'ethics'"), but that should always be with respect to either generally accepted standards (e.g., on plagiarism), a specified authority (e.g., COPE), or at least solicit a neutral assessment of the ethical dilemmas.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: I voted to close the question because it did not have internal logical consistency.
First you quoted:
>
> This retraction comes after a thorough review of the published article, the sources cited within the article, and critical comments from readers.
>
>
>
Then you said:
>
> I wonder whether there are other examples which the publisher retracts an article because of the sources cited within the article, and critical comments from readers.
>
>
>
The quote you gave did *not* include a retraction reason. The quote is only a statement of what occurred. The logical inconsistency is because you changed "comes after" to "because."
Therefore, I voted to close as unclear. In fact, the question was sufficiently unclear that I am unsure if it is opinion-based. It is also possible that it is a shopping question.
People often select the wrong close reason.
Upvotes: 2 |
2020/06/23 | 712 | 2,841 | <issue_start>username_0: <https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/150925/25124>
Do Japanese-Americans not want people to talk about what happened to them during WW2? If that is the case, I want a source.<issue_comment>username_1: A comment left on this answer stated:
>
> This seems to be more of a snarky comment than a good-faith answer.
>
>
>
I agree with this:
This is not an honest attempt to answer the question, but instead it suggests playing a rude practical joke on the students in question.
This suggestion is based on taking the request in question overly literal by replacing one group with another, which mocks the request and is rude to both groups involved.
Moreover, suggesting such a blatantly bad action is rude in itself, in particular since the asker expressed a clear desire for finding a non-risky solution.
More explicitly, what happened is this:
* Group A¹ is currently experiencing a huge distress.
* As a result, a professor was requested to make an exam of “questions that relate to life experiences of marginalized minorities”.
* The question asks how a professor can tactfully decline such a request.
* Your answer suggest to make an exam about the experiences of Group B, which would comply with the literal request (since Group B also is a marginalised minority), but is obviously not what the request aimed for.
* Taking some serious request overly literal is a rude, practical joke and light years away from a tactful reaction. Doing this when dealing with an extremely painful topic is even worse.
The last point is independent of who Group A and B exactly are, what exactly their experiences are, and how these experiences compare to each other, in particular this is not about which group had it worse.
It also does not matter whether the request in question is valid or not.
---
¹ Mind that I am using placeholders here because the exact identities of the groups do not matter for the point I am making here.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I think the answer deserved to be deleted because it didn't make much sense, and could be considered spam.
It's completely possible that it was a well-intentioned post. It's also possible it's based on nasty obnoxious intentions. There just is not enough information to tell, since "look how that turned out" is vague.
The answer is also misinformed. Concentration camps still exist and people are sent to them now.
username_1 said "Taking some serious request overly literal is a rude" but I see no way to connect this argument to the answer in question.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I think your answer was removed for the wrong reason. I agree that it requires quite a stretch to claim it's offensive, but - it's true that "this seems to be more of a ... comment than a ... answer".
Also, what @AnonymousPhysicist said.
Upvotes: 1 |
2020/07/08 | 2,637 | 9,849 | <issue_start>username_0: Personally I think downvoting should only be done in very exceptional circumstances: I've been on this site for over 2 years and only picked up the critic badge about 1 month ago (meaning I never downvoted anyone for about 2 years).
I appreciate that not everyone has the same opinion as me, and that people can downvote when they like, as long as it doesn't violate the CoC.
However I believe there comes a point at which a post has been downvoted enough already, and further downvoting becomes more harmful than helpful. It happened to one of my answers recently, causing a chain reaction that lead eventually to at least 1 suspension, but I won't go into too much detail about my own situation since I'm biased there. Today I noticed another relatively high-rep user (who clearly knows what they're doing) became the "victim" of chain-reaction downvoting:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/XtwhV.png)
It seems here that when the number goes negative enough, everyone that passes by seemingly wants to add to the user's misery. I picture this like someone that's already been beaten by the police, but long after the police have gone away, people that walk by the body on the ground and see that the person has been reprimanded for something, throw a couple extra kicks in.
Apart from Meta Stack Exchange ("Meta is Murder"), I have never seen such badly downvoted posts on the Stack Exchange network over about a decade of being here. **Why does this community do this, and why is it tolerated (if you are one of the people that do this, for example downvoting a post that already has a net score below -2, can you provide me with some insight as to why you do this)?**
Similar problems have been recognized by others (e.g. [Why my question gets so many downvotes? Is it off-topic?](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/q/2065/93303)) and this site seems to have a downvoting problem in general (<https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/search?q=downvoting>) which I have not seen on the other sites that I'm equally active in (I have 1000+ rep on 7 sites and 150+ rep on 26 sites).
The post shown above had a net score of -11 when someone decided to downvote it to -12, so I wonder: If you are one of the people that pushes such posts further into the ground, **is it because you believe the question should be deleted** (if so, why don't you vote to delete or if you don't have enough rep, just flag it or wait for it to be deleted by others, since if it's so bad clearly it shouldn't be on the site and it will quickly get deleted by others?)? **Or do you usually do this because the post angers you so badly** that you feel you need to stab it further? In the latter case, my personal opinion is that the behavior is starting to tread on the fence of violating the CoC and the policy of "Be nice, Be welcoming", but I don't expect everyone to share the same opinion as me.
**If you contribute to negative-downvoting chains, I wonder what you think writing a stern comment can't do, that downvoting something which already has a very low negative score, can do successfully?**
To conclude my (personal) opinion on this issue (which I don't expect you to share, but I'd like to voice it here):
* MATLAB Answers (a StackOverflow clone that lives outside the SE network) has an upvote button, but not a downvote button.
* Facebook has a like/thumbs-up button but no dislike/thumbs-down button.
* At [Matter Modeling SE](https://materials.stackexchange.com) we have absolutely no Q/A that have a net negative score, but there's been zero issues on the site, and [all 7 moderator candidates committed to commenting/close-voting/delete-voting in favor of downvoting](https://mattermodeling.meta.stackexchange.com/q/141/5):
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/BxipS.png)
Note: cag51♦ has observed this phenomenon for upvoting: [Case Study: First Answer Bias](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4414/93303). This question is also tangentially related: [Are upvotes skewed towards the first answer to a question?](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3826/are-upvotes-skewed-towards-the-first-answer-to-a-question?noredirect=1&lq=1).
My 4 sub-questions are in bold. Thank you for your considerations.<issue_comment>username_1: As a practical matter, **people can vote using whatever criteria they see fit.** We do have some [guidelines](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/130046/when-should-i-vote) for good voting practices, but votes are anonymous, and we don't usually know why people vote the way they do. The only exception that comes to mind is that we don't allow [serial voting](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/126857/386376), as was discussed on Academia.SE [here](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4726/two-answers-per-day-get-downvoted-will-the-system-notice-this).
One of the results of this, which I have [noted before](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4414/case-study-first-answer-bias), is a very pronounced "first answer bias." Further, I usually see a delay on my new answers; then after the overall score goes over 2 or 3, more votes pile on.
I suspect what you've observed is a corollary to this bias. I doubt that people are consciously choosing to pile on; rather, I suspect it is simply easier to see the hugely negative score, skim the post, and say "I agree" rather than having to make an independent judgment as they would on a post without a clear score.
>
> Why does this community do this (if you are one of the people that do this, for example downvoting a post that already has a net score below -2, can you provide me with some insight as to why you do this)?
>
>
>
Personally, **I try very hard to make upvote/downvote decisions without considering the question's current score.** This does sometimes result in downvoting an already-downvoted question -- in fact, heavily-downvoted questions are normally downvoted for a reason, so this happens with some regularity. But I don't condone downvoting just because the question is already downvoted. In fact, I frequently ask myself, "would I have (down)voted if I hadn't seen the score, or would I have just kept scrolling?"
I do sometimes see answers that have "exaggerated" scores. For example, I think some of my best answers are buried and not all of my most-upvoted answers are my best work. I've also seen some heavily-downvoted answers that I didn't think deserved so many downvotes.
But, I do not agree that there are (many) answers with hugely negative scores that would have gotten positive scores had it not been for the first few votes. I've seen people argue this before, but I rarely agree with such claims (of course, there are exceptions, I'm not commenting on any specific case).
>
> Is it because you believe the question should be deleted?
>
>
>
No. As Massimo says in the comments, "deletion is for low quality content not for bad advice." I would not (vote to) delete a good-faith answer that showed research effort, even if I disagreed with it. I've argued [before](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4730/79875) that moderators do not delete wrong answers; I would similarly discourage the community from doing so. But, I would likely downvote and comment on a wrong answer to prevent the misinformation from spreading.
>
> If you contribute to negative-downvoting chains, I wonder what you think writing a stern comment can't do, that downvoting something which already has a very low negative score, can do successfully?
>
>
>
It is a good practice to explain your downvote rather than just doing a drive-by. My experience, however, is that by the time someone gets a score of -10, there has already been significant discussion on the answer.
>
> why is it tolerated?
>
>
>
You seem to be suggesting that we should crack down on those who vote on a heavily-downvoted answer without reading it. Diamond mods do not have the tools to do this. You could ask the community team to implement it, but you would have to create a post on MSE.
Another option would be to cap the displayed score -- for example, scores below -5 could just display -5 rather than displaying -100. Again, we as Academia.SE do not have the tools to do this.
A related issue I've observed (and, frankly, one that concerns me somewhat more) is that post scores tend to lag post edits. For example, a new user who is heavily downvoted might fix their answer after a day or two (which is exactly what we tell them to do), but they are unlikely to get the score they deserve (which affects new users far more than high-rep users).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> If you are one of the people that pushes such posts further into the ground, is it because you believe the question should be deleted
>
>
>
Honestly, I didn't realize I could vote to delete. But in any case, having a bad answer and a clear indication that it is flawed can sometimes be helpful. It certainly discourages reposting of the answer.
>
> Or do you usually do this because the post angers you so badly that you feel you need to stab it further?
>
>
>
I do not think my vote should depend on the current score of the answer. In fact, I scrutinize my voting to avoid being biased by the current score.
>
> If you contribute to negative-downvoting chains, I wonder what you think writing a stern comment can't do, that downvoting something which already has a very low negative score, can do successfully?
>
>
>
This is a false dichotomy.
>
> Or do you usually do this because the post angers you so badly
>
>
>
I've never seen anything on this site worth getting angry about. That includes being downvoted.
Upvotes: 3 |
2020/07/12 | 1,559 | 5,763 | <issue_start>username_0: Recently there has been few questions (that I will avoid linking) about PhD student workload expectations and how that can compare to a "normal" 40h/w job. Generally, this comes from PhD students or prospective PhD students that are worried or actually overworked.
My worry is, that these questions are generally answered with "Yeah, welcome to the world of superstars, you need to work 60h/w or you will never get your PhD". I understand that academic world is diverse with lots of subcultures, however, in my experience this is completely and utterly false\*. My worry is not false information being spread, but actually illegal (in most countries) and utterly unethical information to be pushed and promoted in our page.
Furthering a culture of essentially worker exploitation is bad. No wonder [36% of PhD students suffer from mental health issues](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03489-1). Overworked, underpaid, and when asking for help we say "this is how its supposed to be". Academia has a serious issue with these kind of things. Abusive supervisors exist, and the fact that some of us may had them but survived it is not an excuse to go telling others that that is the normal thing, and we can say the same about overworking PhD students (not even sure its a different problem even).
Yet we do. So, aside of angrily donwvoting a highly upvoted answers, is there anything we can/should do in this page about it? Should we just leave it as it is and let people answer/upvote this, in my opinion, quite unethical advise? Or is it really the overwhelming academic opinion that this is normal, and I have been living in a bubble?
---
\*It is provably false that students need more than 40h/w to get a PhD. Perhaps you need more to become the head of department of a Oxford faculty, but the questions are about getting a PhD. I have known lazy outright not smart people that worked 10h/w in the engineering field obtain PhDs. And I have met almost no PhD student that worked on average more than 40h/w and all of them successfully got their PhDs and some of them are academics now. This is in top 10% UK universities.
late edit: Just to clarify, I understand why people work more than that and I have myself worked more than 40h/w for long period of times, particularly after my PhD. But I am (somehow) attempting to further my academic CV, while the vast majority of PhD students are not.<issue_comment>username_1: I think the best you can do is *write an answer that shares your perspective*. I'd read the existing answers, though, and check to see that they don't already do this.
For example, the most upvoted answer here: <https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/151639/63475> as of right now starts with:
>
> First of all, I know many PhD students (also myself) who did exactly that and finished their phd: They worked 40 hours a week (or less)
>
>
>
The most upvoted answer here: [Is it true that PhD students need to work 10-12 hours a day every day to be productive?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/64440/is-it-true-that-phd-students-need-to-work-10-12-hours-a-day-every-day-to-be-prod) says
>
> The answer is no.
>
>
>
This question: [Is it typical to work 60 hours per week as a PhD student?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/151585/is-it-typical-to-work-60-hours-per-week-as-a-phd-student) includes at least one counter-example, and the first answer agrees with you that it is a *problem* though it also argues that it's still a *reality*:
>
> The experience of working long hours, for little pay and little power is, unfortunately, an almost universal experience for science PhD students ... However 60 hours a week is not normal for the simple reason that very few people can be productive for 60 hours a week on a long term basis
>
>
>
I think the number of votes those answers get is indicative that others also see it as a reality.
Overall, the consensus I get from the community is that working long hours in academia is *common* but not *necessary*. It is clear that some people are working long hours and see others around them doing the same.
If you view things differently, you can offer answers that fit your views. I think you'll find the community responds positively if you say long hours are not necessary; I think you will find less of a positive reaction if you say they don't happen, and I think that claim might actually be covering up a problem you intend to surface.
Echoing @AzorAhai's comment, I did not notice this sentiment:
>
> "Yeah, welcome to the world of superstars, you need to work 60h/w or you will never get your PhD"
>
>
>
in any of the answers receiving a lot of up votes on those questions. If you want to point some out, I'd be happy to take a look and probably downvote them if indeed that is what they say, because I disagree and am myself one of those people who got a PhD while working fairly relaxed hours.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: The problem is that this myth has nothing to do with PhD students or academia. Most people who have unstructured jobs overestimate how much time they spend working productively.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I think, this has something to do with the [survivors' dilemma](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias). It's a sampling bias.
Basically, most people here are still interested in an academic career, have mastered it, or are somehow related to academia. Now, most PhD students leave the academia the one or the other way.
So, although those questions rather state "workload as a PhD student", the subliminal understanding of the most, including myself, is "how I nearly worked myself to death, but got tenure".
Upvotes: 3 |
2020/07/26 | 2,168 | 8,758 | <issue_start>username_0: *Due to recurring problems with questions that contain allegations against named individuals or organisations, we moderators would like to implement a policy against these.*
*This should only affect a small fraction of questions that cause a disproportionate amount of trouble. In this post, we are asking if you see any problems with the proposed policy or whether there is anything else you propose to change. (If yes, please post an answer.)*
Policy
======
Moderators will delete a question without warning if all of the following apply:
* It contains allegations on an individual *target,* which can be a person, university, journal, publisher, company, or similar. As decided separately [here](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4767/7734), this includes self-allegations.
* The allegations are severe, i.e., the reported behaviour is misconduct, criminal, or highly unethical or highly unprofessional. Honest mistakes, sloppiness, and quirks do not count. Neither do things like “Is Publisher *X* predatory?”, unless containing specific severe accusations, but they should still be closed as a duplicate of [this](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/83764/7734) or a [shopping question](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3657/7734).
* The information in the question apparently allows others to identify the target **or** allows the target to identify the asker beyond any reasonable doubt without intensive research. This includes the asker’s username and thus all questions asked by users with what looks like a real name. This can be through explicit naming, a clear relation to the named author (e.g., their supervisor), a paper title, or similar.
* The allegations have not already been widely reported or discussed (on news media, blogs, etc.).
Such questions can be re-asked when they are sufficiently anonymised.
However, anonymised questions may still be unsuitable for this site for several reasons.
When you encounter such a question, please:
* Leave a guiding comment linking to this policy.
* Flag it for moderator attention.
* If you can additionally vote to close or delete it, do so.
Rationale
=========
Going by experience, for almost every such question at least one of the following applies:
1. The asker soon regrets posting the question.
2. The question harms the asker.
3. The question causes a huge amount of debate.
4. The asker did not ask the question in good faith.
5. The question should be closed for being opinion-based, a shopping question, or depending on individual factors.
6. The question abuses this site as platform for public shaming.
As a result, such questions cause a lot of unnecessary grievance and moderation work, in particular through self-vandalisation, disassociation requests (an action requiring an SE employee) or redaction requests (an action requiring two moderators), or escalating comment debates.
In Cases 1–3, the question can be anonymised to avoid the issues and then re-asked.
Thus nobody is prevented from asking a valid question.
In Cases 4–6, no big harm is done by deleting.
Questions I would like to answer
================================
* *Why doesn’t closing suffice?* – Closing primarily prevents answers, which is not where the problems with such questions are. Moreover, these problems cannot be solved by editing the question as the information still sticks around. Deletion with a clear reference to this policy is the quickest way to start with a clean state.
* *Why does identifying information only count when it is in question or username? For example, what if I can identify the asker via their profile or similar?* – We cannot predict every research angle at this and have to draw a line somewhere. Also the post content and username are the things which requests for moderator action usually are about – since those are the things that are within our control and only our control. (Note that while the username can be changed, there are restrictions on this and it can still be visible through comment replies and similar.)
* *Why don’t you give any examples for such questions?* – Most previous questions matching the above criteria have already been deleted or redacted, so there will be strong [survival bias](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias) in the selection. Moreover, I do not want to give them extra exposure. [Here](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4385/7734) is a meta discussion about such a question.
* *I am an experienced user using my real name as my account name. Does this mean I am forced to make a sockpuppet to ask such a question?* – Yes. This is a valid use of sockpuppets and it’s probably for the better. Just ensure that your accounts do not interact. [Further reading](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3944/7734).
* *This is censorship. The world must know the truth about …* – This site is neither suited nor intended as a news platform. Even if your allegations are completely accurate and severe, they simply do not belong here. We can help you with how to deal with them, but we do not need names for that.<issue_comment>username_1: I suggest removing "Unprofessional" from the criteria as it is very broad and subjective.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_1: I suggest explicitly excluding from deletion questions where the asker makes allegations about their own conduct. "Did I do something wrong, and what should I do about it?" is a helpful thing to ask, if sometimes embarrassing.
I admit that this might be problematic if the asker is impersonating someone else; presumably impersonation is already forbidden.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: *As [username_1 pointed out](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4766/63475), it is not clear whether the proposed policy applies to self-allegations. Let’s decide this:*
### Suggested amendment
This policy shall also apply to questions making **self**-allegations, i.e., where the target and the asker are identical.
All the other criteria must still apply, in particular the self-allegations must be severe and not anonymous for the question to be deleted.
### Rationale
There is nothing wrong with questions where people ask about dealing with their own mistakes (like there is nothing wrong with questions about how to proceed after being the victim of misconduct).
However, in the rare event that somebody asks such a question non-anonymously, this leads to a subset of the same problems listed in the question: They regret this, self-vandalise, request redaction or disassociations, or actually harmed themselves by asking. Additionally, applying the policy to self-allegations covers possible cases of impersonation and prevents any cumbersome need to verify identity. Therefore it is a good idea to expand the policy to capture self-allegations.
### How to decide
Upvote this answer if you agree with including self-allegations; downvote if you disagree.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: I have a concern with the use of "defamatory" in "The allegations are defamatory, i.e., the reported behaviour is misconduct, criminal, or highly unethical or highly unprofessional." Going by [Meriam-Webster](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/defamation) or [typical use in US law](http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/what-defamatory-statement), a defamatory statement is a **false** statement of fact (i.e. opinion does not count).
It'd be nice if we could avoid having the site be a venue for defamation, but determining whether a statement is false or not is often impractical, so having the rest of the clause resting on this meaning of the word is tricky. On the other hand, many will likely interpret "defamatory" as just "harmful to someone's reputation", which I assume is the intended meaning in the policy. Now, this is a clunky phrase, and I can't think of a precise synonym. However, in connection with "allegations", the word "serious" seems to have the right implications.
Hence, I suggest using "The allegations are serious, ..." instead of "The allegations are defamatory, ...". If there's a desire to keep "defamatory" in there somewhere, then "The allegations are serious or defamatory, ..." would work.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: Perhaps this passage
>
> The information in the question (including the asker’s username) allows others to identify the target or allows the target to identify the asker beyond any reasonable doubt without intensive research.
>
>
>
ought to be modified to something like "**appears** to allow others to identify...". Presumably the mods will be applying this policy based on an assessment of whether usernames, etc, look like they're the names of real people, even if they're actually pseudonyms.
Upvotes: 2 |
2020/08/04 | 1,235 | 4,632 | <issue_start>username_0: **A first draft of the requested canonical question is now live [here](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/153661/what-are-the-criteria-for-degree-revocation/). Please help us out by editing the wiki and adding information.**
[Can public political criticism of my alma mater result in my BA being revoked 35 years later?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/153498/revocation-of-a-ba-degree-35-years-later-for-anti-wokeness)
Can we create a question "What are the criteria for degree revocation?" and close all questions with the theme "Will my degree be revoked if...?" as duplicates?
I think this will reduce the time wasted on debating individuals views and behavior which are not relevant to academia, while making good use of the better quality answers.<issue_comment>username_1: >
> Can we create a question "What are the criteria for degree revocation?" and close all questions with the theme "Will my degree be revoked if...?" as duplicates?
>
>
>
**This seems like a good idea to me.** As I said in the comments, there are [a lot](https://www.google.com/search?q=degree+revocation+site:academia.stackexchange.com) of mostly-identical questions about degree revocation. There was [a discussion](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4420/should-we-have-a-canonical-question-about-degree-revocations) some time ago about doing this, but nothing came of it. Having a wiki page that covers all the caveats is probably better than covering the basics over and over again in many different posts.
Before moving forward, I am hoping others will comment about the best way to do this (mechanically). One option is to merge several posts so that we retain many of the existing answers. Another option is to create a new wiki with blank subject headings, and ask the community to fill it in (either with new content or by copying content from existing answers).
**Update 8 August 2020: This is [done](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/153661/what-are-the-criteria-for-degree-revocation/).**
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I do *not* think this is a good idea. The new community wiki emphasizes this in its question text:
>
> *Each answer here relates to a different criterion which may (or may
> not) lead to degree revocation.*
>
>
>
As I put in a comment on the new community wiki -- I'm actually really concerned that the structure of this community wiki will be misinforming people who ask these sorts of questions. Mostly on these questions the top answer has been "no/we can't say/depends on institution". If people read these answers with an AND conjunction instead of an OR conjunction; or, take them as absolutely-enforced-at-all-institutions, then that will be misinformation. It also doesn't seem able to account for the vast differences in academic cultures around the world ([link](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4471/academia-varies-more-than-you-think-it-does-the-movie)). There's no room in this wiki structure for the very best answer, "we can't say because it's very locale dependent".
Furthermore: The majority of the questions this is seeking to short-circuit are in the negative direction, i.e., usually about things you pretty much *can't* have a degree revoked for. Regarding the [current question in this vein](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/153498/can-public-political-criticism-of-my-alma-mater-result-in-my-ba-being-revoked-35), the two highest-voted answers currently have kernels of:
>
> Revocations on grounds of expression of (political) disagreement with
> the issuing institution are unheard of in rule-of-law democracies.
> I've never heard of such a case, although it would certainly have
> become very well-known.
>
>
>
And:
>
> I sit on our university's Senate which is the body that would have to
> deliberate a degree revocation. Even a straight-forward case of
> plagiarism in a degree requires a long, drawn-out and surprisingly
> contentious decision, and it might happen once or twice a decade. This
> is the last step of a very, very long and drawn-out process.
>
>
>
These negative best-answers will be lost in the wiki structure looking for positive criteria for degree revocation. People still won't see an answer to the specific questions they're asking, and will continue to ask them.
**I would suggest that a better "canonical" question for this purpose would be of the form, "How likely is it to get a degree revoked?", which can then deal with the central issue of it being extremely rare, in fact, a non-issue in almost all cases.**
Upvotes: 0 |
2020/08/04 | 656 | 2,534 | <issue_start>username_0: The [revision history](https://academia.stackexchange.com/posts/153498/revisions) of [this question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/153498/can-public-political-criticism-of-my-alma-mater-result-in-my-ba-being-revoked-35) seems to be saying that edit #6 is the addition of a thank-you note where the question-asker apparently thanks the people who answered the question:
>
> Thank you to everyone for these thoughtful and detailed responses. My fears have been broadly dispelled, although some anxienty remains. I probably have more to fear in my current setting directly than through a chain reacting involving my degree.
>
>
> I have posted some thoughts under the first response and will remain engaged in the discussions above.
>
>
>
But this revision seems to be attributed to a different user than the one who originally posted the question. Am I understanding correctly that this is what happened? If so, is that an acceptable thing to do?
One possibility that's on my mind is that the OP account might be a throw-away, owned by the same person as the account that added the thank-you note, since the question (especially as it was originally phrased) is a bit sensitive. Note that there are no comments from either account on any of the answers, though there are comments from the OP account on the question itself.<issue_comment>username_1: The edit matches, word for word, what the OP of the question posted as an answer. A moderator (username_2) deleted that "answer" (presumably since it does nothing to answer the question) and incorporated it into the question itself. That seems appropriate, and better than leaving the non-answer as-is or deleting it outright.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: The OP mistakenly posted that additional text as an answer. Moderators can directly convert such non-answers to a comment or an edit to the question. The edit is automatically attributed to the moderator who performed the action (me in this case).
This action can be seen from the question's [timeline](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/126447/add-a-link-to-the-timeline-of-a-post/342316#342316), accessible by clicking on the clock icon below the question's score:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/tJLWE.png)
The action is represented by two rows in the timeline: first the deletion and then the edit (users with less than 10k reputation will only see the edit event).
Upvotes: 4 |
2020/09/04 | 2,992 | 11,351 | <issue_start>username_0: The tag **[disability](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/disability "show questions tagged 'disability'")** is currently synonymised with [health-issues](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/health-issues "show questions tagged 'health-issues'") (see the [full list of synonyms for `health-issues`](https://academia.stackexchange.com/tags/health-issues/synonyms)). Based on the [list of tag synonyms](https://academia.stackexchange.com/tags/synonyms), this synonym was created on 22 June 2019, so it doesn't look like this was a direct consequence of [What to do with the mental-health tag](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1783/62311) from June 2015.
Both the tag synonymisation and some of the proposals in the June 2015 question appear to be based on a model of disability that treats disability as (1) primarily a medical issue and (2) a problem that belongs to the individual. In my area of work—digital accessibility—and in [disability studies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disability_studies) this is known as the [**medical model of disability**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_model_of_disability). Based on the medical model, disability requires a "cure" or, if that is not feasible, adjustment or behavioural change in the individual as a surrogate "cure".
This model is now outdated and has been replaced with the [**social model of disability**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_model_of_disability), which does not deny the impact of the impairment but does not seek to change the person either. According to the social model, "disability" refers "to the restrictions caused by society when it does not give equivalent attention and accommodation to the needs of individuals with impairments" ([Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_model_of_disability)), to " the result of the interaction between people living with impairments and an environment filled with physical, attitudinal, communication and social barriers" ([People with Disability Australia](https://pwd.org.au/resources/disability-info/social-model-of-disability/)) or to "a socially created problem and a matter of the full integration of individuals into society" ([Disabled World](https://www.disabled-world.com/definitions/disability-models.php)).
(The medical and the social models are by no means the two only models of disability, but I hope that we can handle this tagging question without additional disability theory.)
What I am asking by requesting to undo the synonymisation between [disability](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/disability "show questions tagged 'disability'") and [health-issues](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/health-issues "show questions tagged 'health-issues'") is for Academia SE to leave behind the outdated medical model of disability. (I do not wish to imply that Academia SE defends or promotes the medical model, only that is seems to be implicit in these tag synonyms.)
This would mean that, for example, the following questions would no longer be tagged [health-issues](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/health-issues "show questions tagged 'health-issues'") but [disability](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/disability "show questions tagged 'disability'"):
* [How do conferences work for deaf scientists?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/154710/62311)
* [Teaching visual tools for visually impaired students?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/153531/62311)
* [Does the Americans With Disabilities Act require accommodations for students whose disability prevents them from behaving ethically?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/153447/62311) (currently closed)
* [How should I apply for readmission to a graduate program from which I had to withdraw due to misconduct caused by a disability?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/152114/62311)
* (probably) [Trying to volunteer as a research assistant post-Master's and not having any success so far](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/150007/62311) (currently closed)
* [Oral Defense for Hearing Impaired Student](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/145404/62311)
(This list is not intended to be exhaustive. There are a number of questions that are still tagged [disability](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/disability "show questions tagged 'disability'") even though they were submitted after 22 June 2019, e.g. [Does FERPA require parental notification of disability assessment?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/135519/62311) .)
Desynonymising [disability](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/disability "show questions tagged 'disability'") is not a *perfect* solution. Strictly speaking, some of the above question would be more appropriately tagged [accessibility](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/accessibility "show questions tagged 'accessibility'"), but that tag does not exist on this site and creating it *might* be harder to achieve here.
---
**Update 05.09.2020**: On second thought, [inclusion](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/inclusion "show questions tagged 'inclusion'") or [disability-inclusion](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/disability-inclusion "show questions tagged 'disability-inclusion'") (the latter is a term used by the [CDC in the USA](https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/disabilityandhealth/disability-inclusion.html)) may be a better tag than [accessibility](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/accessibility "show questions tagged 'accessibility'"). It would definitely work well for questions such as [How do conferences work for deaf scientists?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/154710/62311), [Teaching visual tools for visually impaired students?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/153531/62311) and [Oral Defense for Hearing Impaired Student](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/145404/62311).<issue_comment>username_1: While I do see the problem here, I think that having two separate tags does not really solve it while creating more problems:
* By the nature of our site, we almost exclusively focus on the social aspect anyway. For the questions we get, it mostly does not matter whether something is a disability or a health issue (wherever one draws the line between the two). To give a somewhat unrealistic, but illustrative example, whether somebody cannot access a lecture hall because of a broken leg or a permanent paralysis hardly affects our approach to the problem. Indeed, sometimes the answer to a question is that some health issue qualifies as a disability and thus grants certain rights.
* The line between a permanent disability and temporary health issue is indisputably blurry, or one might say that one thing can be a disability or a health issue depending whether you view it from a social or medical point of view (which is not so different from your outline).
* Again by the nature of our site, most questions in [health-issues](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/health-issues "show questions tagged 'health-issues'") are about disabilities or something that may be one. In fact, in a brief search I couldn’t even find a single question which I would consider correctly tagged [health-issues](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/health-issues "show questions tagged 'health-issues'"), but which was clearly not about disabilities.
As a consequence, I expect that splitting the tag as proposed would lead to users being confused as to which tag they should use and users not finding existing questions that help them. If we ignore everything related to the name of the tag for a second, what do we gain from splitting?
Instead, I suggest that we think about a better name for the main tag (i.e., the synonym target). This is obviously not an easy choice as one has to consider amongst others:
* Some choices may cause people refraining from using the tag altogether due to social stigma, e.g., [disabilities](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/disabilities "show questions tagged 'disabilities'").
* Some choices may cause the undesirable associations you describe, e.g., [health-issues](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/health-issues "show questions tagged 'health-issues'"). (Though I am somewhat surprised by that since at least to me *health issue* does not imply that something requires cure or similar – not that I dispute that others have this association.)
Here, I would like to play the ball back to you, the expert. But even if there should be no good and concise name for this, I would refrain from splitting the tag. In that case, I would consider even a super-clunky name like [accomodating-and-handling-health-issues-and-disabilities](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/accomodating-and-handling-health-issues-and-disabilities "show questions tagged 'accomodating-and-handling-health-issues-and-disabilities'") the lesser evil.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Since `<NAME> -- he him` [suggested](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4783/please-undo-the-synonymisation-of-the-tag-disability-with-health-issues#comment14730_4783) that I should post an alternative tag as an answer, here is a suggestion: introduce the tag [disability-inclusion](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/disability-inclusion "show questions tagged 'disability-inclusion'") for (suggested tag wiki excerpt)
>
> Questions about the inclusion of people with disabilities in higher education. These questions can cover both social practices and technological challenges, and can apply to either students or teaching staff.
>
>
>
This should be broad enough to cover all the examples listed in my question above.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_1: To have some data to help deciding, I went through a bunch of questions in the current that [heath-issues](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/heath-issues "show questions tagged 'heath-issues'"). I excluded only closed questions. I categorised the questions along three axes:
* Mental (depression, ADHD, etc.) vs. physical (broken leg, cancer, blindness, etc.):
+ 28 questions were about mental issues.
+ 6 questions were about physical issues.
+ 4 questions did not specify anything.I want to mention that I think the distinction does not affect the answer for many of these questions, even when accounting for the stigma of mental issues. (Though I did not do a statistics on that.)
* Disabilities and chronic diseases vs. short-term issues. I went for the former when in doubt, which mostly applied to mental-health issues.
+ 28 questions were about disabilities or chronic diseases.
+ 3 questions were clearly not about disabilities.
+ 5 questions were about preventing health problems, mostly psychohygiene.
+ For 2 questions it was completely unclear.
* Accommodation and handling bad performances vs. other issues.
+ 21 questions were about accommodation and handling bad performance.
+ 12 questions were clearly about something else (including the 5 questions about preventing health problems).
+ 5 questions were not clear about this on account of broadness (“How do you handle …?”).
Upvotes: 3 |
Subsets and Splits