date
stringlengths 10
10
| nb_tokens
int64 60
629k
| text_size
int64 234
1.02M
| content
stringlengths 234
1.02M
|
|---|---|---|---|
2020/09/12 | 856 | 3,534 | <issue_start>username_0: I had a falling-out with a professor last year, and the situation has been quite distressing for me. I'm trying to deal with the situation in real life, but so far I haven't gotten answers, so I was posting about it on Academia Stack Exchange. It was a complex issue; thus, it's not something that can be fully addressed in one post. As such, I've posted various questions relating to the matter; however, they weren't duplicate questions; each had a distinct topic and could be applied to various situations. However, I've been prohibited from posting anything related to it, and I don't feel one can be prohibited from posting about a topic unless that topic is offensive and/or unrelated to the stack exchange. (My issue is directly related to academia.)
Yes, I post about this a lot, but I haven't broken any stack exchange rule, so I wanted to complain about this.<issue_comment>username_1: >
> It was a complex issue; thus, it's not something that can be fully
> addressed in one post.
>
>
>
Stack Exchange sites are repositories of *well-defined* and *virtually independent* questions and answers. They are not a good place to ask a long series of questions connected by a thread, and with little or vague differences from question to question.
Users cannot follow such a long thread, can hardly see the differences between the questions and vote to close, even more so if the questioner doesn't seem to follow the advice given in previous answers and comments.
>
> I don't feel one can be prohibited from posting about a topic unless that topic is offensive and/or unrelated to the stack exchange.
>
>
>
We're sorry for what you're going through, but you have to understand that Academia Stack Exchange is simply not suitable for all types of questions related to the academic world. It's really not meant to be so: there are academic questions we can answer and others we can not. In particular, see also [Why was my question put on hold for depending on individual factors?](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3406/20058).
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Yours is a rather unique case.
* Of your 26 questions, more than 15 reference the same conflict, and 14 had a negative total score.
* You have a received a cease-and-desist letter from the institution in question, and the professor in question has replied to your overtures through counsel only.
* You have received very clear, unambiguous advice from this forum: leave her alone and move on with your life. You have explicitly stated that you will not take our advice (in which case, why ask for more advice?).
* Indeed, your later actions (meeting new professors and asking them to relay messages to her) present a very worrying trend -- both in terms of your mental health and in terms of your legal exposure (neither of which are within our area of expertise).
As for "not breaking any stack exchange rule" -- this forum does not allow duplicate questions. Several users have suggested that many of your questions could be rewritten so as to avoid any reference to the above situation; this would be perfectly allowed. In fact, I explicitly suggested that you do this on one question [two months ago](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/151900/can-suing-one-university-hurt-your-admission-chances-at-another), but you chose not to so until a week had passed and the question had been closed and heavily downvoted (perhaps the question could be reopened now, but that is up to the community).
Upvotes: 5 |
2020/09/16 | 792 | 3,220 | <issue_start>username_0: Is there anything wrong with this question?
In particular, is there anything wrong in asking about an educated guess about the possible future impact factor of a new journal?
[What niche is PRResearch supposed to fill that the other APS journals don’t already cover?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/155352/what-niche-is-prresearch-supposed-to-fill-that-the-other-aps-journals-don-t-alre)<issue_comment>username_1: The post in its original form contained the following question:
>
> Moreover, PRResearch is rather new and does not have an impact factor yet. Do you expect the impact factor would be comparable to the PRA/B/C/D/E journals, or to PRL/PRX?
>
>
>
Such a question asks thus for an assessment of a journal, and can be thus considered a [shopping question](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/3658/20058), but since it asks about our expectations on the future impact factor of a journal it can also be considered as *opinion based*. In both cases, it's not a question we can answer and should be closed as off-topic according to our current policies.
However, the post contains another question that can be answered and the edit from Wrzlprmft removed the unanswarable part, keeping and fixing the answerable one. In this way, the question can be salvaged and kept open.
So, you can essentially choose to have a *closed* question in its original form or an *open* question in the edited form.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: First of all, a little foreword. I do not think that people who closed my answer have secret agendas, or malicious intentions. But I think that it is enforcing a policy in an extreme strict way, beyond the scope of the rules. I decided to answer my question because all other answers are pinpointing some issues, but not offering a solution. The point is, rules are here for a reason, but they should allow a genuine question to be asked. One should not forget that the first reason of existence this website is *to ask questions*. If (man-made) laws prevent any meaningful question to be asked, what is the whole point?
So, as everybody seem to agree, the original (non meta) question is legitimate, but there is discussion about whether the part about the IF is legitimate or not.
My answer is: The question about the new journal future IF can be formulated in a more general way. It is totally legit to ask about, what are the reasons why an established publishing company is starting a new journal? Does this publishing company have the power to predict, or to manipulate the future importance, impact, broad diffusion (eg., number of readers), reputation, and acceptance in the scientific community?
As a side note: I do not understand why this meta question is downvoted. The meta question is a totally legitimate question and does not violate any of the rules of Acedemia Meta stack exchange, even if there is a debate about whether the original (non meta) question is legitimate.
As a final word. Please be reasonable. Offering or suggesting a way of asking a similar but closely related question in a legitimate way is more welcome than just saying that a question and not legitimate and to close it.
Upvotes: -1 |
2020/09/20 | 1,799 | 6,784 | <issue_start>username_0: **Mod's notice:** *Given the clear outcome of the poll below, I've now closed the question (MO).*
I have the highest voted answer to [this controversial post regarding racism against an Indian student](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/155185/how-to-proceed-after-being-threatened-and-treated-poorly-by-university-faculty-a/155158#155158). The claims in the OP are quite extraordinary, but the poster deserves the benefit of the doubt, so I gave sincere advice. Then I read this reply by the OP on [my answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/155158/57314) that was just posted yesterday (September 19th):
>
> In the end, I remarked to this individual that one serious problem is that I'm a high caste individual, and look at white people in my university as an abominable low caste, and that automatically creates a lot of problems.
>
>
>
I had to re-read it to make sure I wasn't misunderstanding. Then I looked back over the rest of the posts, and I'm not sure what to make of it. The OP implicates the following list of people with some very over-the-top racism, including physical confrontations and swearing:
* Other PhD students
* The department chair
* The Dean
* HR
* Multiple faculty
It's certainly *possible* that this person landed at the most racist institution in all of Massachusetts. But in light of the quote above, it seems more plausible that either the OP is the problem, or more likely, the whole post is an elaborate and puzzling attempt at trolling.
At a minimum the conversation has become so focused on this person's bizarre situation that I can't imagine it being particularly useful to other readers. I'm not sure what the appropriate action would be though.
So what does the rest of the community think? Am I being overly harsh in my judgment after reading the above comment?
Some more context from the linked chat room from the same OP:
>
> I wrote this after documenting a huge number of incidents inside our
> department, and got a reply from the Title IX office saying there's
> nothing really wrong. Actually I'm not sure if all of the documented
> incidents could be dealt with by the Title IX office, but certainly
> there were major serious incidents there that they should have dealt
> with. Caste is officially a protected category in this university. I
> felt a bit sick myself talking in this manner with these disgusting
> hypocrites who pretend to be such progressives that they make caste a
> protected class, but with this cabal, it felt fine. I wanted to see
> their reaction; if they would do anything now that I claimed that the
> whole problem was basically casteist. This was meant to slander them
> even further. I mean, caste should be a protected class, but very very
> few places in the US have added caste as a protected class, if I'm not
> wrong. I was basically baiting them at this point. I hope I could make
> the context clearer; I was basically trolling, and trying to conjure
> up an image of myself as a casteist a\*\*hole and that too by calling
> white Americans in my university lower castes by default, in a
> farcical tone. None of this is really relevant here, but from my high
> school and college days (my opinion changed from middle school when I
> was more swayed by the opinion of General category folk around me), I
> have openly advocated for caste based reservation in India and why it
> is important for it to continue for at least a few generations, and
> have faced the wrath of some of my friends for saying this. Of the
> handful of really close friends I made in college, about half of them
> were from a non privileged caste. We never discussed caste then of
> course. In fact literally four of my most closest friends who I hung out with
> in college were all from a non privileged caste. I've lost touch a
> little bit, but good old days, and we'll meet again! But again, this
> is what you would call "reactive behavior" at best, but I felt the
> time for continuing politeness with our university administration was
> pretty much over, after their continuing dismissals of all incidents.
>
>
>
Further [comments](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/155185/how-to-proceed-after-being-threatened-and-treated-poorly-by-university-faculty-a#comment416031_155186):
>
> This was exactly what I had written in the very last email to the
> Title IX office: "Actually a lot of these problems stem from the fact
> that I'm a high caste individual, and look around in this university
> and see a dimwitted peasant class that is a natural anathema for me.
> Do you think that can enable you to take some kind of action?" I did
> not say 'white people in the university were an abominable lower
> caste'. The idea was to bark back. The context was that this
> university made headlines by adding caste as a protected class, and
> thus showed off it's progressive cred.I should mention that in the
> prior emails, the documentation that I had was huge, and this thread
> or the chat probably covers at most 30% of everything documented
> there.
>
>
>
OP later clarified:
>
> I hope in the discussion, I could make it clear that I don't actually view white people in my university as a lower caste, or want to look down on lower castes in India.
>
>
><issue_comment>username_1: Victim-blaming is often a manifestation of prejudice. It's a manifestation of prejudice that is seen from time to time on this site. We are not defense attorneys, so there is no need for us to investigate the victim.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_1: *Upvote this answer if you agree we should close (for any reason); downvote if you strongly disagree.*
**Close the question.** This "depends on individual factors": if all these details are really needed to understand the question, the question does not belong on this site.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: *Upvote this answer if you agree we should leave open in its present state (for any reason); downvote if you strongly disagree.*
**Leave the question open in its present state**.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: *Upvote this answer if you agree we should heavily edit the question and leave open (for any reason); downvote if you strongly disagree.*
**Heavily edit the question, then leave open.** We can edit to (1) generalize the question, and (2) remove some of the troubling comments cited above. This will allow us to keep the existing answers intact.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_3: *Upvote this answer if you agree we should delete (for any reason); downvote if you strongly disagree.*
**Delete the question** (in addition to closing). The situation seems enough of a mess that suggestions based on an incomplete understanding of it can easily do harm.
Upvotes: 3 |
2020/10/19 | 1,287 | 5,171 | <issue_start>username_0: I've never found a Stack Exchange site or a QA site comparable with this SE. Every one is super friendly. Every question is either well-crafted, or concise and precise. Every answer is super helpful. There is no fight, no politics, no troubles. Everyone is simply helping each others. I've learned much more about academics here than from my super busy advisor.
However, as a student, I have very very little experience to offer back to the community. In addition, I don't want to misguide others with my inaccurate information and my immaturity. I feel guilty if I don't give back in return. How can I effectively contribute?<issue_comment>username_1: Thanks so much for sharing! Glad that we're helpful. I can see two ways you can help out, and I'm sure there are more:
* There are many questions stemming from a teacher's point of view, or a lab advisor, or a colleague. Your perspective is quite valuable on these posts. You'd be surprised how quickly the student experience is forgotten. Share your thoughts, especially when you notice that they're not being expressed in other answers.
* Play the long game! I've been on this site for ... *\*checks watch\** ... more years than I care to admit to myself, and the type of contribution I've been able to provide has shifted dramatically. "Pay it forward," as the saying goes, whenever you have the opportunity.
On a related note, please take to heart that your asking questions and participating is an *incredibly* valuable contribution to the community. You have over 35k views on questions you've asked... using the time-honored tradition of guesstimating, that's probably over 15k people who have benefitted from your contributions. That's incredible! Well done!
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> Academia SE is the best SE!
>
>
>
Hard to argue with that!
>
> However, as a student, I have very very little experience to offer back to the community. In addition, I don't want to misguide others with my inaccurate information and my immaturity.
>
>
>
It is admirable that you recognize this! Unlike some other SEs that are based on technical "facts" or verifiable references, we rely heavily on "personal expertise" from those with experience in academia. We are lucky that our user base represents a wide cross-section of students, lecturers, post-docs, professors, industry researchers, and former academicians. But we must all recognize our limits, and avoid the temptation to overgeneralize from our experience or knowledge. I am sometimes reminded of this "the hard way" when I answer a question I shouldn't, and end up saying something stupid about law or theoretical math. :-)
>
> I feel guilty if I don't give back in return. How can I effectively contribute?
>
>
>
Eykanal gave some good suggestions, but let me underline three in particular.
* **Ask questions.** As discussed [here](https://stackoverflow.blog/2019/11/13/were-rewarding-the-question-askers/), crafting a well-received question is difficult. Long-time users are familiar with our site's norms, and can be a good source of interesting questions.
* **Edit**. This is definitely something that not everyone can do: it can be a tricky balance to make (sometimes major) revisions while still respecting the asker's intent. But if you have good writing skills (which you seem to) and are familiar with our norms, this can be really impactful: I have seen edits turn a soon-to-be-closed or largely-ignored question into an HNQ. And it is largely thankless work.
* **Vote and flag**. If you've been around for a while and are familiar with our norms, your votes (including close/reopen votes) are very helpful. And as for "there is no fight, no politics, no troubles"...well, the view as a mod is a bit different, but flags are a very helpful way to bring (potential) issues to our attention before they turn into trouble.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: >
> I don't want to misguide others... How can I effectively contribute?
>
>
>
Vote on questions. You do not need to know the answer to a question to determine if the question is useful.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: Because it hasn’t been mentioned yet:
**Review,** in particular first posts. I would argue that this is the most important review queue, because if done properly, a good *first posts* review can make a new user feel welcome, fix problems with a question before bad answers or closure happen, and so on. Just make sure that you edit the post as well as you can, leave comments helping the author to improve their post (or explain what is the problem with an unsalvageable post), and vote and flag as appropriate.
In my experience, a secondary advantage of reviewing is that you automatically engage with posts, and learn something in the process or find questions that you can answer.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: >
> I feel guilty if I don't give back in return. How can I effectively contribute?
>
>
>
Even just upvoting questions and answers you like is a valuable service, and it is a nice little show of appreciation for those of us who contribute questions and answers.
Upvotes: 2 |
2020/10/23 | 1,231 | 4,907 | <issue_start>username_0: I am writing a SToP for doctoral studies and I have a bit of a contentious opening paragraph that I would like to get opinions on from the ASE community.
I’m wondering if it is okay to post the question with the small intro paragraph I have to see how the community perceives it?
I’m just trying to get some external opinions from academics that do not know me.<issue_comment>username_1: Thanks so much for sharing! Glad that we're helpful. I can see two ways you can help out, and I'm sure there are more:
* There are many questions stemming from a teacher's point of view, or a lab advisor, or a colleague. Your perspective is quite valuable on these posts. You'd be surprised how quickly the student experience is forgotten. Share your thoughts, especially when you notice that they're not being expressed in other answers.
* Play the long game! I've been on this site for ... *\*checks watch\** ... more years than I care to admit to myself, and the type of contribution I've been able to provide has shifted dramatically. "Pay it forward," as the saying goes, whenever you have the opportunity.
On a related note, please take to heart that your asking questions and participating is an *incredibly* valuable contribution to the community. You have over 35k views on questions you've asked... using the time-honored tradition of guesstimating, that's probably over 15k people who have benefitted from your contributions. That's incredible! Well done!
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> Academia SE is the best SE!
>
>
>
Hard to argue with that!
>
> However, as a student, I have very very little experience to offer back to the community. In addition, I don't want to misguide others with my inaccurate information and my immaturity.
>
>
>
It is admirable that you recognize this! Unlike some other SEs that are based on technical "facts" or verifiable references, we rely heavily on "personal expertise" from those with experience in academia. We are lucky that our user base represents a wide cross-section of students, lecturers, post-docs, professors, industry researchers, and former academicians. But we must all recognize our limits, and avoid the temptation to overgeneralize from our experience or knowledge. I am sometimes reminded of this "the hard way" when I answer a question I shouldn't, and end up saying something stupid about law or theoretical math. :-)
>
> I feel guilty if I don't give back in return. How can I effectively contribute?
>
>
>
Eykanal gave some good suggestions, but let me underline three in particular.
* **Ask questions.** As discussed [here](https://stackoverflow.blog/2019/11/13/were-rewarding-the-question-askers/), crafting a well-received question is difficult. Long-time users are familiar with our site's norms, and can be a good source of interesting questions.
* **Edit**. This is definitely something that not everyone can do: it can be a tricky balance to make (sometimes major) revisions while still respecting the asker's intent. But if you have good writing skills (which you seem to) and are familiar with our norms, this can be really impactful: I have seen edits turn a soon-to-be-closed or largely-ignored question into an HNQ. And it is largely thankless work.
* **Vote and flag**. If you've been around for a while and are familiar with our norms, your votes (including close/reopen votes) are very helpful. And as for "there is no fight, no politics, no troubles"...well, the view as a mod is a bit different, but flags are a very helpful way to bring (potential) issues to our attention before they turn into trouble.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: >
> I don't want to misguide others... How can I effectively contribute?
>
>
>
Vote on questions. You do not need to know the answer to a question to determine if the question is useful.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: Because it hasn’t been mentioned yet:
**Review,** in particular first posts. I would argue that this is the most important review queue, because if done properly, a good *first posts* review can make a new user feel welcome, fix problems with a question before bad answers or closure happen, and so on. Just make sure that you edit the post as well as you can, leave comments helping the author to improve their post (or explain what is the problem with an unsalvageable post), and vote and flag as appropriate.
In my experience, a secondary advantage of reviewing is that you automatically engage with posts, and learn something in the process or find questions that you can answer.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: >
> I feel guilty if I don't give back in return. How can I effectively contribute?
>
>
>
Even just upvoting questions and answers you like is a valuable service, and it is a nice little show of appreciation for those of us who contribute questions and answers.
Upvotes: 2 |
2020/10/23 | 1,613 | 6,333 | <issue_start>username_0: Why people use comments to answer the questions? I am already read [**this**](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1819/answers-in-comments) question, which is very close to what I am saying here. But I want to go further because I don't get how the community uses the answers and comments. So why regulators censor answers that could be comments? Why don't ask to migrate the answer to a comment?
Sorry, it is just a specific case that was happened to me. But seems like another "no written regulation" on the community. **Wich is very difficult for new members like me to get it**.
Besides some "culture" of answering on the comments, that is somehow common for people censor the answers that may be posted in comments? If that's the case, why people don't do a double check (Besides that how the moderation could be double-checked?) or do feedback to the user migrate the answer to the comment?
What I mean is: Instead of using a comment, I used the answer to try to contribute a question. I advised a site with academic research tools (it was a tool to discover the network of existing connections with a specific academic text), but my answer was quickly denounced and my contribution was seen as website marketing!
I tried to use the edit to see if I received feedback from my replica. But the answer disappeared and I didn't have or couldn't find<issue_comment>username_1: >
> (1) Why people use comments to answer the questions?
>
>
>
**They shouldn't.** This bypasses the voting mechanism; further, popular comments are often more visible than answers. The photography stack has a [nice write up](https://photo.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4655/please-put-your-answers-in-the-answers-section-even-if-theyre-short) of why answers-in-comments are discouraged.
I can't quite follow the rest of your post, but I'll try to break this down.
>
> (2) How do moderators handle answers in comments?
>
>
>
This is tricky. Some of the possible ways we can deal with answers-in-comments include:
* Encouraging authors to turn answers-in-comments into proper answers (everyone can do this, not just mods!)
* Move answers-in-comments and other [off-topic comments](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/19756/how-do-comments-work) to chat (the system only allows us move comments to chat once per post)
* Linking [this FAQ](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4230/why-do-the-moderators-move-comments-to-chat-and-how-should-i-behave-afterwards/4231) which warns people that future answers-in-comments may be deleted
* Deleting answers-in-comments
* Declining to take any action
Determining which of these to use in a given case is a tricky business: comment-writers get angry when we delete their comments, but answer-writers get angry when we don't! We had some discussion of this [a year ago](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4600/which-kinds-of-answers-in-comments-if-any-do-we-want-to-keep), and while we did arrive at some general guidelines, we generally tailor our approach to each situation.
That said, there is no automatic answer-in-comment detector: if no one raises a flag, and we mods don't happen across it ourselves, then no action will be taken. This is one reason why it might appear that answers-in-comments are allowed.
>
> (3) How do moderators handle comments in answers?
>
>
>
In my experience, most are extremely low-quality and are just deleted. In rare cases, we can convert answers to comments (but not the other way around)
>
> (4) What I mean is: Instead of using a comment, I used the answer to try to contribute a question. I advised a site with academic research tools (it was a tool to discover the network of existing connections with a specific academic text), but my answer was quickly denounced and my contribution was seen as website marketing!
>
>
>
So in fact, this example really has nothing to do with the distinction between answers and comments!
I believe you are referring to [this](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/156194/how-to-enhance-my-use-of-google-scholar/156208#156208) deleted answer (link for users with >10K reputation). In this case, the user had asked some specific questions about Google Scholar. You ignored these questions and wrote:
>
> Although Sorry if my answer isn't such precise. However, I think everyone needs to know this website. That is a wonderful tool to follow and do the net of bibliography that apparently you want with Google Scholar features. [url redacted]
>
>
>
This does look a lot like spam. You didn't address any of OP's specific questions, instead recommending a totally different tool with no justification. I believe you when you say that you are not spamming, and I'm sorry you had this negative experience. However, if you are going to recommend a tool, you need to be very specific about why the tool solves OP's *specific* problem. We get a lot of spam here (often for predatory tools, journals, or conferences) and so it is natural to question the motivation of those who recommend a particular tool (and even moreso when the author is a new user).
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Possible reasons to place answers in comments (as far as I have encountered them):
* On stack overflow people use comments to post answers because they do not want to "pollute" their credibility: they do not wish to get reputation points for the easier answers: potential employers watch their account, so this is understandable there. This is probably less relevant for academia, but the behaviour may exist.
* People may answer in comments because they wish to help OP, despite the question being off-topic, a duplicate, or a shopping question.
* The answer is incomplete: it includes one suggestion that could be seen as an answer by some, but the actual answer is more complex. The person who answers realizes this, but does not have the knowledge, time or motivation to post a full, detailed answer. If he still wishes to contribute or post a hint for the one who will write the full answer, comments are used.
Even though these may not be the intended use of comments, in many cases it helps OP and the website so I see no reason to forbid or prevent it, but that is a matter of opinion of course.
Upvotes: 2 |
2020/11/20 | 497 | 1,930 | <issue_start>username_0: My question ([Any way to sync my Papers 2 library to my newer iPad?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/159027/any-way-to-sync-my-papers-2-library-to-my-newer-ipad)) was closed as off-topic today. To be honest, I hesitated before posting it because it felt not quite like an exact fit for this SE site. However, when I saw that there were tags for both `[reference-managers]` and `[technology]` I felt reassured, and went ahead with the post.
Let's face it, managing references is an indisputable part of academic life. Anyone who works in academia has probably had the experience of misplacing a research paper they later want to cite, or misremembering where they saw it ("Let's see, was it Blovenstein & Cobbler in *Journal of Widgets*, or was it Cobbler, Blovenstein et al in *Annals of Widget Research*?") Solving this problem is both part of the job and an information-management problem for which a number of technological solutions are available, each with their own advantages and disadvantages. My situation is that I had a method that worked well until recently, but now seems to be reaching its end-of-life. Is it really off-topic to ask for advice on how to manage this, or to see if anybody else has been in a similar situation and found a workable solution?<issue_comment>username_1: This is quite a borderline question to me. Its definitely more of a software reference question, and honestly should just go on the [Papers 2 support site](https://readcubesupport.freshdesk.com/support/home). That said, this is clearly an academic issue, relevant to other academics. I'm in favor of reopening.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Sorry, but the question is a purely technical one. I'd vote to close (again) but the system won't let me. There are other places for this sort of question.
The application isn't the heart of the question. It is about syncing devices.
Upvotes: 2 |
2020/11/23 | 640 | 2,860 | <issue_start>username_0: There are a number of questions on Academia.SE from students who have just been accused of cheating, or of some other form of misconduct. While the specifics of the allegations and circumstances differ, there is a great deal of commonality in the advice given. Many of the questions are written in a panic on the day of the accusation, and essentially ask how the student can immediately "prove their innocence". Advice often consists of telling the student to calm down and follow the procedure for allegations of misconduct. There is a great deal of valid general advice that can be given here, irrespective of the particular allegation at issue.
To the extent that answers to these questions give advice that is specific to the situation (i.e., which would not be replicated in a canonical version of the question), that is usually technical advice pertaining to a particular piece of evidence (e.g., how a particular computer system works) and arguably this is not material that relates to academia *per se*. Rather than focussing on academic matters, advice then becomes technical advice on evidentiary matters, more akin to legal/forensic advice.
**Here is the [proposed canonical question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/159148/) with a long answer giving general advice [presently closed]. Please let me know if you think this question adds value, and if any edits to the question would be useful. I am open to editing the question (or my answer) if it would lead to acceptance as a canonical version of this class of question.**<issue_comment>username_1: *Upvote this post if you agree that we should adopt this canonical question; downvote if you strongly disagree.*
Yes, we should adopt this canonical question. As Ben says, the purpose of this forum is the academic process, which we can explain in a single, well-written canonical question -- we should not wade into the forensic or legal matters of individual cases.
Note, this referendum is on the question only; the answer Ben proposed can be revised or a competing answer can be posted.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_1: *Upvote this post if you agree that we should not adopt this canonical question; downvote if you strongly disagree.*
No, we should not adopt this canonical question. There are too many variables: technical issues with an online system are substantively different than a good-faith misinterpretation of the rules which is different than being caught texting during an exam. Further, things are different in different locations. Lumping research or sexual misconduct into this makes it even broader. While some misconduct questions are essentially duplicates of each other, we should continue to mark as duplicates of an existing, similar question rather than creating a giant, one-size-fits-all canonical answer.
Upvotes: 3 |
2020/12/20 | 2,603 | 10,084 | <issue_start>username_0: StackExchange generally [requires](https://academia.stackexchange.com/conduct) professional, respectful discourse. As such, profanity is [generally disallowed](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/22232/are-expletives-cursing-swear-words-or-vulgar-language-allowed-on-se-sites) site-wide. But, this is applied differently on different sites: as noted [here](https://scifi.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2384/is-profanity-in-direct-quotes-from-source-material-permitted), for example, Literature.SE requires that "profane" words be spelled out in full when they are being discussed.
Here on Academia.SE, we last [discussed this](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1160/what-does-the-offensive-flag-mean-to-you/1164) in 2014, and the consensus was roughly:
>
> profanity should be edited out of answers; if impossible, the answer should be deleted.
>
>
>
Recently, there was a [kerfuffle](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/160250/79875) when an answer contained an anecdote in which the following line was added to a codebase:
`# For fuck's sake, stop using anal as a variable or in a name!!`
This was correctly flagged and edited (to remove the "f-word") according to the existing policy, but some users (not unreasonably, IMO) felt that our policy was too strict and should be relaxed.
So: **should we allow profanity when non-abusive and germane to the topic under discussion? If so, what restrictions (if any) should there be on this?**
**To make this answerable, I strongly suggest that replies to this question should include a suggested update to our policy,** along with the rationale. Any answer that contains a clear policy suggestion, does not conflict with a higher-voted answer, earns at least a +5 net score, and earns twice as many upvotes as downvotes will be adopted. If no answer containing a clear policy recommendation reaches this threshold, we will keep our policy unchanged.<issue_comment>username_1: A French perspective on this predominantly US site, but also used by non-US users.
Our perspective on profanity and pornography is wildly different than in the US. We commonly use words such as "oh putain" (~"oh shit") in professional situations. Context matters very much - I just told my 14 years old son who was on a game chat that this is not acceptable.
Same goes for pornography. Watch the end of this gymnastics TV show of the 80's (NSFW and for puritan eyes outside of France I guess) that was broadcasted in the morning (around 10 am) on the second TV channel (out of the three we had): <https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7ezxsx>. What you see is from the archives of the official French institution that preserves TV programs ([INA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institut_national_de_l%27audiovisuel)).
I was a teenager at the time and we got extremely interested in fitness, that we watched till the very end. Now, 40 years later, we enjoy the fact that we had such freedom (I am not even starting with what was at 19:45, right before the main news program of the day)
Academia is a site for grown-ups. Grown-ups know that words such as fuck exist and that people sometimes use them. When I quote General Cambronne who replied to the English "Merde!", I will not change it to "Selles!" (the medical word for excrements), or "M\*\*\*e!" because everyone would laugh instead of understanding that it was a courageous act.
I am offended by some words (such as "homeopathy"). Does that mean that they should be either explained in an allegoric way ("medicine for idiots"), or shortened to "hom\*\*\*" (and then be mistaken with "homophobia")?
There is a moment where an adult sees things that they do not like and the world will not bend to them. Including homeopathy.
**My proposal: be strict on ad-hominem attacks, leave alone words because different people see them differently.** If the words are really added for the sake of being vulgar that is something else. A comment like the one in the code was funny - there was no malice from the desperate developer who had to anal this and that.
You do not realize how the nipple-gate was seen here: as a sandbox fight between toddlers. It was not even funny, it was quite frightening that a breast seen on TV by accident raised to national issue and warranted a time shift in such broadcasts so that someone can press a button to avoid that in the future.
EDIT: I do not think that changing the rules will change much in reality.
People will still flag posts with "homeopathy" as vulgar (see, I am trying to decrease the tension here), and then what is left to the mods? To decide whether this is a really vulgar word, or a less vulgar one? Whether in that context it is acceptable? If I was a mod I would have a hard time deciding (I moderated plenty of wild places back in the 90's and was part of the Angel Team that fought with early pedo-pornography - so I have seen my fair share of dark and vulgarity). Especially on a site like Academia where real, intended vulgarity is not common.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: A slightly stricter option.
**Proposal: Profanity should generally be edited out of posts; however, it may be retained as needed to facilitate unredacted quotes (actual or hypothetical), or discussions about language.**
Rationale:
* The code-of-conduct requires that language be respectful and professional. Profanity is rarely necessary, and is often perceived as unprofessional or disrespectful (even if this is not the intent). Further, new users who see profanity may assume that "anything goes." So, answers like "hell no..." should be edited to "no..."; answers that cannot be edited should be deleted. This is largely the policy now.
* But, there is no reason to avoid using profanity when it is germane to the discussion and used in a reasonable manner. On this site, that includes quotes (actual or hypothetical), and discussions about academic language. So, profanity in these cases will generally no longer be removed.
* The other key change is the word "generally": individual cases may be judged individually. This does not mean that exceptions will be granted to anyone who complains; rather, we will consider each post's overall tone and the degree to which removing the profanity would weaken or obfuscate the post.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: A subtly different suggestion from the previous proposals:
A similar take to username_2's suggestion, where profanity is permitted when it adds to the discussion, such as in a direct quote or if using a substitute would obscure the discussion significantly. However, profanity that does not contribute significantly to the question is edited out, as in general it is not helpful and breaks a good rule of thumb for clarity: not to use more words than is necessary to get the point across.
I would suggest, however, that the existing policy continue to be enforced in the case where the word in question has a history of being used to oppress and dehumanise a minority group. Examples include racial slurs such as "the N-word". This reflects policies that exist elsewhere in academia such as [this policy](https://www.english.cam.ac.uk/equality/?page_id=130) from Cambridge University English department. Quoting from the linked page:
>
> Offensive and highly charged terms (such as the n-word) can have a detrimental impact on the ability of BAME [Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic] students to learn.
>
>
>
Though this site is not primarily for students, I think the sentiment can be transferred that the use of racial slurs, even in quotations, can have a significant negative impact on the ability of minority groups to have a pleasant and benificial experience on academia.stackexchange. For this reason, I don't think that the small added benefit of clarity is justified in the case of racial slurs and other charged language.
This is in line with the [StackExchange code of conduct](https://meta.stackexchange.com/conduct) that states
>
> When in doubt, don't use language that might offend or alienate.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: Not necessarily equal to my personal view, but this has been addressed on MSE before:
[Are expletives (cursing, swear words or vulgar language) allowed on SE sites?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/22232/are-expletives-cursing-swear-words-or-vulgar-language-allowed-on-se-sites)
Quoting from Jeff's answer:
>
> Using expletives is not acceptable behavior on any Stack Exchange site and is a violation of the Code of Conduct, even on Meta. There are a very small handful of exceptions (such as if you were talking about the word itself on a language site), but in general you should not use expletives anywhere, under any circumstances. If you can't effectively communicate what you need to say without resorting to lowest common denominator cursing, then keep it to yourself.
>
>
>
I think it's fine for Academia.SE to decide how we interpret the "exceptions" and that this interpretation could be quite broad, but we should also consider the broader SE policy for context. Yes, there is almost certainly a "industry/corporate US culture" assumption built in to this policy when that culture does not describe many of the users here, but also we are on a website principally operated by a US company.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: It is hard to state this in "policy language", but I think that such things should only be removed (other than when some abuse is involved), if they are unrelated to the "meaning and sense" of the post. If an expletive or other possibly hurtful language contributes nothing to the meaning, then it can be removed without changing the intent of the writer.
But English is, since its creation, a rather profane language. Even Shakespeare used some rather, for the day, harsh language.
But I'll also note that it doesn't have to be profane or abusive to offend people. Even a seeming innocuous phrase like "...thank God..." will be deeply offensive to possibly millions of people.
Upvotes: 1 |
2020/12/27 | 1,612 | 6,701 | <issue_start>username_0: I was reading an answer to a question (<https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/160520/15446>) when it got edited to remove the religious aspects.
The answer is very poor and does not bring anything new (with or without the edit) so it should be just downvoted to oblivion.
Removing the religious aspect changes the answer considerably, though.
I usually edit when there are typos, the formatting is wrong, to break walls of text. The other case is when I add some links to references (without changing the reference), or add something minor to the answer because it is better (say, an exception to an otherwise good rule (in math for instance)).
I avoid making substantial edits that change what the author had in mind, I ask in comments before.
In the case of that specific answer, I would just have downvoted and flagged it.
Was the edit OK by the rules? (the editor explained clearly the reasons for the edit and the edit made sense - **so my question is rather about making such large changes that remove 80% of the content**)<issue_comment>username_1: It's true that that edit may be a seen as too invasive and deviating from the original intent of the post (to use the words of an edit reject reason), especially without a specific explanation for the user (a new user might not notice the edit comment in the revision history).
It's also true, though, that that part is really irrelevant to the question. I also think that this does not depend on its religious content, which I wouldn't consider controversial. Reverting the edit is thus possible, but it wouldn't add anything to the answer.
Therefore, I haven't reverted the edit, but I've added a comment hoping to better explain the reason to the author (suggestion for refinements are welcome):
>
> Hi and welcome to Academia SE. Your answer contained a long part which was totally unrelated to the question. Please recall that, unlike forums, Stack Exchange sites are not built for general discussions, but as repositories of answers to well-defined questions. It's thus important to keep the answers focussed, and for this reason the irrelevant part has been removed. I kindly invite you to have a look at the Tour and at the Help center to see how this site works.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: I have read your comments and here is my explanation for my answer. BTW I have already posted this in the comments section but just to make it clear. All what I was to do is to actually give the OP a hand both by affirming what other people said and by advising what approach I take to solve the issue myself.
To us Muslims, and I think should be to everyone else, an academic setting, a medical setting, an emotional setting, or whatever setting you can think of is a part of a human's life and counts towards the decisions he makes in his life. Allah says in the Quran, which I really advice myself first and everyone else to take a look at often, in 75:36 " Does man think that he will be left neglected (without being punished or rewarded for the obligatory duties enjoined by his Lord Allâh on him)?" in other interpretation: left without purpose? in another interpretation "alone, unquestioned?. This means that the everything in the life of the human being revolves around his relationship with Allah, his creator, because he will stand in front of him on the day of judgment. And if you look with an objective eye you can see that what humans believe in, good or bad, true or false, affects every move they make in life whether that is publishing a paper, performing a medical operation, dealing with other people or even using the toilet! FYI the main reason why muslims use water after using the toilet is because Allah commanded us through his messenger Muhammed peace be upon him to do so. Of course such daily actions have an affect on human life in all aspects because we believe they are from the creator and giver of life so who else can give you better advice. ِAllah says in 67:14 How could He not know His Own creation? For He ˹alone˺ is the Most Subtle, All-Aware. So this is actually pretty academic work!
\*\*note: After I wrote the answer below I realized how long it is and hence thank you for reading it in advance. Looking forward to your questions or concerns.
Just a quick question to all participating as admins specially those in such an academic context: why is religion out of question when it comes to science although religion brings forth science based evidence to a matter? Is it because religion, due to the media, immediately raises all the flags to some people? I mean the only reason why science exists is due to the observations of what is out there done by the creator right? If you think no creator exists, well you still do not have a good argument yet to not believe that and base science on it. As far as I understand science is based on observation, so what you see is what you note down right? But hold on, if the creator "out there" decided to hide himself from observation does this mean he is not there? No it means we just can see him or we maybe not using the right tool. A very small example is the invention of the telescope and microscope, people did not know what was out there until we had the right tool at hand. Well we have perhaps the greatest tools to find out. Allah says in 16:78 And Allah brought you out of the wombs of your mothers while you knew nothing, and gave you hearing, sight, and intellect so perhaps you would be thankful. and in 2:164 Indeed, in the creation of the heavens and the earth; the alternation of the day and the night; the ships that sail the sea for the benefit of humanity; the rain sent down by Allah from the skies, reviving the earth after its death; the scattering of all kinds of creatures throughout; the shifting of the winds; and the clouds drifting between the heavens and the earth—˹in all of this˺ are surely signs for people of understanding. But also Allah says in 50:37 Surely in this is a reminder for whoever has a ˹mindful˺ heart and lends an attentive ear.
Thank you for reading this far.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_3: My preference, actually, is to leave such things in place. The only reason I can see for removing them is that they were attracting such a negative response. But that is the "fault" of those with down votes and negative comments. That part makes me sad.
In some ways, an answer appealing to "higher powers," as it were, might be soothing to someone like the OP of the question who sounds a bit depressed. So the answer was, in some way, a personal response, not a technical one.
But it was sad to see all the down votes there and here.
Upvotes: -1 |
2020/12/31 | 1,209 | 4,847 | <issue_start>username_0: Please, take look at this question:
[What is a good rule of thumb for the cost of a Postdoc, in the US at an R1 university](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/160653/what-is-a-good-rule-of-thumb-for-the-cost-of-a-postdoc-in-the-us-at-an-r1-unive)
The first comment said that it is apparently a well known fact that the ballpark estimate is to double the salary.
The answer confirms this fact.
So apparently there is a simple, agreed upon, answer to the question.
Yet, the question is closed. Why?
Because the first comments (now deleted) wanted to know "why I was asking that." And also wanted to "teach me" that it's "worthless" to know a ballpark estimate. And so on. Of course, I replied appropriately to these condescending, patronizing comments which did not improve anything, just created noise.
People, then, closed the question, most likely out of spite.
Is this childlike behaviour appropriate?<issue_comment>username_1: I think you have been told several times what the problem was.
In the now-deleted comments, <NAME> wrote:
>
> The trouble with this question is that it is location specific. In some countries the postoc will pay higher taxes and get health coverage. In a few countries, the university needs to cover the cost of health insurance and that is generally passed on to the PI. There will be variation between universities in the same country. The current question is very broad and probably will gather misleading answers.
>
>
>
Lighthouse keeper wrote:
>
> It's usually a good idea to give a reason [why you are asking the question] because many questions on this site come from flawed premises, and the most helpful response is to correct the premise rather than to literally answer the question.
>
>
>
Finally, I wrote:
>
> Most open/close decisions here are made by community vote, not by moderator fiat. If you edit your question, it will be placed in a queue for a reopening vote. The hard part of question-asking is the amount of detail: it should be specific enough that there is a correct answer rather than an open-ended discussion, but general enough that future readers might find the question useful. In your case, a good starting place would be to specify your country (or part of the world) and field.
>
>
>
Now I see that you have added a location, which is good, but still no field (even a general field, like laboratory science vs. history) and no hint of why you want to know the answer. You may feel that we can provide a good answer without knowing these variables, but the community apparently disagrees.
>
> I replied appropriately to these condescending, patronizing comments
>
>
>
Let us be honest about what happened. You told one of our most respected members "haha oh lord, how can people be so anal?" You also wrote "Due to bullying and peer pressure, I have unnecessarily reduced the scope of the question. Hope you are happy now? Or should we waste our time making it more precise?..." Even in this meta post, you call us condescending, patronizing, spiteful, and childish.
This is against our [code of conduct](https://academia.stackexchange.com/conduct) (which a moderator pointed you to). We do not allow "subtle put-downs or unfriendly language." If you feel that other members were unfriendly toward you, you should flag for moderator attention rather than responding in kind.
I will also point out that some of our members have been here for years, helping thousands of people with no reward. In contrast, you have been here for two days and have already unleashed a barrage of personal attacks. As in "real life," you will seldom be able to advance your agenda when you make others defensive and hostile.
>
> [How to move forward?]
>
>
>
You did the right thing in posting to meta. Setting aside the above issues, I actually agree with you that this was a straightforward question that got "massacred." It is true that things will vary school-to-school, but I think your request for a "ballpark" for a particular country and field is very reasonable.
So, my suggestion would be that you edit your post to specify a particular field (e.g., history or experimental chemistry) and then we reopen. Explaining why you want to know would probably lead to better answers, but I wouldn't consider that mandatory. But this is just my suggestion, not an "official decision" -- we will see if any other community members respond to your post with other suggestions.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: The question was correctly closed for strongly depending on individual factors. Pay, benefits, and overheads vary a lot in the US.
Some countries have pay and benefit standards set by government or union contracts. If you asked such a question about one of those countries, it might be on topic.
Upvotes: 2 |
2021/01/04 | 567 | 2,142 | <issue_start>username_0: I'm not sure where better to ask this, maybe Philosophy either English SE are better places than Academia?
My question:
>
> From computer games like Civilizations, we know the concept of the
> [technology tree](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_tree), i.e. different technologies and innovations are
> conceived to be interlinked in a graph.
>
>
> Is there actually such a thing (maybe not exactly but comparable) in reality\* in terms of research and technology management and if yes what is the
> proper term for that (given that the "TechTree" term is specific to games?
>
>
>
\* Besides the paper citation graph<issue_comment>username_1: I don’t see how your question would be on-topic on Academia SE, as this is not a concept relevant to academic processes or culture. Specific academics may care about this kind of thing, namely anthropologists, but that would make this about the contents of research and teaching, which are explicitly off-topic here.
As there is no Anthropology SE, there is no spot-on site for this. I would guess that [History SE](https://history.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic) is best suited, at least it does have an *anthropology* tag. If you ask there, it may help to put your question in a historic context.
General questions looking for a term can also be suited for [English Language & Usage](https://english.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic), but given the specificity of your request, I would consider your odds for a good answer to be worse there.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I agree it is off-topic for Academia. However, I think it is suitable for [History of Science and Mathematics](https://hsm.stackexchange.com/), but you should read [their question guidance](https://hsm.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic) first.
However, you are not the first to be interested in these interlinking threads of technology. You may be interested in the work of <NAME>: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connections_(TV_series)>
You should also look at the terms Praxeology, Mesology, Teleology etc which relate to the philosophy of human knowledge.
Upvotes: 2 |
2021/02/22 | 1,128 | 4,733 | <issue_start>username_0: I don't understand why [my question about Google knowledge panel](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/162818/93566) was closed as off-topic. The only reason I can think of is that the question is about a non-academic site. I would like to understand in order to get a chance to rewrite the question, if possible.
For what it's worth, I think that there is clear evidence that sites such as [Google Scholar](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/138009/93566) or [ResearchGate](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/47481/93566) play a role in the academic ecosystem nowadays, so I don't see why questions related to these non-academic sites would be off-topic on AcademiaSE.<issue_comment>username_1: I don't think I would vote the question to be closed, but I suspect those that have consider this effectively a [boat programming](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/14470/what-is-the-boat-programming-meme-about) question, a phrase used to refer to questions that are off-topic on Stack Overflow because they take a more generic question and frame it as "for programmers" when that generic qualification isn't really relevant and only serves to make a non-programming question into one.
Since the Google Knowledge Panel isn't specific to academics (it applies to any people of note, organizations, etc.), you could consider a question "How to manage my own Google Knowledge Panel as an academic?" to be the boat programming version of "How to manage my own Google Knowledge Panel?"
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: The question should be closed as off-topic for the reason username_1 gave:
>
> Since the Google Knowledge Panel isn't specific to academics (it applies to any people of note, organizations, etc.), you could consider a question "How to manage my own Google Knowledge Panel as an academic?" to be the boat programming version of "How to manage my own Google Knowledge Panel?"
>
>
>
We get a lot of questions about the way Google products work on this site, and they are often unhelpful questions because only Google knows the answer, and they are not telling. Further, many of the tech support questions we get do not fit with the [topical themes of the site.](https://academia.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic)
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: Several things about the original form of the question may have been less than helpful.
The title for the question is "How to avoid the misrepresentation of one's research work in Google Knowledge Panel?", but this question is answered in the body of the question, where you describe how you need to go through an identity verification procedure where you hit upon a snag and then quote the answer you got from Google: "acceptable web profiles on SRP are Facebook, LinkedIn, Soundcloud, Instagram, YouTube, Twitter, Official website.". You then state that you are not willing to make social media profiles. You are well within your rights to make that choice, but on my side it looks like you're asking a question to which you know the answer but you're not willing to accept the answer.
Then you finish off with "Did anyone manage to successfully claim their panel?", which is a different question altogether, and rather opinion-based to boot. Which question are you actually interested in, the title question or the final question?
To me, these read like reasons to vote for closure because the question needs more clarity, and because the question is opinion-based, respectively. You ask here, however, why the question was closed as off-topic. I can only guess. You're asking after the company policy of Google's identity verification process, for editing a knowledge panel. This is the policy of a company, regarding one of their products, and how users\* of that product can interact meaningfully with the company. I don't see how that is on-topic for academia.SE.
\*this may not be the right word here; you have been volunteered by Google to become one of their users, and now want to correct what their automated system screws up. I sympathize with your situation.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_4: I think the question should be on-topic, because the OP being an academic is central to the situation and to potential approaches. The knowledge panel of them exists because of their research profile. The specifics of the OPs webpresence (university website, Google scholar profile; no social media) apply only to academics, and to a large fraction of them. Ideas such as "try to get your university adminstration sort this out" could make sense for OP, but do not apply in general.
Thus, the question is NOT boat-programming (where the boatyness of the boat doesn't really matter).
Upvotes: 3 |
2021/02/25 | 630 | 2,785 | <issue_start>username_0: I recently sat a statistical/machine learning exam where, I believe, the instructions and questions were clearly flawed (to the point of being logically incoherent). The problems with the instructions and questions are such that the flaws are not heavily/fundamentally mathematical/statistical in nature (although, they are related to instructions about the use of the provided data), and they should (in my opinion) be clear from the written language itself. Furthermore, the flaws are systemic in nature, in that they affect the entire exam. Is it on-topic for me to post parts of the exam instructions and questions (with accompanying context/explanation, of course) on academia.stackexchange and ask whether they are problematic or whether I am misunderstanding something on my end? (This was an online exam, so students are free to download the material.)<issue_comment>username_1: Thanks for asking! I would move to close such a question as "too specific to individual circumstances". Asking that question would not benefit others in a similar situation, as they wouldn't ever find themselves in that specific a similar situation.
Putting aside appropriateness for this forum, though, I would also suggest that posting here wouldn't be useful, as we have no control over that site. Consider the scenario where everyone here agrees that, yes, the question is unfair. Now what? You're no closer to getting the situation fixed, and having agreement about unfairness in an online forum doesn't really do much to help your case. I'd suggest that you take your complaint/recommendation to the owners of the site/exam directly.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> and ask whether [the test questions] are problematic or whether I am misunderstanding something on my end?
>
>
>
A question requesting as assessment of your exam will indeed be off-topic, as answers will only apply to the exam in question.
>
> the instructions and questions were clearly flawed (to the point of being logically incoherent)
>
>
>
I suspect there are several variations of your question that would be on-topic (though these variations may or may not be what you want to know). For example:
* A question that assumes that the test is flawed and asks for advice moving forward.
* A question asking whether a specific question type (which might appear on different exams) is misleading or sub-optimal
* Technical questions about the course content, while off-topic here, might be on topic in the relevant stacks (in this case, [data science](https://datascience.stackexchange.com/questions) or [statistics](https://stats.stackexchange.com/))
In any of these cases, giving some brief examples and linking to the full exam should be fine.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer] |
2021/03/04 | 736 | 2,930 | <issue_start>username_0: I've not voted but I'm thinking of doing so: [Is MDPI a reputable Academic Publisher?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/5466/is-mdpi-a-reputable-academic-publisher)
Reason is that MDPI has grown really big. It's roughly the fifth biggest publisher overall now, which is incredible considering that it was much smaller (~17th in 2015). It's arguable that [How to identify predatory publishers/journals](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/2158/how-to-identify-predatory-publishers-journals) (the "duplicate" question) works as an answer for small publishers, since there are so many of them and they are often very similar to each other. However, there aren't many publishers of MDPI's size. They attract attention from other publishers ([example](https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2020/08/10/guest-post-mdpis-remarkable-growth/)), and there are more facts about them available (e.g. their [annual report](https://res.mdpi.com/data/2019_web.pdf)).
The question also has close to 100k views as of time of writing in spite of being closed.
I wonder what others think about this.<issue_comment>username_1: I agree that MDPI is a special case which is not properly covered by the generic question. A typical predatory publisher it is very easy to spot as such, and there is a broad consensus on their status. I suspect that there is no consensus on how to categorize MDPI, and having some high-quality answers there could be very useful.
It less clear to me whether reopening the old question or having a new question would be the way to go. As things have changed in the past three years, maybe a new question makes more sense?
Finally, we usually avoid discussing specific institutions - but if MDPI is the fifth biggest publisher, that would be reason enough for me to make an exception here.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Even if this question were on topic, I do not want it reopened because the current answers are obsolete. The top answers are not well founded.
In recent years I have peer reviewed several times for MDPI and had wildly inconsistent experiences regarding the editors' reaction to my peer reviews. It may be that, like Elsivier, their journals vary greatly in quality, in which case the question has no answer.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_3: I don't have a clear idea about this, but I'm inclined towards keeping it close.
On one side, I think it would be reasonable to have that question reopened to allow anyone to write an answer better representing the current situation.
On the other side, having had to read and moderate some recent comments about that publisher, I suspect we would end up having two large and strongly biased factions insulting each other with no possibility of finding a common ground. I'm thus not sure whether any good would come from such a reopening. Moreover, where do we set the closing line then?
Upvotes: 2 |
2021/04/06 | 2,340 | 9,539 | <issue_start>username_0: I asked and suggested an answer to [this question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/165912/should-instructors-make-use-of-the-chegg-honor-shield-tool) about whether instructors should use a newly-presented academic-integrity web service from the Chegg company (the "Honor Shield"). The question quickly received a number of upvotes, and no suggestions to close from community members.
However, a moderator then closed it as a "shopping" question, linking back to [this question](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4062/what-to-do-with-questions-asking-to-evaluate-commercial-online-services) on meta from a few years ago.
The title of that meta question is, "What to do with questions asking to evaluate commercial online services?", but the body of the question, and the accepted answer, deal with *assessing organizations in general*. That is: the examples in the meta question are all of the form, "Is organization X useful?". And the highlighted summary of the answer is, "Evaluating an organization is not OK."
But the question I posed is not about evaluating an organization in general. It is putting up a specific online web service, which is publicly available to any instructor, and relates to an important academic-integrity issue which has had numerous other questions on SE in the past year, to vote and find a consensus response by the community here.
In contrast, I might point to [this other meta question](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4675/what-are-the-limits-of-shopping-questions-when-it-comes-to-software) from last year, on the issue of, "What are the limits of 'shopping' questions when it comes to software?". In that case, the top-voted answer observes that specialized software tools are intrinsic to the work of many academics, and summarizes that, "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." I think that meta question is much more relevant than the one linked by the question closer.
Compare also to several questions specifically about the Turnitin service (on the same theme, another specific online tool to support academic integrity checks) that have been left open on SE Academia over the years, e.g., [here](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/38385/potential-issues-with-uploading-copyrighted-material-to-turnitin), [here](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/81802/does-turnitin-match-my-paper-against-sources-found-after-i-submitted-by-paper), and [here](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/115327/invitation-to-anti-plagiarism-service-turnitin).
Is a narrowly-focused question about a particular online software tool, which relates to an issue of academic integrity, truly a shopping question? Should all questions of this nature now be closed, or left open?
**Note**: After a fairly small edit to the title and concluding query-statement by another member, the given question has been reopened by community voting.<issue_comment>username_1: I'd consider that specific kind of question highly opinion based. After all, your answer boils down to "Chegg is a bad guy, so don't interact with it". That is, it seems more an attempt to attack a specific service, rather than a genuine evaluation of the offered option.
So, I think that it should be kept closed, either as opinion based or as a shopping question (depending on how one looks at it).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: There are some crucial differences between your question and other examples you cite:
* Your question (and answer) hinge on the integrity of the company in question. This is partially due to the nature of the service in question, but that doesn’t solve the problem. Questions about evaluating whether a journal is trustworthy¹ have the same issue. Your answer spends the first two (non-summary) paragraphs on evaluating the company. At the end of the day, the main reason why we close questions is the answers they attract, and your question inevitably attracts answers that evaluate the company.
* Your question (and answer) is not about how or when to use a tool but whether to use it at all, with the conclusion that nobody should ever use this.
* Your question is not about evaluating a type of tool, but a specific tool. You are not using this tool as an example for similar tools (which is even possible if such do not exist), but your question is about this tool in specific.
---
¹ which is after all usually only one product by one publisher and while your typical predatory journal belongs to a predatory publisher, there have been cases of single journals of a reputable publisher being wrecked by an editor.
>
> Compare also to several questions specifically about the Turnitin service (on the same theme, another specific online tool to support academic integrity checks) that have been left open on SE Academia over the years, e.g., [here](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/38385/potential-issues-with-uploading-copyrighted-material-to-turnitin), [here](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/81802/does-turnitin-match-my-paper-against-sources-found-after-i-submitted-by-paper), and [here](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/115327/invitation-to-anti-plagiarism-service-turnitin).
>
>
>
The first two questions (and many other typical questions on plagiarism-detection services) illustrate the difference quite well: The integrity and quality of Turnitin are not the subject of these questions and the answers do not address this. If we answer somebody that it is a waste of time and money to have their own thesis checked for plagiarism by such a service, this doesn’t mean that the service is bad or nobody should ever use such service. It’s about when and how to use such tools. The third question is asking many things at once and some of them are shopping (“I would like to know whether the free tier is totally worthless”), but nobody answered that (and I now removed it).
>
> It is putting up a specific online software tool […] to vote and find a consensus response by the community here.
>
>
>
That’s exactly the kind of popularity contest that we want to avoid by banning shopping questions. We are not the *Board of Deciding which Academic Tool is Proper.* Votes decide whether an answer is useful to the asker and future visitors – which usually means weighing the pros and cons, being generally applicable, etc. Votes do not decide whether an answer arrives at the correct™ yes-or-no conclusion.
>
> In that case, the top-voted answer observes that specialized software tools are intrinsic to the work of many academics, and summarizes that, "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." I think that meta question is much more relevant than the one linked by the question closer.
>
>
>
Mind that the focus of that question is recommendation questions, which does not translate well here: You do not choose one tool to solve your problem, but even if everything works as advertised, you would have to use all of them. The entire angle of [my answer to that question](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4678/7734), namely to focus on how to solve a given problem (be it with or without specific software) does not apply.
>
> Is a narrowly-focused question about a particular online software tool, which relates to an issue of academic integrity, truly a shopping question? Should all questions of this nature now be closed, or left open?
>
>
>
There is no simple yes or no answer. Such questions should be closed if they focus on evaluating the tool, company, or similar instead of solving a particular problem or when or how to apply a tool.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I think you should make a new question that does not request an assessment of a particular company or product. username_2 claims that "Your question ... hinge[s] on the integrity of the company in question." This is not true. If the question were "Should I rely on a third party to enforce academic integrity?" then the answer would be no. The question is about a specific case of that situation.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: There are several problems with shopping questions: first, they tend to attract spam. Secondly, they invite opinions. Third, they encourage answers that become obsolete very quickly. An answer claiming that OP should buy a computer with one of the Pentium Pro processors would be completely useless at this point, for example.
On the one hand, this is asking only about a single product, so it's not an unconstrained request for a list of things. That being said, it's unlikely to attract spam.
A more debatable question is whether or not this is likely to attract opinionated answers. The term "should" invites opinions rather than answers because there isn't an agreed-upon standard about what things you should even consider in answering it. This question would be improved by editing it to specify what factors you would like people to consider in writing answers. Something like "can we trust Chegg to handle our data correctly?" or "does this product actually accurately identify cheating?" *are* answerable questions.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: I've voted to reopen. This is not a shopping question.
Upvotes: -1 |
2021/04/10 | 921 | 3,373 | <issue_start>username_0: It happens quite often that new posters are confused about the scope of this site, for instance mistaking it for a "you can ask about every possible study topic here" site, or a "here's the story of my life, what should I do" site. This leads to off-topic questions, additional moderation work, and unnecessary hard feelings from newcomers.
On SE sites it is possible to customize the content of the "how to ask" window that is shown to first-time askers. See below for how it looks like on Academia (non-personalized) and Server Fault (personalized).
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/wIzUL.png)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/EhjOW.png)
Here is how it looks like on Mathematics, where it is even more informative (or at least it did at some point in time --- I don't want to create a new account there just to verify that this screenshot from the [Meta.MO question](https://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/4806/customize-the-modal-window-for-the-first-time-askers) is still accurate)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Tknmd.png)
I suggest to add some text to describe the scope of our site; for instance, a shorter version of the "What topics should I avoid?" paragraph on the [help pages](https://academia.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic).
[Similar thread](https://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/4806/customize-the-modal-window-for-the-first-time-askers) on Meta.Mathoverflow (where unfortunately the suggestion was never applied).<issue_comment>username_1: **We should make it clear that the scope is "academia" rather rather than "academics."** It's hard to concisely define academia, perhaps something like: "academic careers, research, teaching, and publishing."
Based on the number of homework help questions we get, the existing wording still gives the impression that questions related to an academic subject would be on-topic here.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_1: **Encourage askers to put a question mark in the top-level question.** Beyond grammar, this will discourage questions of the form "here is a 20 page description of my problem; what do I do?"
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: **Let’s remove the initial sentence “You’re ready to ask your first question [...]”.** Even though it’s welcoming, the shorter the text the likelier that it gets read.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: A format that we could take as inspiration is that of [EL&U](https://english.stackexchange.com/):
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Rskcrm.png)
We can list sites for which we frequently receive questions, e.g. [Cross Validated](https://stats.stackexchange.com/), [Stack Overflow](https://stackoverflow.com/) and [Physics](https://physics.stackexchange.com/) (comment below if you have other suggestions).
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: Please include a link to [What potential duplicate targets should I know about as a reviewer?](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3824/what-potential-duplicate-targets-should-i-know-about-as-a-reviewer) near the prompt to use the search. It's an easier way to find the asker's answer than using the search.
Upvotes: 0 |
2021/04/21 | 951 | 4,143 | <issue_start>username_0: We get many questions on Academia SE which are closed because they depend too much on the individual who is asking and thus cannot be sufficiently generalised to be helpful to a wider audience. However, these questions often *can* still be answered, usually with a small amount of (perhaps) generic advice, especially if it's clear that the asker doesn't know much about how academia works and needs a quick helping hand.
A recent example of what I'm describing is here: [Is My Mentality Good for Academia / Grad School?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/166524/is-my-mentality-good-for-academia-grad-school)
In this case, the question is about the OP's personal mentality and therefore seems an obvious candidate for voting to close due to dependence on individual factors. The answer given basically boils down to "your mentality is similar to most academics", which is to some extent opinion-based and could be a comment rather than an answer. However, the answer may still have been helpful to the OP.
My question is: is it better to try and maintain the Stack Exchange ethos of hard questions and answers (more difficult on a "soft" site like Academia anyway where there is often no right answer) and therefore refrain from answering questions which are obvious candidates for closure? Or is it better to try and help as many of these individuals as possible by trying to answer before the question is closed?
I often wonder about doing the latter, especially if the user is new to SE or clearly inexperienced in the academic world and obviously not receiving guidance from peers and mentors in their own circle. But will this erode the purpose of SE over time?
---
This is my first question on Meta so any feedback, tag edits etc welcome!<issue_comment>username_1: ### Usually, no.
The "ethos" of SE, as you mention, is that questions are either not a good fit here (and should be closed *precisely because* we can't provide good answers, and we want to prevent people from adding bad answers), or they are good questions that we should leave open and answer properly. In the abstract, at least, it is not logically consistent to say that a question should be closed because we cannot provide good answers, and then to also provide an answer. In fact, I recently was surprised to learn that other stacks have resorted to suspending users who refuse to stop answering questions that should manifestly be closed.
More concretely, the challenge with answering closed/closable questions is that our quality control measures do not work as well. If I add a bad answer and then close it, then my bad advice is the only advice that OP will see. Leaving open or closing-without-answering avoids these issues.
Finally, note that closed questions with no answers are automatically deleted after a period of time. Questions with upvoted answers cannot be automatically deleted, and will usually remain on the site forever. So particularly for very low quality questions, adding answers is a bad practice because it prevents deletion.
### But there may be exceptional cases.
As I wrote [here](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4456/79875), we should first remember that *there may be a real opportunity to help someone here.* We should not become so obsessed by our rules that we lose the human element or close interesting questions. Still, the rules are there for a reason and we make exceptions at our peril.
**Ideally, questions should be edited and left open.** But for questions that cannot be salvaged, we must weigh the cost of making exceptions and having reduced quality control against the cost of remaining silent and giving a bad experience to an (often) new user. My experience moderating Academia.SE is that we give users wide latitude; we do not typically remove answers (or even answers-in-comments) on closed questions with few views.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Please do not post answers that are the same as a close reason. For example, please do not "answer" with a statement that the answer strongly depends on individual factors.
Upvotes: 2 |
2021/05/04 | 384 | 1,569 | <issue_start>username_0: I wanted to ask a question about why this page on the CDC does not have rigorous citations (but only generic content sources) that I would expect to be part of a scientific organization:
<https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/your-health/reinfection.html>.
I am not quite sure which exact stack exchange to ask it on, but my question was going to be this:
"Why does this CDC page on reinfections not have directly sourced citations?", and I wanted some input on whether this was in scope for Academia stack exchange.
Thank you for you input.<issue_comment>username_1: I do not think that question falls under our scope. Those CDC pages are advice for broad public consumption - they are not journal articles that would use citations. Further, how a US Federal agency chooses to write on their web site is not in scope for Academia SE.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: CDC says
>
> As the nation’s health protection agency, CDC saves lives and protects people from health threats. To accomplish our mission, CDC conducts critical science and provides health information that protects our nation against expensive and dangerous health threats, and responds when these arise.
>
>
>
I think only questions about the "science" part of the operations would be considered academic and potentially on topic. Other aspects of CDC operations are not academic. Your question is about the "health information" and not the "science."
Many other organizations also have both academic and nonacademic operations.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer] |
2021/05/04 | 1,263 | 4,962 | <issue_start>username_0: I noticed two very similar but distinct tags — [coursework](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/coursework "show questions tagged 'coursework'") and [courses](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/courses "show questions tagged 'courses'").
The tag [courses](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/courses "show questions tagged 'courses'") is less than a year old, is used on only twelve questions (two of which are also tagged with [coursework](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/coursework "show questions tagged 'coursework'")), has no tag description, and seems to cover the same topics as [coursework](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/coursework "show questions tagged 'coursework'").
So, I suggest that [courses](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/courses "show questions tagged 'courses'") be made a synonym of [coursework](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/coursework "show questions tagged 'coursework'").<issue_comment>username_1: It seems like [coursework](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/coursework "show questions tagged 'coursework'") would be used by students, but [courses](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/courses "show questions tagged 'courses'") could be plausibly used by both instructors and students, like [here](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/151978/why-lab-sessions-are-handled-by-tas) and [here](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/155187/what-is-a-good-ice-breaker-question-on-the-first-day-of-the-classes) maybe.
"Coursework" is also a bit more specific (that first question, "Why do TA teach sections?") isn't really about course*work*.
I support the synonymization, but just some points to think about.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: In most of my teaching the term [coursework](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/coursework "show questions tagged 'coursework'") refers to what would be called "homework" at grade school. It is a specific assignment created by the teacher that when completed contributes to the assignment of grades based on the judged quality and content. The grade is usually the result of the [course](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/course "show questions tagged 'course'"). There may be several items of [coursework](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/coursework "show questions tagged 'coursework'") within a course. [coursework](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/coursework "show questions tagged 'coursework'") differs from an examination in that it is done in the student's own time over a specified period.
However [courses](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/courses "show questions tagged 'courses'") is completely different. This relates to a component of a degree programme (often worth a specific number of credits) that contains several elements of assessment, some of which may be [coursework](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/coursework "show questions tagged 'coursework'"). The term [courses](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/courses "show questions tagged 'courses'") can, in some places, be synonymous with a programme and elsewhere be a specific component of a programme (e.g degree programme).
There should be no synonym or blacklist action.
I also refer you to the meta question: [Academia varies more than you think it does – The Movie](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4471/academia-varies-more-than-you-think-it-does-the-movie)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Looking at the twelve questions tagged [courses](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/courses "show questions tagged 'courses'"), I don't see the usage of this tag as necessary (the key points are already covered by other tags, and the tag [courses](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/courses "show questions tagged 'courses'") seems redundant in those questions).
I think we can safely remove tag [courses](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/courses "show questions tagged 'courses'") from those few questions, without the need of creating an (imperfect) synonym, and then let the system clean up the abandoned tag.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_4: I've removed the status tag here. I think y'all have done a good job of responding to the issues of this tag and it's currently been removed from all questions. In general, we only outright block tags if they come back more than once, so I've let the mods here know to watch out for the tag and, should it come back, let us know and we'll get it blocked.
Thanks so much for your work to manage the tags here - I know that tags can get out of control from time to time and cleaning them up is an important part of that process.
Upvotes: 2 |
2021/05/16 | 1,048 | 4,050 | <issue_start>username_0: I noticed that the definition of the tag [professors](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/professors "show questions tagged 'professors'") is:
>
> Queries related to professors, a highly accomplished and recognized academic and an expert in their respective discipline.
>
>
>
I don't really like this definition because it seems to be (1) aggrandizing and (2) focused on tenured professors at research universities. Not all professors (ranked or adjunct) at the liberal arts college at which I teach are experts in their respective disciplines. The description is even less accurate for (most) community college professors.
While I know I could edit the tag myself, it seemed worth consulting the community for such an important tag.
As a starting point for discussion, here is a draft of an alternative definition:
>
> Queries relating to professors, [faculty] members whose job responsibilities may include [research], [teaching], and [service-activities]. See also [assistant-professor], [associate-professor], and [professor-emeritus].
>
>
>
**Update**
Here is an improved definition, replacing "faculty" with "academic staff" (per @Anyon's comment) and removing references to other tags, which I have since learned do not belong in tag usage guidance:
>
> Queries relating to professors, academic staff members whose job responsibilities may include research, teaching, and service.
>
>
>
I have made the edit.<issue_comment>username_1: First, thank you for asking this! I think we should avoid as much as possible tag wikis describing titles and professions on the basis of accomplishments and recognitions. Actually, looking at the [full tag wiki](https://academia.stackexchange.com/tags/professors/info) reported below, I would say that there is room for a few more adjustments (to be fair, the tag wiki was created in 2012, in the early days of this community, and a lot has probably changed here since then):
>
> A professor is a scholarly teacher; the precise meaning of the term varies by country. Literally, professor derives from Latin as a "person who professes" being usually an expert in arts or sciences, a teacher of high rank.
>
>
> A professor is a highly accomplished and recognized academic, and the
> title is awarded only after decades of scholarly work. In the United
> States and Canada the title of professor is granted to all scholars
> with Doctorate degrees (typically Ph.D.s) who teach in two- and
> four-year colleges and universities, and is used in the titles
> assistant professor and associate professor, which are not considered
> professor-level positions elsewhere, as well as for full professors.
>
>
> Note : This tag wiki has content adapted from Wikipedia, used under
> the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license.
>
>
>
Additional remarks:
1. We can probably try to write down a tag wiki for the term professor without reference to Wikipedia. Your proposal seems fine to me, and we probably don't need a long wiki such the one above.
2. "the title is awarded only after decades of scholarly work": *decades* to become full professor, maybe, but I would not consider such a strong statement for all levels of professorship.
3. Given the internationality of this community, I would avoid any reference to specific countries.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: The description of the tag should be targeted to our community, not to some person who has zero knowledge of higher education. As such, the important part is to clarify what kind of academic positions (in an international context) are meant to be covered by the tag and which ones are not.
The original description sounds a bit like it is describing a UK professorship. My hunch would be that we're best off starting with US (assistant/associate/full) professors as all being included, which then leads us to include UK (senior) lectures/readers/professor, French maitre de conferences and professors, etc. On the other hand, I'd exclude US lecturers/adjuncts.
Upvotes: 2 |
2021/05/20 | 1,435 | 6,267 | <issue_start>username_0: I am fairly new to Academia SE and have found it to be a great resource and a nice and respectful community.
My issue is the following:
I have noticed that a lot of questions get answered very fast (within an hour of posting the question) by what I would call veteran users with high and very high reputation, often resulting in them having the highest voted or even only answer — because some questions require only one answer and subsequent users will not want to post an identical one, or I guess also, because the earlier an answer is posted, the more people will read it in the end.
This is especially true for "easy to answer" questions, that is answers that a lot of people might be able to answer, simply because it isn't related to a specialty or to the inner workings of a specific institution or country.
These questions might be answered competently by quite a few users (also new ones), and I wonder if it would not be fair for veteran users (who don't really need the reputation boost that a well received answer might bring anymore) to wait a bit longer when answering those kind of questions that are easier to contribute to, to give newer users (who might not visit the site as frequently) the chance to answer first and in turn earn reputation that will enable them to act and interact more with the site, growing the community.
This question is by no means intended to offend those veteran users or to disrespect their often brilliant and helpful insight.<issue_comment>username_1: **TL;DR.** It is true that we want to continue to build up a large and diverse community rather than relying only on a small number of power users. At the same time, our priority is in producing good answers; if the power users provide timely, high-quality answers, I would certainly not want to tell them to stop. So, it is really for individual members to decide how they can best leverage their valuable, limited time.
**More thoughts....**
* I'm not sure I agree with "some questions require only one answer and subsequent users will not want to post an identical one." It's true that we disallow essentially-identical answers, but most questions can still benefit from multiple answers. Even answers that essentially agree might differ in their justification, presentation, or emphasis.
* High-rep here is only loosely correlated with high academic rank. High rep users are not necessarily qualified to answer difficult questions. Further, if we disallow/discourage veterans from answering easy questions, there is no guarantee they will start answering harder questions.
* This is a network-wide issue; there is nothing really unique to Academia.SE about this. As such, perhaps this discussion belongs on the main SE.
* Enforcement could be pretty much impossible. Even if we as Academia.SE thought of a brilliant metric and everyone agreed to it, we could not technically implement it, and I don't think we could enforce it with sanctions or by deleting answers either. And it only takes a few veterans to flaunt the best practice before all the others (rationally) decide there is no point in them following it, either.
**Suggestions for new(er) users who feel as you do:**
* Go to the home page rather than relying on hot network questions. The newest questions tend to have no highly-upvoted answers, so there is still time to get an answer that is noticed.
* Consider formatting your answer. This answer, for example, has bold text and bullets. Such answers are a lot more readable than a wall of text, and will get more attention even if they are not the first answer.
* Consider the backlog -- we have over 1000 questions with no upvoted answers at all! Many of these are asking for specialized information that most users will not have, but there may be some that you can answer. The SE network explicitly encourages answering old questions; I would love to see us clear our backlog.
* Think more broadly about what you can contribute to answered questions. While we don't want duplicates, we are very happy to see additional answers with a different point of view, even if the key points and conclusion are the same.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> to give newer users the chance to answer first and in turn earn reputation
>
>
>
You only need one reputation point to post questions and answers. The other "privileges" you can earn are really not worth seeking out. I just checked the list and most of the privileges I have are ones I did not know I had and will never use.
A substantial portion of the "easy to answer" questions are really duplicates. Another substantial portion attract a few terrible answers.
If, for some reason, you really want to earn reputation, I suggest asking high quality questions. This also gives you the first shot at [answering your own question](https://stackoverflow.com/help/self-answer) if you check the "answer your own question" checkbox.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_3: Being one of the chief "offenders" here, let me comment. I'm grateful to the OP for not singling me out, but, yes, I answer a lot of questions and do so fairly quickly, but that is just a consequence of how I use the computer generally, as well as how I used the net to teach my classes before I retired.
But I see the purpose of this site as providing help to those who ask questions, not building up rep for those who answer. Some of the questions reveal desperate needs of the writers and I want to provide help when I can. In those situations, at least, waiting seems like the wrong result.
Being very old and having held a wide variety of positions I have a lot of experience in some things. Thus, there are a few "lanes" that I occupy on this site. I'm happy, of course, when I get positive feedback for some of my answers and also happy when some of them cause controversy.
I also suffered some of the same setbacks that people ask about here as my career wasn't always especially smooth, requiring compromises.
However, I rarely answer questions to repeat what others have said unless there is a still-missing point that I think should be made. Nor will I down vote a post simply because I disagree with what is said - unless I think dangerous advice is given.
Upvotes: 4 |
2021/06/03 | 1,270 | 5,166 | <issue_start>username_0: [This critical answer](https://meta.mathoverflow.net/a/5056/1898) on Academia.SE from Meta.mathoverflow deserves some attention, in my view:
>
> The problem with academia.SE is that it is very different in style from MO and other SE sites. The paradigm of SE is that the questions are well-defined enough to have a correct answer, and the answers, well, attempt to provide it. Academia.SE is more of a discussion forum. Opinion-based questions, as well as non-questions flourish. Popular questions tend to have many answers repeating various talking points in different ways; it is telling that the answers almost never have any references/citations. The answers get upvoted not because they offer any useful insight, but because the upvoters agree with the opinions expressed there. Often, the highest upvoted answer is quite short and simply states an opinion.
>
>
>
My opinion is that this strikes an open wound and identifies an area where we need to improve.
I don't mean to strike down on subjective answers overall. Subjective answers can still have a positive role, when they identify good practices or suggestions, or are in areas that are not so well documented. And we are clearly not the only SE site with this concern; for instance, I would guess that most of Interpersonal.SE is subjective questions and answers where it is difficult or impossible to give a reference.
SE has some advice on [good subjective and bad subjective questions](https://stackoverflow.blog/2010/09/29/good-subjective-bad-subjective/), and suggests that these answers become a lot better if they *share experiences over opinions*, and are backed up with facts and references rather than just *"because I'm an expert"*.
It seems to me that we often disregard these good practices on subjective topics, and do not worry about making our answers as data- and experience-backed as it would be possible, in many cases. Looking back at my post history I am myself guilty multiple times of this sin, so I do not claim to be better than the rest of the community. But I think that we should reflect on this feedback from an external user and try to improve in this area.
(Important: please do not go and downvote that Meta.MO answer --- it is difficult to get constructive criticism and suggestions for improvement if we mass-downvote those who provide them.)<issue_comment>username_1: I don’t think we can be much more objective **in answers** than we currently are.
Many of our questions are about problems that are far beyond the reach of studies or are far too individual for somebody to have relevant personal experience. Hence, we are only left with basing our answers on good arguments, which is what we often do. Often “as data- and experience-backed as it would be possible” is “not at all”.
Why arguments are not listed as possible ways to back up an answer in [*Good Subjective, Bad Subjective*](https://stackoverflow.blog/2010/09/29/good-subjective-bad-subjective) always eluded me and I don’t think we can ask the author now.
Maybe he simply didn’t think of questions that can be answered by argument as subjective at all.
What I consider the key to avoiding being overly subjective is to close or edit questions that can only attract too opinionated answers and guide askers to ask better questions in the first place.
Some specific replies to the cited post:
>
> The paradigm of SE is that the questions are well-defined enough to have a correct answer, and the answers, well, attempt to provide it.
>
>
>
This does not even apply to the original Stack Overflow or Math Overflow. There are many questions which have multiple solutions. And Math Overflow appears to welcome questions such as [this](https://mathoverflow.net/q/394271/38453). Stack Exchange has a successful history of exploring what topics can work in its format under reasonable constraints. And our site is one of the results.
>
> it is telling that the answers almost never have any references/citations.
>
>
>
See above: There is nothing reasonable to cite in most cases.
>
> Often, the highest upvoted answer is quite short and simply states an opinion.
>
>
>
While concur that the opinion should be backed up by some argument, opinions are all we have. The importance is to distinguish between well-founded opinions and others.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: * If a question can only be answered with opinions, you can vote to close it. I often do. Example: "What is the best basket weaving department?"
* If an answer is unambiguously an opinion (Example: "University A is better than University B."), you can downvote and leave a comment asking for the answer to be made more objective (Example: "If you are looking for a university that employs many professors of basket weaving, University A will suit your needs better than University B."). If you do this, keep in mind that answerers are not obligated to do your literature search or homework for you. If you want referenced answers, use [Skeptics](https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/help/deleted-answers). Answerers are also not obligated to try and earn your upvote.
Upvotes: 1 |
2021/06/17 | 289 | 1,107 | <issue_start>username_0: I made a "burner" account to ask a question on this exchange, since I wanted to keep it separate from my personal account. However, upon completing email verification, it seems to be linked to my account now.
Is there a way to dissociate a question from my account after it's been linked?<issue_comment>username_1: You can request dissociation through the Contact link at the bottom of the page, but see [How do I remove my name from a post, in accordance with CC BY-SA?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/96732/how-do-i-remove-my-name-from-a-post-in-accordance-with-cc-by-sa) for some of the limits and things to consider first.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Yes, just flag your own post as "in need of moderator intervention," make your request in the text box, and we'll take a look.
Note, we do try to discourage this because the moderators actually have to forward the request to the SE employees, and we want to be respectful of their time (among other downsides as described in the post that Bryan linked). But we do approve these as appropriate.
Upvotes: 2 |
2021/06/18 | 3,138 | 13,213 | <issue_start>username_0: In this [highly active question about how to respond to misrepresentation of one's research](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/170077/22733), one of the answers [dwells on the scientific substance of the matter rather than on the question of how to respond](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/170100/22733).
While "frame challenges" to a question are often appropriate, in this case there is (deliberately) not enough information to know what scientific content is actually involved, other than the broad area. Because passions are high around this subject area and due to the specific position taken by the answer author, it is unsurprising that this answer has become highly controversial.
I believe that @cag51 made a reasonable proposal for improving the answer by focusing it on the response to the OP's question, rather than the argument about research content. The author of the answer has clearly rejected that proposal by reverting the edit, however.
The leaves a question of what to do about the controversial answer, and per @cag51's comment, I think it will be useful to bring this to meta for discussion. I see three general paths:
1. Edit against the answer authors' wishes
2. Delete as being unsalvageable
3. Leave it alone
Personally, I think there is valuable content in the answer where it addresses the actual question of the OP, and that the discussion of the scientific specifics is what detracts from the value. This is not the venue for resolving a question about EUA processes: that would be better taken to [Medical Sciences](https://medicalsciences.stackexchange.com/), per the standard policy of this site to avoid discussion of the [content of research](https://academia.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic).
I'd like to see it salvaged, and there is [recent community precedent for such an invasive edit](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4851/22733). In that case, however, the answer writer did effectively assent to the edit.
I would thus propose that the path to take is to ask the answer writer to respond here and that the direction either be:
* Edit to remove research content discussion, by the answer writer or with their consent, or
* If the answer writer does not consent to editing, delete as violating the site's policy on discussion of research content.<issue_comment>username_1: I believe the answer is on-topic. Questioning the premise of a question, with additional context information, is an accepted on-topic answer in many academia.SE questions. It's true that OP did not provide super-exact information - but maybe OP doesn't want to identify themselves; and it's not necessary to make the linked answer pertinent, or at least conditionally pertinent.
So, I don't think that it needs salvaging and can be left as-is - especially since it servers to temper advice in other answers which accept some implicit assumptions of the OP (the OP of academia, not the OP here on meta).
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: ### It is not off-topic --- it should be left alone
I am the author of the answer, so I will explain why the material is **not off-topic**. The original question refers to COVID vaccine sceptics as "anti-vaxxers" and so my answer spends its first paragraph putting forward an argument for why the OP should avoid using that term in the context of misgivings about the COVID vaccines. That is a legitimate "frame challenge" to an aspect of the original question. It is also an important (and on-topic) aspect of “how to respond” because it advises the OP that he is wrong to use a particular term to refer to his opponents in this matter. It is long-standing policy on Academia.SE that answers may challenge and critique premises of a question, and this is on-topic.
My argument for why the "anti-vaxxer" term should not apply necessarily delves into the differences between the process for the COVID vaccines, relative to the standard approval process for long-standing vaccines. The thrust of the argument is that there are substantial differences between the regulatory process and evidence level for the COVID vaccines compared to long-standing vaccines that have been the targets of people who could reasonably be called "anti-vaxxers", and so the term ought not be applied to people who show misgivings about the COVID vaccines but no broader misgivings about vaccination *per se*. The reasoning for this argument cannot be made clearly without referring to the differences between the two cases, and this necessarily entails giving at least some broad exposition on evidentiary/regulatory differences.
Now, the “controversy” of this answer is clearly rooted in substantive disagreements about the evidence and regulatory process pertaining to effectiveness/safety of the COVID vaccines, and not in any issue relating to SE site rules. The present complaint is a *post hoc* complaint that does not accord with the real reason for the controversy in the answer (and is flawed in any case). Indeed, one of the main reasons this answer generated “controversy” is that another user came on to the comment thread and asserted (in big bold lettering) that the relevant paragraph of the answer was "categorically false" and was "misinformation". I then patiently engaged with this user showing evidence of the fact that COVID vaccines have been distributed under "emergency use authorisation" (EUA) instead of the normal FDA vaccine approval process, and expert peer-reviewed medical literature saying that the EUA process is less stringent than the regular vaccine approval process. Readers can review the comment thread for the post and see the argument on this matter if they wish; it confirms that the assertions made in my original post are factually correct and backed by expert evidence, including FDA guidelines and releases, medical literature, and regulatory commentary.
Whilst vote tallies of the answer are not a valid basis for assessment of whether an answer complies with site rules (e.g., whether it is on-topic), at the time of this answer the vote tally is at +20 - 28 = -8 --- i.e., about 42% of voters on the answer have upvoted and about 58% have downvoted; hardly a sign of an inherently low-quality answer. The heavy downvoting is clearly motivated by *substantive disagreement* with the position (or in my view, with the “feel” of the position) rather than an assessment that the opinion is off-topic or breaches site rules.
Mere controversy of the answer is not grounds for removal, and I believe that I have shown that the answer is on-topic (responding specifically to an aspect of the framing of the original question) and is a legitimate "frame challenge". The alleged precedent for altering or deleting the answer here is not a precedent at all, since it involved assent by the author, which is lacking here. Removal would effectively establish the precedent that an on-topic answer (with +20 upvotes) can be deleted by moderators merely due to substantive disagreement by noisy users. The answer should not be removed.
---
**Re the attempted edit (and any other suggested edits):** As I noted when I reverted the edit by @username_3, I think he had good intent in that edit, and his substitute paragraph did not misrepresent my views, but it did strip out the reasoning for why I oppose the use of the term "anti-vaxxers" in this case. I sincerely appreciate his genuine attempt to deal with the matter without misrepresenting my views, and I have nothing but positive things to say about his actions here. While I am open to looking at other proposed edits, the "ship has sailed" on the downvotes/controversy, so I would not be inclined to support edits that remove the reasoning for the position against use of the term "anti-vaxxers". Obviously my position here is likely to lead to a stalemate, since any proposed edit is probably going to want to get rid of this part, and I think it is important that it stay, to show the reasoning for my critique of the premise of the OP. As I have noted above, the reasoning here is directly relevant to a premise challenge to the question that forms part of the advice of “how to respond”.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_3: This is a tricky case; thanks for bringing it to meta. The existing answers seem to support option 3, so I'll make a case for options 1/2.
While questioning the premise of the question is often the right thing to do, there are two differentiating factors in this case:
1. The question is deliberately vague on technical details, so it is difficult to see how the indicated paragraphs respond to the question. It is as if someone asked "my physics teacher took points off for no reason" and the answer was "Is it really no reason? Physics is a complicated subject, let me explain why Newton's Laws are incorrect." Such a broad view of "on-topic" is inconsistent with our Q&A model.
2. This premise is entirely technical. If the premise is related to academia, then it makes sense for us to have a big debate about it (in the chat, preferably). But if the premise is off-topic, then we should avoid having an answer devoted to discussing this premise. Among other reasons, only a few of us have informed opinions on any given field, and so the risk of propagating misinformation is quite high.
I think this is the case for either forced editing or deleting. Among these, my concern with "forced editing" is that we may force someone to have an answer that they do not endorse associated with the account. So, I think the preferred resolution would be to provisionally delete and allow the post author to edit and request un-deletion if they so choose.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: The best way to address this answer, and similar ones, is to vote.
If you think an answer is not helpful, downvote. If you think it is helpful, upvote.
Remember that "helpful" needs to be defined by the question, not your personal desires. Content which does not address the question is not helpful.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_5: In occasions like this it can be really easy to get distracted from the question and end up discussing the setup and that's often problematic for a variety of reasons - in fact, it happened in some of the answers to this question, too.
Many questions on sites like Academia are in the format of
1. Explain specific example that happened as a way of illustrating the problem.
2. Ask general question about what to do in this sort of situation (for future reference).
When people ask questions like this, it's important to focus on the second item and less on the first. So, when determining if an answer is actually answering the question, focus on whether the general case is addressed rather than the specific case. Answering the latter is important as the former doesn't help a broad audience - it only helps the specific asker.
So, to use the example provided, if the question is
>
> What, if anything, should I do? I have not had any interactions with these people so far, but I'm concerned about my work being associated with them.
>
>
>
At the heart of this question is a simple problem - "my work is being misquoted and misused and it may impact my future in this field as people may associate my work with them." In reality, what that work is, is less relevant for the purpose of answering this question. As such, the bulk of the answer should focus on the question itself.
That doesn't mean that the specific example can't factor in to the answer. For example, if there is a specific solution that only applies in the case of COVID research, that can and should be included in the solution set but that shouldn't open the doors for someone to question the asker's description of the problem.
Could the question be edited to remove some of the shorthand phrasing that seems to have caused an answer to focus on that rather than the question at hand - absolutely. Does that mean that the answer's author should have free licence to argue about the terminology chosen in the question before actually answering it - absolutely not.
So, my recommendation here is two-fold:
1. (Optional, depends on the question) Edit the question to remove any judgement-centric terms that are causing the answer/s to focus too much on the specific example - this applies in cases where it may be an issue.
* in this case, that means editing out "anti-vaxxers" and "conspiracy theory".
2. Edit the answer to remove the commentary that doesn't address the core question itself. If there's nothing remaining, delete the answer.
* in this case, that means removing most of the first huge paragraph and the last section.
If the person answering doesn't like the edits, they have the option of removing the answer entirely should they wish. But I'd strongly recommend that y'all avoid allowing this platform to be used to argue about these sorts of issues that are tangential to the actual questions - y'all aren't (as general academia experts) experts in COVID or racism or religion -as a group. You may be as individuals but that's not what y'all are here to judge. You're here to be a resource for people asking about Academia, not these other subjects.
Upvotes: 3 |
2021/06/24 | 4,176 | 17,058 | <issue_start>username_0: **Update:** The [FAQ is now live](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4976/7734). Please do not make changes or discuss them here anymore.
---
A *frame challenge* is an answer, comment (or part thereof) that doesn’t attempt to answer the question as is, but instead disputes things the asker treats as given in their question (challenges the frame of the question). A common example are answers that point out that a question is an [XY question](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_problem).
Frame challenges are a relevant part of this site, but they also bear the risk of belittling the asker and are a frequent source of drama (e.g., [here](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4939/7734)).
That’s why I would like to create a set of rules and guidelines for them.
The goal here is not to ban frame challenges altogether, but avoid the bad ones and make the good ones better and more welcoming.
Also, this gives (diamond and community) moderators a basis for deletions, edits, and constructive comments.
Given the individuality of frame challenges, I expect that we create a mix of rules and guidelines with a considerable grey area to be decided on a per-case basis.
Since there are a lot of angles on this, I would like to start with collecting aspects that we like to see included in such a guide.
Please post answers for single aspects.
These may be about (but are not limited to):
* something that you want to forbid, discourage, allow, or encourage;
* examples of problematic behaviour that you cannot categorise, but want to see avoided in the future;
* both, answers and comments, and if you think some rule should differ between them;
* what kind of assumptions can be frame-challenged;
* under which conditions frame challenges are appropriate.<issue_comment>username_1: 1. This site has too many complex and arbitrary rules.
2. Frame challenges are inherently unwelcoming.
3. "moderators a basis for deletions, edits" Moderator action is not needed for frame challenges unless they break an existing rule, such as being rude.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: Maybe it's helpful to start by laying out (my view of) the status quo, so we can see where (if anywhere) we can improve.
* Most frame challenges are done in the comments. Since the goal is to clarify the premise or reframe (improve) the question, this is an appropriate use of comments.
+ In rare cases, these go too far and offend or belittle the asker (and sometimes the asker becomes irrationally offended at reasonable questions)
+ Sometimes we try to over-constrain the question. For example, if a user unfamiliar with academia just wants a one paragraph overview of how something works (including how it might vary), it can be frustrating when we force them to specify a million different variables before answering.
+ Sometimes the frame challenge is technical (rather than about Academia) and so this is mostly off-topic (which is fine, we can move it from the comments into chat).
* In rarer cases, good answers can involve discussion of the framing
+ This often happens when it is completely clear that a particular misconception has led to the question.
+ Another such scenario is when we get no responses to our requests for details, in which case we must decide whether to close as "details needed" or to provide answers that give our "best guesses" based on the available facts (usually the latter).
+ Answerers sometimes give advice as part of their answer ("you only asked whether this is *possible*, but just for the record, it is a terrible idea and you shouldn't do it even if it is possible"). This is mostly fine.
+ In rare cases, answers fail to answer the actual question (e.g., "I don't know if it's possible, but it doesn't matter, you shouldn't do it"), or include long passages that are relevant to the discussion but do not answer the question. As Catija's [answer](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4946/79875) yesterday reminded us, "the bulk of the answer should focus on the question itself," and so such answers are susceptible to "not an answer" flags.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Using my own questions as examples.
Frame challenges are fine if the frame shift answers the question. E.g.
* [Why do academics drink so much coffee?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/112077/why-do-academics-drink-so-much-coffee) Showing that academics don't drink more coffee than average answers the question because it shows the null hypothesis is good enough and the question isn't necessary.
* [Why is the UK such a brain magnet?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/131966/why-is-the-uk-such-a-brain-magnet) Showing that the UK isn't a brain magnet renders the question moot.
Frame challenges are not fine if they challenge something that the OP should know better than the person making the challenge, or if the frame challenge doesn't answer the question even if it's correct. E.g.
* [In a yes/no question, a student gives the right answer and an unnecessary but wrong explanation. How to grade?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/123593/in-a-yes-no-question-a-student-gives-the-right-answer-and-an-unnecessary-but-wr) This question gives an example of a "right answer but wrong explanation". Showing that the answer is actually right still doesn't answer the question, because it only answers that one example, and there are countless possible other examples that can be used to illustrate the problem.
* [What should an editor do if the authors have guessed who the reviewers are?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/120096/what-should-an-editor-do-if-the-authors-have-guessed-who-the-reviewers-are) Arguing that the authors haven't guessed the identity of the reviewers is rude since the editor undoubtedly knows better than someone who hasn't seen the manuscript, plus even if it's true, it doesn't answer the question (see first bullet point).
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_1: To add to username_3's great answer:
If the question states that the asker personally experienced a traumatic event, claiming that the traumatic event did not occur, or claiming that the event was not traumatic, is abusive. Comments or answers which deny traumatic events should be flagged as abusive and removed.
Keep in mind that the sorts of people who ask questions often have a much broader view of what is traumatic than the sorts of people who post "frame challenges."
My understanding is that this maintains the status quo.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: #### Frame-challenges for controversial cases (e.g., racism, sexism, derogation, etc.)
One particular context in which frame-challenges have occured, and have been controversial (e.g., in the case cited in the Meta post), is where the initial question makes an assertion that some behaviour or some person (or group of people) is bad or evil in some way ---e.g., when a behaviour is asserted to be racist, sexist, etc., or when a person or group of people are labelled with a derogatory term. Another case that sometimes generates controversy is where there are assertions of fact/evidence on university proceedings that may or may not be accurate. In such cases, answers will sometimes devote a substantial amount of space to questioning or critiquing such assertions. Some examples include:
* **Disputes over racism, sexism, bigotry, etc.:** Question asserts that a particular behaviour is racist, sexist, bigoted, etc; answer challenges this assertion.
* **Disputes over derogatory label:** Question labels a person or group of people with a derogatory name; answer challenges this descriptor.
* **Disputes over factual assertions/evidence in proceedings:** Question concerns some kind of (actual or potential) misconduct proceeding and makes assertions of fact/evidence; answer either challenges or questions these assertions or shows sccepticism in the assertions.
I think it would be beneficial to set out clear guidelines for these cases (and other common cases that are drivers for controversy), since they seem to me to be the main drivers for controversial "frame challenges".
My view is that answerers must have scope to question, critique, or even "attack" (not my preferred word), premises in questions on these topics. In many cases we give answers that take questioners "at their word", but a broad diversity of advice also requires this to be tempered with allowing answers that critique premises. **Frame-challenges should be allowed (even encouraged) in these cases**. If this is not allowed, the alternative is that aspects of questions on this site become *dogma* that is immune the challenge ---e.g., one cannot challenge assertions of racism, sexism, bigotry, etc., or derogatory labels applied to (unpopular) people/groups, or factual/evidentiary aspects of misconduct proceedings. If guidelines were to prevent frame-challenges in these cases, that seems to me to set us in a direction where the site would devolve into "censorship" and a prevailing orthodoxy ---immune to challenge--- would inevitably take over. I can't imagine that this would improve the quality of the site.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_5: I would add another criterion to username_3's useful list: If most of the answer is about issues that are different from that of the question, the frame-challenge is probably not helpful but off-topic.
**A helpful frame-challenge will quickly address the false premise and then return to giving advice on the issue at hand.** If instead it gets lost in long asides, it turns the question into an arbitrary occasion to talk about something largely unrelated, which I find quite rude.
With more than three quarters of the text devoted to the semantics of "racism" and related terms, I believe the latter applies to one of the [answers](https://academia.stackexchange.com/posts/170131/revisions) that motivated this thread.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: #### An overarching concern --- please consider with an open mind
At the risk of being further downvoted into oblivion, let me give a warning to the moderators/senior users of this site. I have noticed that there is an imbalance in rules-based challenges to answers that corresponds roughly to a preference for answers that push a "left-progressive" cultural viewpoint on various topics. When left-progressive views are put in answers, those are not flagged/removed/edited (even if clearly off-topic), but when answers present a dissenting view they are commonly challenged as "off topic" and "rude/abusive". In such cases, moderators sometimes take the (manifestly biased) view that "where there's smoke there's fire" and flags are treated as gospel, without serious consideration of the actual content of answers.\*\*
As some of you will know/admit/grudgingly accept, academia has a well documented bias towards left-progressive viewpoints, and it is something that is derogating severely from the reputational legitimacy of the academy, to the point where there will be serious threats to the viability of university funding in the future (in my view). AC.SE seems to me to be following this general trend, where there is an effort to purge viewpoints that challenge the left-progressive hegemony. The vehicle through which this is done here is the "off topic" flag or the "rude/abusive" flag when someone sets a frame challenge to a question that assumes this orthodoxy. In the cases I have seen, the answers so flagged have clearly *not* been rude/abusive; often they have been extremely charitable to the OP. The reality is that the motivation is not bureaucratic but ideological/political; I have never seen an off-topic pro-progressive viewpoint generate the reaction of the recent posts.
Ignore my view if you like, but you have been warned. This is a serious issue, and it is not the internal moderators/users who will ultimately be the judges of the quality/legitimacy of sites like this. There is also a broader movement (see e.g., [here](https://heterodoxacademy.org/)) expressing deep concern for the trajectory of the academy, and it is only a matter of time before mass delegitimacy occurs. I already see new users come on here and complain that there is a leftist orthodoxy that is not open to reasonable dissent and then they leave (which seems to be by design). The present efforts seem to me to be less of a genuine bureaucratic response to a problem, and more of an ideological campaign to enforce a specific orthodoxy. If you decide to hem the site in with rules that enforce a narrow orthodoxy, it is going to wreck the site. Guys like me will continue to be a thorn in the side, but others will just turn off and conclude that this site is an ideological/cultural monoculture, unworthy of genuine consideration.
---
\*\* [This answer](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4955/4957#4957) by a site moderator openly states that the mere occurrence of multiple flags shows that an answer is problematic; a clear case of pre-emption of any actual investigation of the content of the answer.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_6: Frame challenge questions may have a useful role to play in relation to some questions. However, they need to be proportional in scope in order to remain on-topic.
Users must be allowed the right to rebut a particularly contentious frame-challenge answer and be given a reasonable right to reply. This cannot be done in comments. A fairly good indicator of whether an original frame-challenge answer post is on-topic or not in relation to its scope and relevance to a particular question is the following:
* Would the addition of a reply to the answer post of a similar length and depth and of similar contentiousness wreck/ divert/ take over the original question?
To illustrate, one problematic 'frame-challenge' answer to [this question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/170101/how-should-i-address-racist-comments-from-a-superior) was a 2,500 word thesis on race discrimination, basically a reworking of ideas from another pro-race-discrimination paper that the author has written. This in itself was a significant diversion from the intention and thrust of the Original Question, and was out of proportion in relation to the question itself and the other answers. The original question and its several answers did not even approach two thousand words in total. If there had been a corresponding 2,500 word thesis challenging the frame-challenge answer, the whole question would have been completely dwarfed by a side-show and the Original Poster and other readers coming here for similar advice would not have been served.
Allowing such an inapt and inappropriately long frame-challenge answer here, would have laid open the gates for similar, barely tangentially on-topic, thesis-length frame-challenge defences of race-discrimination (gender discrimination, discrimination based on sexual preference, age etc, etc) on hundreds of other posts, essentially allowing them to be taken over by similar side-shows.
This may be Academia stack exchange, but this is not an appropriate forum in which to (re)publish one’s own academic work.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: I don't see much of a reason to do this.
* The issue only becomes an issue if people are violating the much-discussed "be-nice" rules. If people are violating that, then there are enforcement options in place. We have existing tools that adequately deal with such issues, we do not need new ones.
* As an academician, I've never not benefitted in some way from approaching a problem from a differing viewpoint. The idea of limiting answers assigned to some "frame changing" category is anathema to me. I suggest that "frame changing" might not be the real problem you're trying to solve, and encourage you to spend more time better defining the problematic aspect.
* While I clearly disagree with some of the views espoused in answers in some of the problematic cases put forth here, I found the original answer in at least one case to be largely responsive to the questions, and polite. I learned from the poster presenting their views. Yes, discussion got a little out of hand, but once again, I point you to enforcement of the "be nice" criteria as a way to handle this.
* In some of the examples posted, I can certainly understand how some would view a deletion based on a "framing" issue to be a suppression of an unpopular view (and yes-- the view is unpopular to me as well, though that's neither here nor there).
* Dealing with some unpleasantness every now and again is an aspect of moderation. While I'm appreciative of moderators' time, if a situation like this popping up periodically is taxing our moderation resources, a viable approach would be more moderators.
* I suggest that any moderation time saved by any policy along these lines may well be eaten up by higher level discussion with community staff. (In fact, it might be a good idea to invite community staff into this thread).
Upvotes: -1 |
2021/06/26 | 607 | 2,449 | <issue_start>username_0: Recently I asked a question on our main site: [Proper salutation in email for requesting a resource](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/170291/proper-salutation-in-email-for-requesting-a-resource).
Today, it has been closed as a duplicate to another question: [How should I phrase an important question that I need to ask a professor?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/90725/how-should-i-phrase-an-important-question-that-i-need-to-ask-a-professor)
One can observe that answer of latter also answers the former question.
But, the intention of the both questions are different. Former is asking only for salutation and the later is regarding phrasing an important question to professor.
If there is a question A asked with intention X, got answers that also contain answer for question B asked with intention Y.
Can the question B be closed as duplicate of A even-though the intentions X and Y differ?<issue_comment>username_1: I think a more appropriate duplicate target would have been [How to address a professor in letter?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/12346/how-to-address-a-professor-in-letter) In fact, maybe we should merge the posts so that the answers to the new question (a few of which are quite good) are transferred to the old one.
To the title question, no, two questions are not necessarily duplicates just because an answer to one question can answer the other.
In this particular case, the relevant context is that we get a lot of questions that are variations on "How do I tell a professor that I want to wibble? Or that I don't want to wibble anymore?" We frequently close such questions as a duplicate of [How should I phrase an important question that I need to ask a professor?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/90725/how-should-i-phrase-an-important-question-that-i-need-to-ask-a-professor), just so that we don't have to write a million variations of "tell them what you want clearly and politely." But your question does not really fall into this category; you are asking about the honorific, which I think is a bit different.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: The question should remain closed because it strongly depends on individual circumstances. Different professors prefer different salutations.
It has been closed as a duplicate because that is more helpful than closing it for depending on individual circumstances.
Upvotes: -1 |
2021/06/27 | 1,587 | 6,777 | <issue_start>username_0: My recent [answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/170131) to a question about how to address racist comments has been edited by a moderator ([eykanal](https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/73/eykanal)) to remove a substantial portion of the content. As authority for the edit the moderator cites another meta post discussing whether or not a different answer contains off-topic commentary. The moderator also states, "OP - If you wish to discuss this edit please feel free to do so on Meta, but please refrain from heavy editing as the current votes are based on what was present." The moderator has now locked the post to prevent rollback of his edits.
(A brief history of the answer: (1) there was an initial detailed answer that received a large number of upvotes and a few downvotes (approx +50 net upvotes); (2) following solicitation from other users in the comments section, I added an additional section to the answer, and there were then a small number of additional votes which did not make any substantial change to the net score of the answer; (3) the moderator edited the answer to remove the bulk of the content (including both the new section and most of the original post), based on his rationale above; (4) based on the rationale that the answer should not be heavily edited after receiving substantial numbers of votes, I rolled back all edits to restore my answer to its original form in (1), when the bulk of voting occurred; and (5) moderator then restored his edit removing most of the content, and locked the post to prevent further edits.)
---
I do not agree with the removal of content from this answer and I would like the original content of the post restored. There are several problems with the moderator edit:
* (1) It removes relevant content --- this content is on-topic and gives a detailed argument challenging a false premise in the question, in order to give context for the advice at the end of the post;
* (2) The edit does not fall within the scope of [when should I edit posts](https://academia.stackexchange.com/help/editing) in the help centre guidance;
* (3) The edit does not leave the post in a better state than the original version; and
* (4) The edit **contradicts the moderator's own instruction** that the post should not be heavily edited after the bulk of votes are accrued to the post;
* (5) Unlike the case of the answer that was the subject of the meta-post cited by the moderator, this answer has a high net upvote score, suggesting that a large number of users found the post to be of value in answering the question; and
* (6) The edits pre-empt the current discussion of development of "frame-challenge guidelines" on Meta.
---
I appreciate the work of moderators on this site, including the present moderator. Nevertheless, in this instance my answer has been edited down to a shell of its original content, and this edit substantially detracts from the quality of the post. (The main negative effect is that it removes contextual argument on the premises of the question that are crucial to understanding the advice given in the post.) It seems to be getting more common for moderators to edit down answers where they feel that the content is "controversial", and in such cases, there are some very stretched interpretations of what is "off-topic". In particular, in questions where there is an assertion of "racism" by the OP, moderators seem to be opposed to answers that question this premise. Questions on racism, sexism, etc., are necessarily going to be controversial, so it is important that we allow scope for "frame challenges", questioning about potentially false premises, etc., without removing this content as "off-topic".
A secondary problem here is that it represents an instance where moderators unilaterally remove the bulk of contents from an answer (in this case a highly upvoted answer) and then put the onus on the answerer to go to Meta to appeal this change. In previous cases there is usually a discussion on Meta *that comes first*, to discuss whether or not the answer should be edited down. The present case sets a bad precedent in which moderators remove content under a strained interpretation of what is "off-topic".<issue_comment>username_1: First, let me remark that controversial cases like this one are always first discussed internally by the moderators' team, sometimes with further advice from the Stack Exchange Community Managers, and the moderator action that you see is virtually never unilateral but it's usually agreed by all moderators.
As you can see from the [answer's timeline](https://academia.stackexchange.com/posts/170131/timeline), your answer received two not-an-answer flags and two rude-or-abusive flags. The number and type of flags clearly indicate that your answer is problematic and not up to the standards of the site and the code of conduct.
We decided to salvage the part that attempted somehow to answer the question because the alternative, given the content and the flags, would have been that of deleting the answer entirely.
Final remarks:
1. When answering a question, try to accept the premises at face value. You can challenge an action or its effect, but questioning what someone has witnessed, knowing that they wouldn't be able to give more details anyway, is rude.
2. Don't use answers to propose or discuss theories around topics that are not considered on-topic for this site.
3. This [meta answer](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4946), written by a Community Manager, essentially covers also this case.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Obviously I agree with Massimo's answer, but let me add my own reasoning.
Your answer included a 1500 word (!!) monograph describing your views on the distinction between racism and concern about migration. This long discussion was unrelated to Academia (as defined in our help center) and only loosely related to the question at hand. This occurred a day or two after you wrote 500 words describing your views on the FDA's approval process for the COVID vaccines.
This is a Q&A site, not your personal blog, and as you know, we are rather strict about closing off-topic questions and not allowing anything but answers in the answer box. There is no magic formula that can unambiguously differentiate on-topic and off-topic answers, so there will occasionally be disagreements like this one, even between reasonable people with good intentions (which I am sure you are). But in this case, I think the consensus will be that three-page treatises on racism -- going back to the Irish Rebellion of 1641 -- are not sufficiently probative of the question, which was "how can racist/offensive comments from a supervisor be addressed?"
Upvotes: 4 |
2021/07/05 | 343 | 1,439 | <issue_start>username_0: We're thinking of running a moderator election. The moderation workload for this site is not too burdensome, but having one more moderator on the team would allow a better redistribution of the workload when someone has work peaks at the office.
Since there is no urgency, before starting an election, we would like to gauge the community to see if there is a reasonable number of potential candidates to ensure competitiveness. In case, the election will likely take place around fall 2021.
So, if you're interested in becoming a moderator, you're welcome to express your interest and motivation here! Indeed, expressing interest now is not committing and, likewise, not expressing it now doesn't keep you from running if there is an election.
[This Q&A](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4534) covers many aspects of the moderator activity, but if you have further questions, please don't hesitate to ask here.<issue_comment>username_1: I think the team here does a great job of covering things and it's rare that anything lingers that shouldn't linger, but I trust y'all if you want an extra pair of hands to cover.
I'd probably put my name in the hat if there were an election.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Although I think that there are some excellent potential candidates for the moderator position, with far more reputation on the website than me, I would be happy to help.
Upvotes: 3 |
2021/08/02 | 1,324 | 5,401 | <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.stackexchange.com/election/4#questionnaire).**
>
>
>
---
Academia Stack Exchange is scheduled for an election [next week, 2021-08-09](https://academia.stackexchange.com/election/4). 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 2021-08-09 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*.
* 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 currently.
* We, the Community Team, will be providing a small selection of generic questions. The following two questions are guaranteed to be included:
+ 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?
* The community team may also include the following three questions if the community doesn’t supply enough questions.
+ 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?
* 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. We exclude any suggested questions that are negatively scored.
+ We will post the final questionnaire on the [Election page](https://academia.stackexchange.com/election/4). Candidates will have the option to fill out the questionnaire, and their answers will appear beneath their intro statements.
+ 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: *[[Imported from the last election question collection](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4540)]*
What question or answer of yours on meta best exemplifies your philosophy on moderation? Why do you feel this is the best example?
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_1: *[[Imported from the last election question collection](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4548)]*
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: 3 <issue_comment>username_1: *[[Imported from the last election question collection](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4545)]*
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_1: *[[Imported from the last election question collection](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4540)]*
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: How do you view the balance between "trying to be helpful to an OP" and "strict adherence to the stated rules"?
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: How will you handle a disagreement with another moderator over an action one of you has taken (or will be taking) on a post that requires moderator attention?
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_4: Have you ever made a mistake posting on this site? If so, how did you react?
Upvotes: 0 |
2021/08/07 | 2,205 | 8,487 | <issue_start>username_0: Somebody posted a question that makes an assumption I disagree with or think might be wrong. How do I best inform the asker of this? Do I post a comment or an answer, or should I vote to close the question or do nothing at all?
This is called a ***frame challenge**:* I claim or suggest that the question is based on a misconception, wrong assessment of a situation, or similar. The frame set by the asker is challenged by the answer or comment I want to post.
*This FAQ is mostly a set of guidelines that should give an idea of best practices and avoid unnecessary confrontation. There often is a lot of leeway, but drastic deviations will be moderated.*
*It is mainly based on [this discussion](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4947) and was further discussed [here](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4967/7734).
If you want to propose changes, please [ask a new question](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/ask).*
### Table of Contents
We primarily distinguish frame challenges by what the false premise is about:
* [Misconceptions about academic procedures, norms, or similar](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4978)
* [Misconceptions about off-topic aspects](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4979)
* [Wrong goal (XY problem)](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4980)
* [Wrong assessments of individual experiences](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4981) including experiences of sexism, racism, discrimination, and other traumatic events
* [General rules of thumb](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4977)<issue_comment>username_1: General rules of thumb
----------------------
Before you write a frame challenge, see whether you can answer all of the following with *yes:*
* Is the misconception central to the question? If the question can be asked as well without the misconception, it’s better to edit it out or only address it briefly. If on-topic, you can ask or suggest a separate question about it.
* Would you write a frame challenge if the question provided **fewer** details?
* Are you confident that the asker did not already consider your frame challenge?
* Does your frame challenge actually help the asker?
* Does your frame challenge respect the asker, in particular their expertise, privacy, and problems?
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_1: Misconceptions about academic procedures, norms, or similar
-----------------------------------------------------------
These misconceptions concern the very topic of this site. For example:
>
> Assertion: You must have a PhD to submit a paper to a journal.
>
>
>
These are mostly free game for frame challenges. However, before challenging such an assumption, please consider that you may be wrong because academic customs [vary a lot between fields, countries, etc.](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4471).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_1: Misconceptions about off-topic aspects
--------------------------------------
Typically this is about the content of academic research or teaching, but it may also be other off-topic things. For example:
>
> Assertion: My newly developed method that makes a very good guess whether a number is prime topples modern cryptography.
>
>
>
Whether such statements are correct is off-topic here.
If such an off-topic aspect is central to a question, the question should likely be closed or migrated.
You can advise the author to ask about the subject matter on another site or comment why you flag/vote to close the question.
However, if you want to discuss this off-topic material, do it in chat; discussion in the comments or answers will likely be deleted.
For example, you can write in response to the above assertion:
* >
> In does not matter for this question, but as I understand it, you misassess the impact of your method. I strongly suggest that you ask on Cryptography SE about this.
>
>
>
* >
> I think there is a crucial flaw in the your cryptographic reasoning. I would like to discuss it with you in [this chatroom](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/-1).
>
>
>
* >
> The impact of your discovery on cryptography is off-topic here, but you may be able to ask about it on Cryptography SE.
>
>
>
However, please do not write why you think that the asker’s statement is wrong as this will start a discussion.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_1: Wrong goal ([XY problem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_problem))
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The asker wants to achieve X and thinks doing Y helps them to do this, so they ask how to do Y. However, Y is not a good way to achieve X.
Most often, we can only suspect an XY problem, since the asker doesn’t talk about X, but only about their outlandish goal Y. In this case, we can only tactfully inquire what the asker wants:
>
> Can you please elaborate why you want to do this, so we can provide better answers? I may be wrong, but this feels like an [XY problem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_problem).
>
>
>
If X is detailed, you can suggest alternative ways to achieve it, as long as the focus is helping the asker.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_1: Wrong assessments of individual experiences
-------------------------------------------
Here the asker potentially wrongly assessed something that happened to them – as opposed to general facts. For example:
>
> Assertion: The student I supervise does not take my criticism seriously.
>
>
> Assertion: My paper was cited for some claim it did not make.
>
>
>
In these cases, we almost always lack relevant information (or it would be off-topic) and cannot make a judgement. The asker should know better than we do, and they are responsible to ensure that such an assertion is correct. Therefore frame challenges about such situations are usually not appropriate.
However, there are some exceptions, where a **short** and tactful caveat is appropriate:
* The misconception is common and applies to many people in a similar situation, e.g.:
>
> Assertion: The referee did not thoroughly review my paper, as they misunderstood the key concept.
>
> Caveat: Before proceeding please consider that you are very familiar with your work and thus may not have noticed shortcomings in your explanations.
>
>
>
* The asker describes in detail how they arrived at an assertion and this makes it seem unlikely that they are correct. For example:
>
> Assertion: My professor is not satisfied with my work, because X, Y, and Z.
>
> Caveat: What you describe are normal activities for a supervisor.
> Just by your report I would not assume that your professor is dissatisfied.
>
>
>
* If the asker’s judgement should be incorrect, it may have severe consequences:
>
> Assertion: My professor asked me to fudge some data by applying X.
>
> Caveat: Please be aware that this is a serious accusation. I am not saying you are wrong, but before escalating this, please consider consulting with an expert whether applying X is really inappropriate in this situation.
>
>
>
In all such cases, such a caveat should not be much longer than the asker’s description of the assertion and respect the asker’s assessment instead of directly denying it.
Mind that this does not apply to questions asking us to evaluate a situation, e.g.:
>
> My professor does X, Y, and Z. Is this normal? Does this mean that she is not satisfied with my work?
>
>
>
### Sexism, racism, discrimination, and other traumatic events
A delicate subcategory is when the asker experienced sexism, racism, discrimination, or similar behaviour, usually towards themselves. Such events are often traumatic and denying what happened may easily add to the trauma. Moreover, we almost certainly don’t know all the details (context, tone, gestures) and thus cannot judge the situation.
In this case, the above exceptions do not apply: We can assume that the asker has already considered alternative interpretations of events and is aware of the severity of the respective accusations. At best, you may very tactfully ask for further details or assess the details if relevant for the question, e.g.:
>
> I am sorry for your experience. To better answer your question, can you please [edit] your question to tell us whether you have any evidence of this? I understand if you do not want to go into the details; it suffices to know *how much* evidence you roughly have.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 3 |
2021/08/09 | 1,519 | 5,985 | <issue_start>username_0: Some questions, [like this one](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/173138/75368) get closed as Shopping Questions. But the OP, here, was asking how to get something done, not for a list of things. So, my view is that isn't really a shopping question at all.
However, we don't have (as some others do) a tag for resource-request, which might form a different category of acceptable question.
But one difficulty, if providing this category is considered valuable, is to make it known or to somehow "map" close requests into resource requests.
What do folks think about such questions that are "not quite" shopping but ask for ways to do things? I would, personally, like to find a way to allow them for the benefit of the OP but in a way that avoids "listy" answers.
Here is [another "Listy" question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/173201/75368) that doesn't seem to be attracting "shopping" close votes. But it certainly has no "best" answer. Would a new tag "resource-request" be appropriate for such things?
Yet [another question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/173312/75368). This one is being flagged for closure, but it is about devices for doing academic work. Certainly "listy" and certainly about buying things. But not about academic programs and their comparisons.<issue_comment>username_1: >
> But the OP, here, was asking how to get something done, not for a list of things.
>
>
>
That is not true. It says:
>
> How do I find the names of all...
>
>
>
This is clearly a request for a list, which is not permitted (I do not make the rules.) Asking for a method of getting a particular list is the same as asking for the list.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: I would suggest that programming answers in StackOverflow provide a good guideline here.
If the question can be well-formed as "How do I do X?", then while there may be many ways to do X, there will generally only be a small number of really good ways to do it, which fits the SE format nicely. In this case, the question may still fail due to being overly specific or too shopping-oriented.
Take the first example from above, which I will paraphrase:
>
> "How do I find the names of all Asian institutions that offer post graduate programs in computational linguistics? By the way, I already know the standard answers to this question, but they aren't good enough for my purposes."
>
>
>
I don't think this fails as a shopping question, since it's asking for a resource. However, I believe that it does fail the "individual factors" criteria because it's asking for a resource that is too specific and unlikely to exist.
If the question really needs a list, however, then it's just a bad fit for the SE format. Taking the second example from above, which I will paraphrase:
>
> What academic researchers published very few scientific articles (say, less than twenty) but exerted large influences on their fields of study? Also, I already know that Gauss is one of them.
>
>
>
If this was "Are there any...?" or "Is there a list of...?" then it would be a good fit, because a single good answer is possible.
As it is, however, it is a bad fit because there is an open-ended set of possible answers with no particular way to tell which are better than one another. I wouldn't call it a "shopping question" (since there's no choice involved), but would probable use either "needs clarity" or a custom reason.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I flagged to close the 3rd question regarding electronic devices ([What is the best e-Ink device for academic paper reading and hand annotation?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/173312/75368)) as a shopping question. Your question regarding it seems reasonable to me, but I still feel fairly confident about calling it a shopping question. Whether we should necessarily add a specific item to the rule enumeration to cover the eventuality, I'm more ambivalent on. More detailed reasoning below.
In the first instance, it's fair to say that our enumerated shopping question examples ([Why was my question put on hold for shopping?](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3657/why-was-my-question-put-on-hold-for-shopping)) don't clearly include "physical goods or products". I think those should also be prohibited within the spirit of the rule. There are, to my view, better places on the internet to debate or discuss the merit of specific product purchases.
I think the specific example we're discussing typifies an intrinsic issue: "shopping question" and "opinion-based" have quite a lot of overlap. So there's often a question of which reason to go with. My understanding is that "shopping question" as a reason renders no implicit verdict on whether one can obtain an objective answer to the question. As such, it is often my default reason over "opinion-based" where it applies. In this particular case, my lack of familiarity with the products in the question pushed me away from "opinion based".
As another example, consider this hypothetical question that I think largely mirrors the example we're discussing but even more clearly fits within Academia.SE's wheelhouse:
>
> I've done extensive research on chalk. Which is the higher quality chalk: Hagoromo or Crayola?
>
>
>
It seems to me reasonable people may legitimately disagree about whether this question can be answered in an objective fashion, i.e. there may be quibbling over whether it should be put on hold for being "opinion based". But I think calling it a shopping question would prove uncontroversial.
Our prohibition on shopping questions has always struck me as philosophical. I support it, but think it's somewhat in opposition to a collegiate/academic paradigm of "open discussion". It's not that shopping questions are unreasonable, not answerable, or answers not potentially useful. It's that we've collectively decided that their cost outweighs their benefit in this format.
Upvotes: 1 |
2021/08/30 | 915 | 3,781 | <issue_start>username_0: Why was [my question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/173940/where-to-place-a-variable-legend-in-a-math-thesis) closed as "off-topic", whereas [this](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/5569/111347) similar question is open?
Sure, the other question was posted 9 years ago, but I don't think it should have been closed if it were asked today: it has evidently been very useful to many people, and is there any other stackexchange forum that would be more suitable for that question than the *Academia*?
And if the other question should be allowed, shouldn't mine be too, since they belong to the same *type* of questions, even if mine concerns a more niche subject matter than a glossary.
Consequently, I would like to ask for my question to be opened, for my benefit, as well as for the benefit of others who might be interested in this topic.<issue_comment>username_1: I'm not opining on whether or not your question should be closed, but I can answer the question "why" in a couple ways.
1. The most proximate reason is that 5 users with sufficient reputation privileges have voted to close your question. 5 others can reopen it. Usually 5 is enough to indicate some level of community consensus; it's fairly rare that 5 people agree a question should be closed here if there isn't broader support for closure.
2. The reasons selected for the close votes were a mix of the "Strongly depends on individual factors" and the "Not within the scope of this community" community-specific close reasons. I suspect the voters overall were seeing this as the sort of question that really depends on the specific circumstances and for which there isn't going to be a specific answer that doesn't say "it depends" or "ask your advisor".
3. The other question you linked is indeed quite old relative to how standards for question closing evolve in the community. It's sufficiently old that it shouldn't really be used as a guide, but I do think it's informative that the accepted answer there was "[It is utterly a matter of style. Just put it where it makes more sense to you.](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/5573/63475)" - sometimes closing is more arbitrary than would be ideal due to item (1), but this is indeed the sort of question/answer pair that the "Strongly depends on individual factors" and "the exact contents of some work" are listed as reasons to close a question.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: Your question asks "where do I place a variable legend?" There is no one-size-fits-all answer to this, and your university (or advisor) may have guidelines for how theses should be organized. And, the decision will ultimately need to take into account the nature of your thesis and its organization. So in its current form, the best answer is "ask your advisor / university," hence the decision to close.
Now if you like, you can edit to clarify that your university does not specify anything and that you are looking for pros/cons and "best practices." That should salvage your question -- though, that might turn it into a duplicate of the post you linked, so you'd also need to explain why it's different.
The old post you linked I think is correctly left open. It asks "is it better to put the glossary at the beginning...or in the appendix," all other things being equal? This may seem like a subtle difference, but asking about the "best practice" or pros/cons of a particular approach is usually answerable.
That said, I do agree that the title question on the old post should probably be improved...perhaps I'll do so after this is resolved. As it is, the old post has generated a few correct but useless answers (e.g., "put it where it makes more sense to you"), which is something we try to avoid.
Upvotes: 3 |
2021/09/10 | 834 | 3,279 | <issue_start>username_0: Recently I realised that with some regularity there seem to be question of people who seem to be obsessively worried about some alleged misconduct which happend many years ago. A very recent example is the following: [Would these be adequate grounds for severe reprimand from my undergraduate program?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/175413/would-these-be-adequate-grounds-for-expulsion-loss-of-admissions-scholarships-e#175413). [An older example](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/102175/cheated-on-an-exam-when-i-was-eight-years-old-should-i-tell-graduate-admissions).
In most of these questions, it looks like the actual problem is not an acedemic one. Is there a generic question about when to worry about alleged misconduct after many years to which these could be marked as duplicates?<issue_comment>username_1: In general, concern about long-ago transgressions fall into two categories.
* Very serious ones, where the misconduct could potentially lead to degree revocation. For these, we have [this canonical question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/153661/what-are-the-criteria-for-degree-revocation).
* Less serious ones, where there is no real chance of suffering consequences, but there may be some guilt. In this case, the issue is not really academic, but psychological ("scrupulosity", perhaps).
We should avoid playing psychiatrist: we have no particular expertise to offer when it comes to dealing with feelings of guilt. So, questions about how to deal with guilt are mostly off-topic (I would recommend leaving a gentle explanation in the comments, or a link to this discussion). This was the case with the linked post.
Similarly, we should avoid playing judge: it is not our role to adjudicate individual cases and decide whether the asker is guilty or not. So, questions asking us to judge their long-ago offense will mostly be dependent on individual factors.
But, there may be a few questions where there is an actual academic question that is broad enough that it could be useful to others in the future. In such cases, the question is viable and should be left open.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I disagree with username_1 on this type of question being off-topic, despite agreeing that this ultimately is a psychological issue, and that we shouldn't play psychiatrist.
What we can provide for these questions is a rough assessment on how serious the potential transgression is, and whether worrying about consequences or unpaid moral dues is reasonable or not. As an analogy, everyone will perceive a clear difference between "15 years ago I stole a candybar and I'm worrying the law will catch up with me" and "15 years ago I murdered someone and I'm worrying the law will catch up with me". When it comes to violations of the academic code of conduct, it will be much less obvious for "outsiders" to judge.
Of course, being told that the worry is unreasonable will not necessarily help the asker to stop worrying; and the question of how to do that is indeed off-topic here.
A peculiarity of these questions is that whether the asker believes the answer is more of a concern than usual. For this reason, I'd be extra cautious with closing as duplicates here.
Upvotes: 2 |
2021/09/16 | 2,630 | 10,457 | <issue_start>username_0: UPDATE:
Having gotten mixed feedback on this change across the network, SE has decided as a default to keep the "old way", but sites can have a discussion like this one to request the "new way":
[Unpinning the accepted answer from the top of the list of answers](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/369568/unpinning-the-accepted-answer-from-the-top-of-the-list-of-answers)
>
> Thanks to everyone for the feedback. Seeing that some sites do not want to unpin the accepted answer, we decided to move forward with the status quo and not to change the default behaviour on existing sites. If you think unpinning the accepted answer on your site makes sense, please do the following:
>
>
>
(meta discussion, share with SE staff via status-review, log decision)
It doesn't seem like there's going to be consensus here in favor of a change, so it seems we'll stick with the default option of how things were. We can re-start the conversation in the future.
I updated Academia.SE's consensus to be "50/50" since the voting is quite even between the two options.
---
On Academia.SE, all other StackExchange sites, and [until recently](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/411352/outdated-answers-accepted-answer-is-now-unpinned-on-stack-overflow) Stack Overflow, the answer that appears first is the *accepted answer* (if there is one), the one that the OP decides is to be marked "correct". It is followed by all the others in order of votes by default (users can also change to sort by Active or Oldest).
As a result of user feedback, especially about "accepted answers" that have become outdated, and a test that suggests users on Stack Overflow benefit from the top answer being the one with most votes rather than the one that is accepted, [this behavior has now changed on Stack Overflow](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/369568/unpinning-the-accepted-answer-from-the-top-of-the-list-of-answers).
Also quoted from that Meta announcement:
>
> We can change the way the engine sorts answers in site settings. We
> would like to hear from you all if it is something you want to see on
> your site. (Please let me acknowledge in advance that we will not be
> able to run a test on each site.)
>
>
> Currently we are planning to move forward with one of two scenarios,
> based on your feedback:
>
>
> 1. Unpin the accepted answer on all SE sites by default and pin it back
> on a few sites that ask us to do so.
> 2. Keep the accepted answer pinned
> on all SE sites by default and unpin it on a few sites that ask us to
> do so.
>
>
> Please let us know what you think will work best for your site!
> If you can discuss this question with your community it would be
> awesome. We are going to collect feedback before the end of September
> 19th.
>
>
>
So, what do y'all think? Whichever way the default ends up going, how would you like things to behave on this site?<issue_comment>username_1: The top-voted answer should appear on top, even if a different answer has been accepted (this is the new behavior on Stack Overflow).
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_1: The accepted answer should appear on top (this is the status quo).
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Accepted answer should come first, because it is the one that answered the question. The person asking the question knows what kind of answer they need better than anyone else, so they should make that judgment call.
Here's an [example](https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/57177/apparently-many-us-voters-think-their-candidate-supports-their-politics-even-if) of a question I asked on the Politics.SE where the top-voted answer turned out to answer something that I didn't mean to ask. I edited the question to clarify that, but the top-voted answer remains the top-voted answer, and it should logically not appear at the top.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: This post does not express a view either way, but provides some data (using queries from [this Politics.SE post](https://politics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5976/should-accepted-answers-still-be-pinned-to-the-top-of-the-list-of-answers?cb=1), which I reran for Academia with various modifications).
Findings:
* We have 10.0K posts with 2+ answers and an accepted answer
* Of these, there are 1,080 posts (10.8%) where the accepted answer has 3+ fewer votes than the top answer (on most questions, a clear difference).
* For 93 of these 1,080 posts (8.6%), the accepted answer was written at least 3 days after the top answer (and so the discrepency could be attributed to an excellent late answer)
* 89 of these 1,080 questions (8.2%) are closed
* 19 of these 1,080 accepted answers (1.8%) have a negative score (and there is at least one answer with a nonnegative score).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: I urge readers to vote to pin the accepted answer at the top of the page. This feature does a lot of silent good work whilst the very few annoying instances where an OP picks a (seemingly) obviously wrong answer are very scarce indeed, however memorable these are (see Cag51's post and the information therein).
Despite the terms *voting* and *upvoted*, there is a severe problem in terms of how democratic the voting system is. Early posts get voted on a lot, later posts much, much less so. Around 48+ hours after a question is first posted, the number of views by active voting members drops off significantly.
Pinning the accepted answer allows relatively 'late'-arriving but excellent and helpful answers to be recognised and pinned to the top of the page where they currently benefit readers. Without this feature some of the best and most helpful information on the site will languish unseen underneath a list of earlier mediocre answer posts. This current system still retains the benefit of having the highest-voted answer directly beneath the selected one. The new one will see many existing good posts vanish into obscurity.
Another benefit of the current system is that the Original Poster is the only member who is routinely alerted to new answers, especially those that arrive weeks, months or years after the question is originally posted. Because of this, they are in by far the best position to curate their own question page, and, if appropriate, accept a late answer. Certainly, the slew of voters on the original few answers will not be notified and will not get the chance to vote anew on the full range of answers.
Lastly, the current system affords some respect and agency to people who ask questions on the site. Whilst there are always vaguely annoying members in every aspect of the daily life of every SE site, we don't allow this to destroy or make us abandon useful and helpful features of the site. Where the odd muddle-headed OP might select the wrong answer, this is rarely anything more than an annoyance, and a rare one. In contrast if we in essence lose the selected answer feature, users will lose the benefit of many excellent posts and the helpful information that they provide. The vast majority of people asking questions here are sensible adults fully capable of making appropriate decisions regarding selected answers.
Some SE sites, for instance SO, get thousands and thousands of views by active voting members. So, for example, the highest voted answer on SO has over 33,000 votes. On these sites a very high number of votes over a quite sustained period may be the best indicator of the accuracy and helpfulness of an answer. Here, however, this is not the case.
The voting system on Academia SE is a good thing. However, it is not perfect for many reasons, including those detailed above. The 'accepted answer' feature helps provide checks and balances within the system. In particular it defends against the unintended and unwelcome tyranny of the early upvoted answer. Just like a healthy democracy, where second chambers and the separation of the legislature, the judiciary and the police provide safety in the form of checks and balances, the same is true of the accepted answer feature in its current form. Vote to keep it!
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: Among the choices given, I like pinning the accepted answer best. But my far preferred solution would be a change in the UI so that the individual reader can choose, either per-site or overall in their profile.
I note that it is currently possible to order the answers various ways, of which "by votes" is the default. But a checkbox to pin (or unpin) the accepted answer (or not) along with choice on the ordering would be simple enough to implement.
Note that with pinning the accepted answer, the top voted answer comes next by default, so it is trivial to find.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: My answer to [this question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/176215/75368) has gathered a ton of down votes and is accepted. It is currently hovering in negative space. Perhaps it is a case study for the question here.
I stand by my answer there.
I answered late as I explained in the first sentence. My prediction seems to have been correct.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_6: I think the change is a mistake for Stack Overflow, because there answers are more clearly *objectively* right or wrong. I've seen many posts where an answer that simply doesn't work gets most votes, and the asker - who, unlike most voters, has actually tried the proposed solutions - has picked the answer that actually solves the problem.
Since Academia is a more subjective Stack, where answers more often represent cultural norms or personal experience, I think this is less of an issue. None-the-less, the asker is usually the one who is best placed to judge the answers and most invested in whether they are suitable or not.
It is natural to be irritated by those cases where a good quality, highly voted, answer appears below a low quality answer that is accepted, usually because it is the answer the OP was looking for from the start. However, these are - in my impression, at least - rare exceptions and it would be a mistake to change the system to account for the uncommon case rather than the common one.
(As an aside: my preferred system would be to show the top voted answer first if it beats the accepted one by some margin of votes, say 50% more or 100% more, and a minimum of 10 votes or something. I don't think that can be implemented by individual stacks though so it's by-the-by)
Upvotes: 2 |
2021/10/04 | 1,160 | 4,833 | <issue_start>username_0: Recently I have posted [this](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/176220/103617) answer to [this](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/176215/103617) question. **I was accused of racism** ([source](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/59286899#59286899): *"And, expecting everyone in the world to accept western ideas and practice is also racist/classist and there is no way around this."*) **& ethnocentric chauvinism** (source: one of the last comment on my answer now. *"Religious intolerance is not a "liberal view". Neither is ethnocentric chauvinism."*).
Anyone who reads my answer is absolutely clear about the truthfulness of these comments: I do not criticize any race, or suggesting that one race is better than the other, neither explicitly or implicitly, not between the lines, not in any other way. **My post has absolutely nothing to do with race.**
I generally support free speech, and I am ok to be ciricized. I think being falsely accused of racism is serious, and it tells more about the user who made those claims, than me.
**Is this behaviour allowed here?**
I don't think it is allowed, so I flagged those comments for moderator attention. I might well be wrong. I don't mind, I am able to handle criticism & reason for my views, but I am curious about this community's stance on this issue.
*EDIT: the first comment mentioned above got removed.*<issue_comment>username_1: (*note: I'm writing this in my personal voice rather than with my moderator hat on, nothing here is endorsed or pre-approved by other moderators*)
Generally, accusing others personally of racism, sexism, bigotry, or pretty much anything else is not in keeping with the [Code of Conduct](https://meta.stackexchange.com/conduct); the soundness of the foundation of any evidence used to support those accusations is not particularly relevant here.
However, on this particular site we frequently encounter situations in which it is necessary to describe behavior with one of these labels. I do not see a way around this without denying that behaviors that are racist, sexist, or bigoted exist in the real world. In those circumstances, the better practice on this website would be to ensure that these labels are placed on the *behavior*, rather than the person. It can be tempting to go a step further and extend those labels to the person, whether the goals in doing so are malicious, rhetorical, or merely sloppy writing; I certainly will not claim to be personally innocent of this though I try to be more thoughtful.
When encountering content that is itself blatantly racist or otherwise violating the code of conduct, in many occasions better approach would be to flag that content rather than raising an accusation (which is likely to spark an argument). In other circumstances, when it seems someone else may have written something inadvertently or that they have not fully thought through their position, I think it's okay to raise those concerns in a comment, but be mindful of what your goals and intentions are: if you're honestly hoping for the other person to see your point of view, starting with a serious accusation is not likely to be fruitful and put the other party on the defensive instead.
I'll end by acknowledging that there are counter-arguments to this stance in other venues. There are arguments that it is necessary to call out and name bigotry when it occurs and to refuse to allow people to be separated from their behaviors that impact other people negatively. I think there is room for academic scholarship on both understand why that is so important to people and also to understand what the implications are for making progress on these issues, and it's far from settled. With respect to this particular site, though, we're better off staying away from personal accusations.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I think it's a fairly complex issue. In general, and going strictly by the CoC, the comments as well as the original answer should be removed. The comments for obvious reasons that zabop lays out in their question, but if we are being honest the answer is also a pretty transparent personal attack on the original poster (prior to a recent edit, it plainly said "your behaviour is sexist").
**That said, I am somewhat against deleting the answer.** Mostly because it *is* a line of thinking that OP should be prepared for, because like it or not many of his colleagues will be thinking like that (even if few will be as direct about it). Pretending that none of OP's future colleagues will find his religious beliefs highly sexist and disagreeable would be a disservice to OP. So I think it is actually a useful answer for OP, even if other answers provide better solutions to the actual question that was being asked.
Upvotes: 3 |
2021/10/11 | 1,428 | 5,464 | <issue_start>username_0: A question was recently asked about the [gender distribution of the 2021 Nobel Prize laureates](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/176577/has-the-nobel-foundation-said-anything-about-the-skewed-gender-ratio-in-the-2021). I cast the deciding "close as off-topic" vote on this question. I felt this question was off-topic for two reasons:
* There are many a number of Nobel prizes, some of which are only very tenuously related to Academia. Similarly, there are many areas of Academia for which there is no Nobel prize.
* Nobel Prizes are awarded to individuals working in all sectors, including government, academia, industry, and individual work. - *Mea culpa*... [research-adjacent fields are on-topic](https://academia.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic)
* The Nobel Committee is in no way "academia"... it is a small set of people who make decisions based on their own set of criteria, and their metrics don't necessarily align with academia's idea of success.
* The specific question asked above—asking about gender distributions—is clearly off-topic, as that has nothing to do with academia, academic achievement, or the award. It's a general critique of a decision-making process for a specific non-academic award-granting committee.
I'm posting this here to start a discussion on whether I was wrong to close this question and to solicit reasons in both directions.<issue_comment>username_1: To repeat my comment here: awards are on-topic. We even have an [awards](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/awards "show questions tagged 'awards'") tag. If awards are on-topic in general, major awards like the Nobel prize surely are on-topic as well. Regarding the individual points raised in the meta question about why the Nobel prize should be treated differently:
* there are many Nobel prizes that are "related to academia". Those are on-topic
* Nobel prizes are often enough awarded to academic researchers and they carry huge prestige *in academia* (as well as outside)
* award committees and other bodies that matter for academia aren't always populated by members of academia, but that doesn't mean questions about their decisions are automatically off-topic (e.g. publishing companies, accreditation bodies, government agencies in education)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: My two cents....
To the title question: **yes, absolutely.** When in doubt, we should try to accept questions, not try to close them.
>
> There are many a number of Nobel prizes, some of which are only very tenuously related to Academia. Similarly, there are many areas of Academia for which there is no Nobel prize.
>
>
>
Physics, economics, literature, medicine, and chemistry covers a wide swath of academia.
>
> Nobel Prizes are awarded to individuals working in all sectors, including government, academia, industry, and individual work.
>
>
>
So is this site.
>
> The Nobel Committee is in no way "academia"... it is a small set of people who make decisions based on their own set of criteria, and their metrics don't necessarily align with academia's idea of success.
>
>
>
This is perhaps the strongest argument; how much "expertise" can we offer about Nobel prizes? I doubt we have any laureates among us. Still, I suspect that we have enough expertise to handle many questions...and if not, the fact that none of the academics here were able to answer a question is probably also a meaningful outcome.
**But, it is less clear to me what we should do with this specific question.** This is a Q&A site, and the Q in this case was:
>
> I'm wondering if the Nobel Foundation has said anything about this.
>
>
>
I guess this is answerable, but the only way to find out is to Google around and then report "I found something" or "I couldn't find anything." So, this does not seem like a great question to me (what can we do that OP couldn't do themselves?). On the other hand, it's possible that this question will lead to some interesting answers from which we all learn something; if so, then great.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: This is a bit of background only. I hope it is more appropriate here than it would be for the question it refers to.
The Nobel prizes have a couple of problems, the first, at least, recognized from the very beginning. The first issue is that Nobel's original intention was to award it to *young* researchers at the start of their career, who showed promise, in order to give them funds for their research. But it was immediately recognized that there were a lot of old academics/scientists/etc whose work was so important that it was decided to first start with them. But it never changed back to the original purpose. Note that the prize is only given to living persons and so <NAME> never "earned" one in spite of his contributions to physics and the understanding of the universe. Some of what he theorized was only verified after his death.
The second problem is that the prizes are heavily, though not entirely, biased towards the sciences, and it is the sciences themselves that have a problem recognizing women's contributions. The imbalance in STEM fields is well recognized. There have been examples of prominent scientists (I think a Nobel winner) whose reputation was due to the work of an female member of his lab and he just appropriated her ideas as if they were his own. Clear plagiarism, unrecognized at the time.
Upvotes: 2 |
2021/10/20 | 1,751 | 7,070 | <issue_start>username_0: By far our most useful canonical question is: [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)
Recently, Buffy drafted [a new canonical question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/176908/how-does-the-admissions-process-work-for-ph-d-programs-in-country-x#176908) for countries other than the US. In addition to being a good "duplicate target" for questions that would otherwise be completely rejected as a "bad" question, this is also a useful reference for all those who might [not be familiar](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4471/academia-varies-more-than-you-think-it-does-the-movie) with grad school systems in other parts of the world. In some sense, this is a follow up to [this](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4204/questions-about-admissions-procedure-in-different-countries) meta question from three years ago.
So, two asks:
1. If anyone has suggestions for this canonical question (or thinks that it shouldn't exist at all), let's have that discussion here.
2. Right now we only have an answer for the US (which people should feel free to edit); if you are familiar with the grad school system in other parts of the world, please consider drafting an answer. Even a short answer will do; others can expand or revise it later.<issue_comment>username_1: One thing we should discuss is: **Are there any places where it makes sense to have one answer that covers multiple countries?** Perhaps countries where grad schools are very very similar? Or countries where our user base is so sparse that a "regional" answer is the best that we can probably do?
For example: maybe Eastern Europe should be carved into two or three blocks, rather than trying to write 30+ answers? Or maybe even larger countries, like AU/NZ, have very similar grad school systems? I am an ignorant American, so these examples could be totally off.
At this point, I am reasonably certain that we should have individual posts for the following countries:
* US
* Canada
* UK
* France
* India
* Japan
* China
And that the following countries should be merged:
* Germany / Austria
Wondering about:
* Australia / New Zealand / Oceania
* Eastern Europe
* South America
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: There seems to be a potential for a lot of duplication in content between the [existing canonical question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/38237/68109) for the US and the [new canonical question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/176908/68109). Even though the original focuses on "weak or borderline students", good answers for the new one should ideally include that aspect as well.
Since the original has multiple good answers, my suggestion is:
1. Include important points from the old question in the answer to the new question.
2. Close the old question as a duplicate to the new question.
3. Prominently link back to the old question from the answer to the new question, so that the old answers are still easily accessible.
4. Close all future duplicates as duplicates of the new question instead of the old question.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_1: username_2 [pointed out](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5040/79875) that the old canonical question and this one overlap a bit in the case of the US. I agree this is an issue.
My preferred solution is the following:
* Use the new question to explain **how the admissions process for grad school works.** That you have to apply to a committee and find an advisor afterwords, take the GRE, write a statement of purpose, etc. A lot of this could be migrated from the old canonical answer.
* Edit the old question to focus only on **Will my application to a US grad school be competitive, and how can I improve it?** This one will have the advice for writing strong essays, compensating for weak grades, etc. This will also explain why we can't answer the question "can [my stats] get me into [my dream school]?"
I think this would be a lot better, because when someone posts "I have a 3.5, can I get into Harvard", the current duplicate target "How does grad school work" seems like it doesn't really answer my question, but the new proposed title seems like a perfect fit.
**Update:** On closer examination, there was less overlap than I expected; the old question was already tightly focused on "advice" rather than "process." For now, I updated the title to reflect this; so, perhaps, problem solved. We can discuss further if others see the need for more drastic disambiguation.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_1: We should also broaden the title question to include a brief description of what happens after you get admitted. For example: how long does a PhD usually take in country X? Is it all research, or classes too? Do most students who start end up finishing? Do you have to pay, or do you get paid? Etc.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: **What should be done if a new duplicate question gets asked, but there is no answer for that specific country in this canonical target?**
I see several reasonable options:
1. Immediately close the question as a duplicate, and leave a comment asking readers to provide an answer to the canonical question. This has the advantage of avoiding answer duplication, but would probably prevent the new question from getting sufficient visibility, and it seems wrong to close a question as a duplicate when the target doesn't answer it.
2. Leave the question open initially, and if it gets good answers, write a new answer to the canonical question and then close the new question as a duplicate of the canonical question.
3. Leave the question open. Write an answer aggregating information from the new question and link back to the original.
My preference is option 2.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Should the answer be only concerned with the international students seeking to apply/wondering what is it like?
I have started putting something together about Russia where I work and in the process of doing so two things have became apparent:
1. No one in their right mind would apply unless either:
* Coming from some neighboring countries and speaking Russian freely (and being rich!)
* Escaping some truly terrible living conditions
* Being fully state-funded
2. For those falling under state-backed exchange programs, it varies wildly case-by-case and does not make a whole lot of sense as a general answer. It also has little to do with the rest of academia here. Exchange students coming *in* as opposed to "our" students going abroad is a fairly alien concept to Russian academia still despite their numbers growing in the past years as a part of [5-100 program](https://www.5top100.ru/en/).
Is there even a point in the answer, given the circumstances? If yes, should it be focused on "cold" applications outside of these specifically created positions or try to describe what being a 5-100 student would be like?
Upvotes: 2 |
2021/10/30 | 3,140 | 11,934 | <issue_start>username_0: I had [suggested](https://academia.stackexchange.com/tags/synonyms?tab=Newest&filter=Suggested) a tag synonym for a tag that was likely created due to a typo a few months ago, but it seems that the queue is not monitored. I also had a few more suggestions to clean up some redundant tags, so I decided to make a post. I believe most of these are very straightforward, but please let me know if any of them requires a separate discussion.
| Tag | Suggested Synonym | Comments | Decision |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| [publication](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/publication "show questions tagged 'publication'") | [publications](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/publications "show questions tagged 'publications'") | | [status-completed](/questions/tagged/status-completed "show questions tagged 'status-completed'") |
| [bullying](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/bullying "show questions tagged 'bullying'") | [personal-misconduct](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/personal-misconduct "show questions tagged 'personal-misconduct'") | [bully](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/bully "show questions tagged 'bully'") is already a synonym of [personal-misconduct](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/personal-misconduct "show questions tagged 'personal-misconduct'"). See [here](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5050/68109). | [bully](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/bully "show questions tagged 'bully'") and [bullying](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/bullying "show questions tagged 'bullying'") combined with [abuse](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/abuse "show questions tagged 'abuse'") |
| [collaborator](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/collaborator "show questions tagged 'collaborator'") | [collaboration](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/collaboration "show questions tagged 'collaboration'") | Only one question, can alternatively be retagged. | [status-completed](/questions/tagged/status-completed "show questions tagged 'status-completed'") |
| [facebook](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/facebook "show questions tagged 'facebook'") | [social-media](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/social-media "show questions tagged 'social-media'") | The tag info for [social-media](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/social-media "show questions tagged 'social-media'") explicitly mentions Facebook as an example. | [status-completed](/questions/tagged/status-completed "show questions tagged 'status-completed'") |
| [twitter](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/twitter "show questions tagged 'twitter'") | [social-media](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/social-media "show questions tagged 'social-media'") | Twitter is another social media site, and probably does not need its own separate tag. | [status-completed](/questions/tagged/status-completed "show questions tagged 'status-completed'") |
| [mistakes](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/mistakes "show questions tagged 'mistakes'") | [errors-erratum](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/errors-erratum "show questions tagged 'errors-erratum'") | See [here](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5048/68109). | Questions tagged [mistakes](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/mistakes "show questions tagged 'mistakes'") retagged |
| [review](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/review "show questions tagged 'review'") | [peer-review](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/peer-review "show questions tagged 'peer-review'") | Alternatively, should be disambiguated. Some discussion [here](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5049/68109). | Questions tagged [review](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/review "show questions tagged 'review'") retagged |
| [review-process](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/review-process "show questions tagged 'review-process'") | [peer-review](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/peer-review "show questions tagged 'peer-review'") | [Suggested](https://academia.stackexchange.com/tags/synonyms?tab=Newest&filter=Suggested) by [Tripartio](https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/20418/tripartio). 29 out of 44 questions are also tagged [peer-review](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/peer-review "show questions tagged 'peer-review'"), and there seems to be no clear difference in the usage of the two. | [status-completed](/questions/tagged/status-completed "show questions tagged 'status-completed'") |
---
Suggestions from answers:
| Tag | Suggested Synonym | Comments | Decision |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| [withdraw](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/withdraw "show questions tagged 'withdraw'") | [quitting](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/quitting "show questions tagged 'quitting'") | See [here](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5055/68109). | Unchanged, for now |<issue_comment>username_1: Thanks for bringing this up! Indeed, it seems like the "canonical" process of waiting for 4 approvals is broken (not enough reviewers), so time to bring out the mod hammers. Some quick thoughts.
I approved and merged your suggestion about [publication](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/publication "show questions tagged 'publication'") / [publications](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/publications "show questions tagged 'publications'").
To me, the [collaborator](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/collaborator "show questions tagged 'collaborator'"), [facebook](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/facebook "show questions tagged 'facebook'"), and [twitter](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/twitter "show questions tagged 'twitter'") examples seem similarly straightforward; barring any uproar here, I would suggest adding those and we'll hammer them through.
There are only 4 [mistakes](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/mistakes "show questions tagged 'mistakes'") questions (and yet a ton of question posted here are about mistakes); my suggestion would be that we retag those questions rather than creating a synonym.
The other three ([bullying](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/bullying "show questions tagged 'bullying'"), [review](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/review "show questions tagged 'review'"), and [review-process](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/review-process "show questions tagged 'review-process'")) seem more significant/complicated -- I suspect your suggestion is the right thing, but I would want to study more carefully and/or let others comment before taking any action on these ones.
There is also an old suggestion about making [withdraw](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/withdraw "show questions tagged 'withdraw'") a synonym of [retraction](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/retraction "show questions tagged 'retraction'"); this one is a bit complicated because "withdraw" is also used for withdrawing from studies (not just withdrawing a paper from consideration). This [withdraw](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/withdraw "show questions tagged 'withdraw'") tag seems quite bimodal; we should think about ways to improve it (ideally, without having to retag most of its 116 questions).
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_1: [status-completed](/questions/tagged/status-completed "show questions tagged 'status-completed'")
### [mistakes](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/mistakes "show questions tagged 'mistakes'") --> [errors-erratum](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/errors-erratum "show questions tagged 'errors-erratum'")
I think a "mistakes" tag should not exist at all; virtually anything (e.g., sexual misconduct) could be framed as "mistake." So, I suggest retagging those questions (there are only 4) and not creating a synonym.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_1: [status-completed](/questions/tagged/status-completed "show questions tagged 'status-completed'")
### [review](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/review "show questions tagged 'review'") --> [peer-review](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/peer-review "show questions tagged 'peer-review'")
I think this "review" tag should not exist. There are only 3 questions with this tag: one should be [peer-review](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/peer-review "show questions tagged 'peer-review'"), one has to do with "reviewing" for a test, and one has to do with "when a limitation is limitation and when its not" (whatever that might mean). Thus, it seems there is no real historical need for this tag, and if we make it a synonym, people will likely use it on situations that don't involve peer review.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_1: [status-completed](/questions/tagged/status-completed "show questions tagged 'status-completed'")
### [bully](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/bully "show questions tagged 'bully'") & [bullying](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/bullying "show questions tagged 'bullying'")--> [abuse](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/abuse "show questions tagged 'abuse'")
To me, this is the hardest one. "bully[ing]" is certainly a form of personal misconduct, but it seems like a very distinct subset.
GoodDeeds wrote in the comments:
>
> I think [bully] should be desynonymized from [personal-misconduct] and made a synonym of [bullying] instead.
>
>
>
I suspect this is the best way to go. And, maybe we should make both [bully](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/bully "show questions tagged 'bully'") and [bullying](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/bullying "show questions tagged 'bullying'") a synonym of [abuse](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/abuse "show questions tagged 'abuse'"). It's true that abuse is broader than just bullying (e.g., torturing lab rats is abuse but not bullying), but the vast majority of the questions tagged with [abuse](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/abuse "show questions tagged 'abuse'") are about mistreatment by a supervisor.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: **Update:** This is now being discussed in [this thread](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5056/).
---
While we're at it: let's delete the tag [undergradute](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/undergradute "show questions tagged 'undergradute'") altogether, since it is just a mispronunciation of [undergraduate](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/undergraduate "show questions tagged 'undergraduate'").
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: ### [withdraw](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/withdraw "show questions tagged 'withdraw'") --> [quitting](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/quitting "show questions tagged 'quitting'")
For those questions using the withdraw tag in the sense of withdrawing from a program, rather than withdrawing a paper prior to a decision. The quitting tag exists for several question already. This may not be a synonym addition, but just a scan through the questions and tag updates. Painful though. But the tag wiki needs to be clear - even in the short version, though not everyone pays much attention.
Making the necessary tag changes to a number of the 116 questions with the withdraw tag will mess up the active questions list for a while.
Upvotes: 0 |
2021/11/02 | 1,820 | 6,977 | <issue_start>username_0: Should questions that focus on the effects of ADHD on academics and students be on or off topic? For example: [Survive the postdoc stage having ADHD](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/177484/75368).
And the OP has added a new tag. I'm of mixed feelings about whether to expand the wiki or delete the tag [adhd](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/adhd "show questions tagged 'adhd'"). Advice?
Technically it is a medical issue, but a lot of folks in academia are affected by it.<issue_comment>username_1: ADHD is defined as a mental illness or a mental disorder, so it should fall under the health category.
Since we are discussing ADHD in relation to the academic life of a person in his adult age, I would like to add a side consideration (and somehow a darker tone). In the recent past women were declared insane during the menopause. And for this reason they were forced to go to mental institution, as late as in the 60s.
Menopause mental disorder, on the other hand, is now a recognized mental disorder (perimenopausal mental disorders, to be more precise).
Long story short: would you conisder having a menopause tag?
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: Personally, I think that *most* of the questions concerning psychological disorders should be closed as dupes, and pointed to some *good* grand answer on the issue.
The counter to that argument would be that individuals can be helped by being responsive to their special issues. I'd counter that by saying if that's the case, then the question should be closed as being strongly dependent on individual factors.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_3: I recommend keeping these questions. School is not designed for (and often hostile to) people with ADHD, thus [many underachieve](https://chadd.org/about-adhd/long-term-outcomes/) and do not make it to higher levels of academia. Therefore, most academic advice out there on the internet for people with ADHD tends to be geared towards children, high school students, or college freshman. This is one of the only places I can think of that could host advice for ADHD folks trying to do serious academic work. There are a lot of novel problems that come with that which are inherently on topic.
I'd also like to push back on merging the tag with [mental-health](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/mental-health "show questions tagged 'mental-health'"), because the experience of ADHD is very different from things like depression or imposter syndrome or burnout. It really doesn't belong with those-- and while we're at it, neither does autism. It would be more appropriate to create a [neurodivergence](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/neurodivergence "show questions tagged 'neurodivergence'") tag for these, if you must have an umbrella. These are not health problems, and there are many who would be fairly cheesed to see them considered as such.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: Let me suggest an idea, based on conversations on this page, and also the [function of tags](https://stackoverflow.com/help/tagging):
>
> A tag is a word or phrase that describes the topic of the question. Tags are a means of connecting experts with questions they will be able to answer by sorting questions into specific, well-defined categories.
>
>
>
So let's imagine someone comes to this site looking for help with their (a) chronic illness; or (b) ADHD.
* Separate [health](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/health "show questions tagged 'health'") from [mental-health](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/mental-health "show questions tagged 'mental-health'"). That never sat very well with me earlier.
+ Let's say person A wants to read about other people's health problems, well half of them are about mental health or ADHD (or similar), that's no use to them, or vice versa.
* Leave [mental-health](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/mental-health "show questions tagged 'mental-health'") for things like depression, and burnout. I also frankly have no issue creating tags for common mental health problems (they aren't a limited resource). Even if you tag your country, level, [mental-health](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/mental-health "show questions tagged 'mental-health'"), and the problem, that's four tags.
+ I can see person B perusing this tag to see what else has worked for other people.
* **Suggestion:** To encompass both diagnosed disorders1 and just general quirks, why don't we try [personal-psychology](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/personal-psychology "show questions tagged 'personal-psychology'"). Again, I have no issue with creating sub-tags like [adhd](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/adhd "show questions tagged 'adhd'") as needed, so that someone who has learned to succeed in academia with their ADHD can follow it and be helpful, but not also be bogged down by *every* question in [health](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/health "show questions tagged 'health'").
+ This can cover questions like [*Help with becoming overly obsessive (about mathematics)*](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/177046/help-with-becoming-overly-obsessive-about-mathematics), which is currently tagged [health](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/health "show questions tagged 'health'"), which is borderline IMO.
+ But in conjunction with [adhd](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/adhd "show questions tagged 'adhd'") you could use it on suggested questions *Avoiding ADHD stigma as a grad student*, or *Will it reduce my authority to tell my students I have ADHD so they don't interrupt and derail me during lecture?* or *My PI doesn't believe in ADHD and wants me to resist giving students accommodations* (thanks [Alexander](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/users/4545/alexander-gruber)).
+ No, it wouldn't probably be a big follow target, but it declutters [health](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/health "show questions tagged 'health'").
This avoids the issue with calling certain things "disorders" (which wouldn't be relevant for the above question anyway). This paradigm would also mean we don't have to create a fuzzy tag like [neurodiversity](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/neurodiversity "show questions tagged 'neurodiversity'") which, if applied to the question above, makes it almost useless as a category when asking questions about how to deal with your own brain.
---
1: I'm going to use it for now because, after all, it is what the "D" in ADHD and ASD stand for. While I concede there is a school of thought (which I support) and that individuals living with these may not consider them disorders, others *do* and so instead of coming down on one side of the debate, let's use a different term.
Upvotes: 2 |
2021/11/09 | 763 | 2,889 | <issue_start>username_0: I came across the tag [guaranteed-admissions](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/guaranteed-admissions "show questions tagged 'guaranteed-admissions'"). Currently, it has fourteen questions (three of which are closed), and apparently, it doesn't make sense in any of them except [this one](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/115225/77878) (probably the tag originated from this question).
Do we really need this tag?<issue_comment>username_1: Currently, the fourteen questions tagged [guaranteed-admissions](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/guaranteed-admissions "show questions tagged 'guaranteed-admissions'") seem to roughly lie in one of the following categories:
1. "What are my chances of getting admitted to program X?" - 6 questions
2. "Does X matter for graduate admissions? Will focusing on X make my application stronger?" - 5 questions
3. Completely off-topic / unclear - 2 questions
4. A question about a Guaranteed Admissions Program, that likely created the tag, as you pointed out.
So I agree that the tag is inappropriate for the first three categories, since admissions are not *guaranteed* in those contexts. And questions like [this](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/145426/68109) asking "Am I guaranteed to be admitted because of X?" are (1) almost always off-topic due to depending on individual factors, (2) do not need a separate tag beyond [graduate-admissions](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/graduate-admissions "show questions tagged 'graduate-admissions'").
Regarding the fourth category, I am not very familiar with such programs, but it seems having a tag could be useful *if* the scope of usage is restricted and made clear. One aspect I am not sure about is that such some universities seem to have such programs for undergraduate admissions, which would be off-topic here, and so should be left out of the scope.
My vote on this is:
1. Remove the tag from all the questions currently tagged except the [original one](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/115225/68109).
2. Either:
1. Rename the tag to [guaranteed-admissions-programs](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/guaranteed-admissions-programs "show questions tagged 'guaranteed-admissions-programs'") with a clear and narrow scope.
2. Delete the tag.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: My preference would be to remove the tag all-together . Make it an orphan by removing it from some questions and retagging as necessary. It seems too specialized with only one really relevant question and not much chance of getting more. Out. Out, I say.
... retag some of the questions as necessary and keep this one for things that truly apply. This has just been accomplished, I think. Perhaps "open-admissions" and this one will wind up as synonyms. See the new wiki for the tag.
Upvotes: 2 |
2021/11/17 | 442 | 1,463 | <issue_start>username_0: To see examples of the misspelling, visit this link:
<https://academia.stackexchange.com/posts/55665/revisions>
On the right hand side, you should see the word, e.g. "occured Dec 13 '20 at 1:05" at the top of the column.
*Can this be fixed?*
(note, this also occurrs elsewhere: [Typo in "An error occured when uploading the image". occured -> occurred](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/364538/typo-in-an-error-occured-when-uploading-the-image-occured-occurred))<issue_comment>username_1: >
> misspelling
>
>
>
Agree that this is a misspelling. I expected it was a valid alternate spelling in some corner of the Anglophone world, but it appears to be a simple error.
>
> Can this be fixed?
>
>
>
Not by Academia.SE mods. This seems to be a site-wide issue, and if there is any client-side control over this text, it is not something we have access to either. As Bryan said in the comments, the next step would be to make the request on Meta.SE, if it hasn't already been requested (but these types of bugs tend to be considered low priority).
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Thank you for the report! This has been fixed sitewide, along with another 21 other "*occurrences*" of the same misspelling.
Interestingly, this is one of [*the 100 most common misspellings*](https://www.englishclub.com/spelling/misspellings.htm) and not a single person in my house could spell it either.
Upvotes: 3 |
2021/11/21 | 996 | 4,101 | <issue_start>username_0: This is a bag-o-worms I know. The tag [students](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/students "show questions tagged 'students'") has been applied to nearly 500 questions, but the usage is extremely inconsistent. It doesn't seem to have any consistency at all and could be applied (as it is) to about half the questions here.
It needs a better description for a start, but is there anything else the community can do to regularize the usage? And, given the state of it, what should the description say?<issue_comment>username_1: Thanks for bringing this up. I suspect a few of our tags have similar issues, including [professors](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/professors "show questions tagged 'professors'"). But let's start with this one for now. My two cents....
So first, we already have an [undergraduate](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/undergraduate "show questions tagged 'undergraduate'") tag. This is for questions related to providing teaching, advising, or research mentorship to undergraduate students, and excludes questions that could also be relevant for post-graduate students.
We do not have a corresponding [graduate-student](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/graduate-student "show questions tagged 'graduate-student'") tag. However, we do have a [supervision](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/supervision "show questions tagged 'supervision'") tag, which in practice covers most of the academic services that faculty provide to grad students.
So, I am not sure why we need a [students](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/students "show questions tagged 'students'") tag at all. Most questions "about students" (e.g., their characteristics and preferences) should use the [undergraduate](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/undergraduate "show questions tagged 'undergraduate'"), [supervision](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/supervision "show questions tagged 'supervision'"), or [teaching](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/teaching "show questions tagged 'teaching'") tags. Questions from students should use the appropriate tag (e.g., [advisor](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/advisor "show questions tagged 'advisor'") or [academic-integrity](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/academic-integrity "show questions tagged 'academic-integrity'") or [grades](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/grades "show questions tagged 'grades'") or whatever the issue is). If there are on-topic questions from students about issues not covered by our existing tags, we should create those tags rather than falling back to a generic "students" tag.
Sadly, the only way to implement this would be to remove the tag from all 449 questions (which will bump each of the old questions back to the front page). We could do a couple per day for the next few months, but this is a major decision; we should make sure we want to do this before we commit to it.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: It would have been better if we'd left this well enough alone. As @username_1 said in their answer, "Sadly, the only way to implement this would be to remove the tag from all 449 questions (which will bump each of the old questions back to the front page)."
So it's somewhat surprising that this was in fact the course that's been taken, for an issue that apparently only two people cared enough to speak about previously. Sure enough, the front page of SE Academia has been churned on a daily basis since then, with lots of half-decade old questions returning to the front page, and lots of clearly-confused posters writing comments and answers to questions that had already been settled years ago.
At a minimum, I recommend that very old tag-editing like this include a comment on the changed questions about why the edit in question has been made at the present time.
And I recommend that we not go through this again for other tags.
Upvotes: -1 |
2021/12/02 | 1,052 | 4,351 | <issue_start>username_0: Why has [this](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/151174/what-are-some-examples-of-famous-scholars-with-low-h-index) not been closed as a shopping question? It asks for a list/examples of people fitting a certain criterion. This is so very obvious a shopping question to me, yet, instead of closing it, it got 59 upvotes and a ton of answers. Why? Because people perceive it as a "fun" question, even more "fun" to answer?
It seems slightly unfair that this question has not been closed - I was almost tempted to vote "close" more than a year later when I stumbled upon the question today, but thought maybe there was some reason why the question is still open, a reason that I fail to see.
So - Do you agree that this question fits the scope of the site, and if not, why has it not been closed?<issue_comment>username_1: The question had 2 upvotes and 1 downvote the day before it went on the Hot Network Questions (HNQ) at 06:00; on that day it got about 20 upvotes, though I can't say how many came before or after that 06:00 time, I'd be comfortable guessing that most came after.
It was in the close votes queue where it received Leave Open × 3 and Close × 2, which took it out of the queue. Later it attracted 4 close votes, but they were spaced out in time and didn't reach the 5 vote threshold for closure.
In summary, it seems this was perceived as a borderline question by the community, and got most of the voting support after it was on the HNQ, where people from around the network are attracted to visit and vote on a question.
Overall the question did attract a lot more close-vote activity than most well-received questions here, but it wasn't enough to close the question and a simple majority (3/5) of people in the community who voted during review chose to leave it open.
I think now it's worth considering how we should treat questions going forward, but I'm not sure what the value of closing this question *now* is. It's already attracted lots of answers, which is what closing is meant to prevent. We could delete it but that would cover up a lot of work people put into answers and discussion. We could give it a historical lock if it was continually being bumped or otherwise causing long-term problems, but that doesn't seem to be happening.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: The question should be closed. There is no need for more confusing rule exceptions.
<NAME>'s description shows the question has not been closed yet because very few people have participated in close voting.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: I have a problem with the whole notion of a general "shopping question" issue. I agree completely that we should not be making recommendations of specific universities and educational programs, but, while it is generally interpreted as prohibiting "listy" questions, there are formal exceptions - software recommendations for example.
That seems inconsistent to me. I've been caught once or twice recommending closure when most others disagree.
While the linked question is stated in a way to be "listy", I think the intent of the OP was really just to understand how heat index and citation count works in the real world. I don't care much about such things so didn't get involved, but I don't see that intent as improper here. The OP doesn't have an action in mind, but just understanding. We should be able to honor that.
Perhaps what we really need is to rethink the concept of "shopping" so that it is more consistent in application. The fact that this post exists points to the need to rethink it. And note that other sites don't (all) have such a restriction.
FWIW, I'm somewhat uncomfortable allowing software recommendations. Those also have an "action" component to them, not just one of understanding how academia works. But avoiding recommendations of schools/fields seems to me to be an important thing to keep.
---
Some seem to adhere to the principle that questions need to be amenable to a "best" answer. But the best answer for an OP may be far, far, suboptimal for others. And academia, being a human endeavor, has enough variability that "best" is elusive (at best). There are too many variables and the fit together in too many combinations for universal answers to many things. We should recognize and honor that.
Upvotes: 2 |
2021/12/14 | 2,243 | 8,224 | <issue_start>username_0: I have some suggestions for tag cleanup and for the harmonization of location-specific tag wikis, what are your thoughts?
| Tag | Wiki entry | issues | Suggested Action | Decision |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| [industrial](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/industrial "show questions tagged 'industrial'") | no | tag only used twice, [once](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/166147/does-working-in-a-research-group-with-poor-funding-means-poor-future-prospects-p) [industry](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/industry "show questions tagged 'industry'") is correct and [the other](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/156433/how-good-are-taiwanese-universities-for-getting-phd-in-industrial-engineering) works just as well without | deletion | deleted |
| [mobility](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/mobility "show questions tagged 'mobility'") | no | not necessary in the only two instances where it is used [(1)](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/147679/what-is-the-meaning-of-mobility-in-applying-for-postdoc-positions) and [(2)](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/143214/how-to-evaluate-foreign-credential-evaluation-services) | deletion | deleted |
| [nursing](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/nursing "show questions tagged 'nursing'") | no | only [one](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/174064/what-is-the-difference-between-a-bachelors-and-masters-in-nursing-should-i-do) closed (!) question | deletion | deleted |
| [minority](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/minority "show questions tagged 'minority'") | no | only 5 questions (2 of which are closed), could be replaced in all instances with the [inclusivity](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/inclusivity "show questions tagged 'inclusivity'") tag which has a wiki entry | deletion, replace with [inclusivity](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/inclusivity "show questions tagged 'inclusivity'") or at least link with [inclusivity](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/inclusivity "show questions tagged 'inclusivity'") | |
| [socializing](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/socializing "show questions tagged 'socializing'") | no | only 4 question, two of them duplicates of one of the other two (which is kind of a duplicate of the 4th, could be replaced with [interpersonal-issues](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/interpersonal-issues "show questions tagged 'interpersonal-issues'") | deletion, replace with [interpersonal-issues](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/interpersonal-issues "show questions tagged 'interpersonal-issues'") | keep tags separate, created wiki entry |
| country/region/continent specific tags | partly | Where existent, tag wikis differ and are sometimes very western-centric. Example: [germany](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/germany "show questions tagged 'germany'") "On standards or conventions specific to Germany's higher education system, which differs in structure and style from the systems in North America, Asia, or elsewhere in Europe." South America, Africa and Australia/Oceania are not mentioned in this comparison! By not referring to specific somparison regions, those tags can be more inclusive. | harmonize all country/region/continent-specific tag wikis to: **On standards or conventions specific to the higher education system in** *specific country/region/continent*, **which differs in structure and style from the systems in other parts of the world.** | finished, will keep an eye on emerging new location tags |<issue_comment>username_1: I'll add to this as I consider further.
I think [nursing](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/nursing "show questions tagged 'nursing'") should stay provided there are any questions validly using it - even if closed. It is a valid field even if not common here. There are both research and practice (clinical) doctorates: <https://www.gradschools.com/doctorate/nursing>. Also <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doctoral_degrees_in_the_US>
I think [industrial](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/industrial "show questions tagged 'industrial'") should go or be a synonym to [industry](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/industry "show questions tagged 'industry'").
I *really* think that all the country tags need to stay since many of our questions depend on country specific policies. Even [eu](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/eu "show questions tagged 'eu'") and [europe](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/europe "show questions tagged 'europe'") can be distinguished.
I'm worried about [minority](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/minority "show questions tagged 'minority'") being a synonym of [inclusivity](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/inclusivity "show questions tagged 'inclusivity'"). They don't really mean the same thing.
[socializing](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/socializing "show questions tagged 'socializing'") and [interpersonal-issues](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/interpersonal-issues "show questions tagged 'interpersonal-issues'") are used very differently. One has a positive impulse and the other almost always negative. Maybe they both need to be synonyms of something else like *personal-relations* or such.
Note that I've been scanning for single question tags and editing where it makes sense. The mobility tag is now moot (not my fault). I also scan frequently for new tags and try to replace/remove them.
More....
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I had a look into the few questions tagged [minority](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/minority "show questions tagged 'minority'"), which is the only tag not yet handled in the list:
1. [How can faculty best telegraph work-life balance challenges under COVID to our administration?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/157547/20058) For this one, I think that the tag is unnecessary.
2. [Gender, Independence, and Authorship](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/124042/20058) This one is closed as opinion-based.
3. [Non Anglo and older grad school applicant](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/102851/20058) This one is closed as duplicate, it doesn't have any answer, and the duplicate target doesn't have the tag.
4. [Do US universities publish an official definition of what constitutes a particular race/ethnicity in the context of scholarships or admissions?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/115217/20058) For this one, it seems to me that the [inclusivity](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/inclusivity "show questions tagged 'inclusivity'") tag would be OK.
5. [How do I incorporate/emphasize my experiences teaching at an HBCU?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/94581/20058) Here's the tag seems OK (thanks to username_1 for clarifying the usage in a comment).
6. [Are universities strongly associated with ethnic minority groups a thing outside the USA?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/94553/20058) For this one, there are also the tags [ethnicity](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/ethnicity "show questions tagged 'ethnicity'") and [diversity](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/diversity "show questions tagged 'diversity'"), and probably [minority](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/minority "show questions tagged 'minority'") is redundant.
In view of the above, I'd be in favour of deleting the tag [minority](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/minority "show questions tagged 'minority'")—replacing it with [inclusivity](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/inclusivity "show questions tagged 'inclusivity'") in the very few instances where it is appropriate—because at the moment there's not enough base of questions to have it around.
If in the future questions genuinely needing the tag appear, we can always reintroduce it.
Upvotes: 0 |
2021/12/15 | 890 | 3,699 | <issue_start>username_0: I've noticed several instances lately, though I suspect it has always been the case, that someone will give a new answer that adds nothing new. The worst cases are when someone just gives a subset of the recommendations of an earlier answer. The new answer is just a bit of noise. Sometimes it will be ideas from several answers, but still, nothing new.
*I wonder if it is desirable and possible to "discourage" such posts without seeming too heavy handed.*
One possibility would just be some advice in the help pages. Not every new user seems to get the point that this site isn't just a bunch of discussion threads. That may be related.
We have mechanisms already in voting and comments for people to express agreement with the advice in an existing answer.
---
[Here is an example](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/180262/75368) of this. Another user posted while I was writing. This has happened a couple of times. (Rep needed to see my deleted answer.)<issue_comment>username_1: I downvote answers as "not helpful" if they are nothing but a superficial repeat of existing answers, especially when they are particularly low-effort. However, it's worth taking care that sometimes there are multiple ways to say the same thing, and some of those ways can be better than others. That can include answers that are *brief and direct*, even when other answers provide more context and detail. Synthesizing multiple other answers into one answer can also be useful. I've frequently added my own answer to a question that's more or less the same as other answers but I feel needs to be more clear on a key point.
Mods can "protect" questions to prevent no-rep users from answering; often HNQ-featured questions get this protection (though it isn't supposed to be a reason to protect by itself, HNQ tends to go hand-in-hand with the reasons a question *should* be protected) which helps avoid these answers. [High rep users can also protect questions (with a couple limiting criteria)](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/52764/what-is-a-protected-or-highly-active-question), and I think you can be fairly loose with this option when it is available to you and you're seeing people chime in with non-answer answers.
If an answer consists of "I agree with Buffy's answer, but (wanted to make a side comment or contribute to discussion)", you can flag as "not an answer" and it will likely be converted to a comment or removed. Answers should stand on their own, and while it's fine to reference other answers in your own answer, it shouldn't be necessary to *read* other answers to get to a complete one. Feel free to flag outright plagiarism of other answers, as well (better to use a custom flag for that so a moderator knows what to look for); these can be machine-automated attempts at gathering rep to use for spam or other nefarious purposes.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> One possibility would just be some advice in the help pages
>
>
>
The best help page to give this piece of advice would probably be in [How do I write a good answer?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/help/how-to-answer) However, this page is the same network-wide and not customizable by site moderators. Within the pages that are customizable, I don't see a good place for that addition. Furthermore, help pages are likely only read after someone points out issues with a post.
About what to do, I agree with [Bryan's answer](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5077/20058), but let me stress that flagging could be particularly useful in case of repeated instances from the same user, so that in case we can advise them with a moderator message.
Upvotes: 2 |
2021/12/21 | 1,009 | 4,001 | <issue_start>username_0: Please vote for reopening my answer to: [What is a nice phrase to use instead of "ladies and gentlemen" to be more inclusive?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/180313/what-is-a-nice-phrase-to-use-instead-of-ladies-and-gentlemen-to-be-more-inclus/180325#180325)
My answer claims that the traditional term "ladies and gentlemen" is inclusive and non-offensive, and should not be eradicated from the public sphere. It garnered 27 up votes (with a total score of 14 votes when deleted).
The OP agrees that the term is non-offensive. They also express their fondness of the "Ladies and Gentlemen" phrase, only that they are concerned it is not-inclusive enough. My answer simply expresses the common belief of many, that this phrase *is* inclusive enough, and thus provides a legitimate solution to the problem faced by the OP. Indeed, since it is accepted now that "ladies and gentlemen" is a non-offending and not to be eradicated from the public sphere term, the provided solution is certainly a legitimate answer in this sense.
Overall, deleting such answers cause acute harm to the neutrality of the website and to its reputation as providing diversity of viewpoint. It also alienates large portions of the public who support free respectful discussion.<issue_comment>username_1: I downvote answers as "not helpful" if they are nothing but a superficial repeat of existing answers, especially when they are particularly low-effort. However, it's worth taking care that sometimes there are multiple ways to say the same thing, and some of those ways can be better than others. That can include answers that are *brief and direct*, even when other answers provide more context and detail. Synthesizing multiple other answers into one answer can also be useful. I've frequently added my own answer to a question that's more or less the same as other answers but I feel needs to be more clear on a key point.
Mods can "protect" questions to prevent no-rep users from answering; often HNQ-featured questions get this protection (though it isn't supposed to be a reason to protect by itself, HNQ tends to go hand-in-hand with the reasons a question *should* be protected) which helps avoid these answers. [High rep users can also protect questions (with a couple limiting criteria)](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/52764/what-is-a-protected-or-highly-active-question), and I think you can be fairly loose with this option when it is available to you and you're seeing people chime in with non-answer answers.
If an answer consists of "I agree with Buffy's answer, but (wanted to make a side comment or contribute to discussion)", you can flag as "not an answer" and it will likely be converted to a comment or removed. Answers should stand on their own, and while it's fine to reference other answers in your own answer, it shouldn't be necessary to *read* other answers to get to a complete one. Feel free to flag outright plagiarism of other answers, as well (better to use a custom flag for that so a moderator knows what to look for); these can be machine-automated attempts at gathering rep to use for spam or other nefarious purposes.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> One possibility would just be some advice in the help pages
>
>
>
The best help page to give this piece of advice would probably be in [How do I write a good answer?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/help/how-to-answer) However, this page is the same network-wide and not customizable by site moderators. Within the pages that are customizable, I don't see a good place for that addition. Furthermore, help pages are likely only read after someone points out issues with a post.
About what to do, I agree with [Bryan's answer](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5077/20058), but let me stress that flagging could be particularly useful in case of repeated instances from the same user, so that in case we can advise them with a moderator message.
Upvotes: 2 |
2021/12/23 | 791 | 3,232 | <issue_start>username_0: This stackexchange is "meant" for people working in academia or PhD students. One can feel that undergraduates are only "somewhat tolerated". I have written several questions that I ended up not posting (some of them do violate the guidelines, I understand that this site has its purposes and I respect that). I still do not know the answers to these questions.
I'm currently on my last year of undergraduate studies, in Europe, but as an international, and thus I have a lot of questions. There are many weird factors at play, so my **question** is: Is there a stackexchange suited for people in my position (that is, confused soon to graduate **kids**)?<issue_comment>username_1: Most questions about academia that are not allowed on this site are best answered by an academic at your university. Ask one of them, or ask them who to ask.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: **Probably not on StackExchange.** Note that SE makes no claim to "span the space"; there are many questions that do not fit on any SE in the network. These include both questions that "could" belong on a SE (for example, we currently have no SE about the Persian language, though other languages do have an SE and a Persian one might be created in the future), and questions that are not a good fit for our format at all (e.g., "What is the best kind of apple?" will never be on-topic, regardless how many SEs we open).
Off site, I sometimes see people get directed to reddit, though I personally have no idea which of the subreddits are complementary to us.
Regarding undergrads: these days, our stance is that we don't take questions about undergrad admissions, life, or culture. Everything else is OK, including questions about coursework, advising, ethics, graduate admissions, etc.
But I suspect the real problem might not be that your questions are off-topic, but that you are not phrasing them in a way that is likely to generate answers. Looking at [this](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/178424/asking-for-a-recommendation-letter-when-i-am-only-close-with-professors-that-ha) one as an example, let me give some hints:
* This seems like a duplicate; we have many, many questions in our archives about how to handle letters of recommendation when you don't have many strong relationships with professors. [This](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/107823/recommendation-letter-from-professor-who-doesnt-know-me-very-well) one, for example. If you've already read these questions but your issue is not resolved, you should make sure the difference between your question and the existing ones is clear.
* The title doesn't have a question mark, and when the question finally appears (in the third paragraph), you ask "is the assertion above true?". Being crystal clear and very direct about what you're asking is very important (both here and in real life).
* We also recommend posting one question per post. Adding another question in the last paragraph tends to make things incoherent.
* Counter-intuitively, shorter tends to be better. I would challenge you to rewrite the question using half as many words. People can always ask for more details in the comments.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer] |
2022/01/16 | 1,365 | 5,559 | <issue_start>username_0: I have noticed several instances (and there have been a few flags) where the question says quite clearly something like:
>
> I am looking for references about [some topic]. I'm not really interested in anecdotes or opinions; I am looking for data or studies.
>
>
>
And yet the top answer (often quite upvoted) is:
>
> Well, I don't have any references, but I've observed this too. One time, there was an [anecdote].... It seems to me that [opinion and speculation]....
>
>
>
To me, this is particularly annoying when the asker states that they are an "expert" (e.g., the reference request is based on an observation from many years of teaching) and the reply is "common sense" (e.g., a student's opinion or reasoning).
Relying on downvotes to handle these answers does not seem to be working (particularly on popular questions where far more people have the upvote privilege than the downvote privilege). And to be fair, often there are no studies that anyone is aware of, and so if we delete all answers that don't contain solid references, the question will go unanswered.
So: I am just trying to get a sense for how people feel about this. Is this a problem/annoyance/sub-optimal behavior that we should move towards discouraging or disallowing? Or is it fine and there is nothing to see here? I'll add some voting options to make this slightly more concrete, but feel free to add your thoughts in an answer.<issue_comment>username_1: **These answers should not be allowed.** We already have flags for "not an answer", and a response to a reference request that doesn't provide a reference is certainly "not an answer" to the actual question. Thus, under existing policy, such answers should be deleted. There is no need for "zero-tolerance" -- flaggers and mods can handle cases individually -- but in most cases, such answers should be deleted.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_1: **These answers should be decided by upvotes/downvotes, as now.** Upvotes and downvotes will reward and punish the best answers. Often the answer to a reference request is "there are no references," and so empirical answers are the best we can do. Of course, flaggers and mods can decide on cases individually -- but in most cases, we should not delete such answers.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: Note that many questions on the site have partial answers and even answers that don't, precisely, follow the instructions of the OP. Too many questions, IMO, are of the Yes/No variety, so, technically, a one word answer would follow the OPs instructions, and be useless.
But the site isn't intended as a resource pool like a library is. It is a site that offers advice to academics on their questions and often enough the question they ask are subtle enough that explanation is needed, even redirection. Academics have misconceptions like anyone else.
I'll admit that I'm one of the "offenders" here. I try to label my answers as partial or advisory when they aren't technically answers. For such resource requests I might answer when I think that the existence of the resource is very unlikely but that orthogonal thinking might resolve the OPs need for the resource.
I think we are fine without disadvantaging such answers. The OP can ignore them, and others with similar concerns might benefit from them.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_3: **Downvote and add a comment** to make it clear what the problem with that answer is.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: **These answers should not be allowed, but we should not delete them retroactively and for new questions we should first notify the post author with a post notice.**
In case we decide to no longer allow these kind of answers, I think it would be unfair to the answerers of the already existing questions to delete their answers after the policy has become effective.
For newer questions, I think that before deleting an answer, moderators should invite the author to add references by adding the following post notice and wait a few days before deleting:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/9bTE2.png)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: Questions which request references should be checked to see if they question is about the "content of research." If it is, then the long-standing practice is to close the question.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_6: The appropriate response depends on the "hardness" of the reference request, which depends on how the tag is interpreted.
* "Hard" reference requests give clear reasons why an experience-based answer is not acceptable, [as in this well-received example](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/61383/why-has-the-time-spent-studying-declined-so-sharply-in-the-united-states-over-th/61409#61409). In the case of a "hard" reference request, an answer without a reference is not an answer and should be downvoted and/or deleted.
* "Soft" reference requests bundle "have there been any studies?" in with a larger question that can often be answered without references, [such as this example where my answer was accepted with no references](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/45401/to-what-extent-do-the-religious-beliefs-of-an-author-affect-a-papers-chance-of/45452#45452). In this case, references are optional and reference-free answers are entirely reasonable to consider.
The distinction between "hard" and "soft", however, is a matter of interpretation and may change as the question is edited.
Upvotes: 2 |
2022/01/17 | 394 | 1,545 | <issue_start>username_0: [This post](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/181303/maintaining-a-public-handbook-collaborative-editing-online-viewing-plus-good) had the tag [t](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/t "show questions tagged 't'") on it - I have edited the post and deleted the tag. But once created, the tag continues to exist. From the looks of it, this tag was created by mistake and should thus be deleted. Yet, on the tag site, there is no possibility of flagging a delete-worthy tag (or I did not see it.)
Is there an easier way to bring such a tag to attention of users of sufficient reputation than to make a post here?<issue_comment>username_1: Thank you for removing the tag!
There is a daily script that automatically removes the unused tags, so no need to take any further action.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I tend to look at the "New" tags every day. Often enough there is a tag there with a single question but no tag wiki. Sometimes I'll leave it (and think about appropriate wiki). Sometimes I'll edit the question and supply other tags instead, deleting that one.
I left [persistent-identifiers](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/persistent-identifiers "show questions tagged 'persistent-identifiers'") and [reprint](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/reprint "show questions tagged 'reprint'") as they seem to me to be useful, though the latter still has no wiki.
Not every keyword in a post should be a tag (IMO).
Upvotes: 1 |
2022/01/17 | 585 | 2,290 | <issue_start>username_0: This [question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/181336/is-there-a-single-example-of-an-outsider-considered-a-crank-publishing-a-groun) here is asking whether there exists an example of researcher meeting particular criteria, in particular having solved a relevant open problem in the last 30 years and having initally been mistaken for a crank. There are lots of answers obviously not meeting the criteria (eg Galois definitely lived more than 30 years ago).
While I'd consider the 30 years to be a bit restrictive (50 years would be better, imho), overall the strict criteria seem essentially to make this question meaningful. As such, can we do something about all those answers not meeting them? A moderator deleting them all might be the most expedient way of handling this, but would also be somewhat heavy-handed.<issue_comment>username_1: >
> can we do something about all those answers not meeting [the criteria]?
>
>
>
Just click on that button with a triangle pointing down. That's the Stack Exchange way.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: This question violates the spirit of the ban on "shopping questions" as defined in <https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/3658/13240>
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_3: I think this kind of misses the point, for several reasons:
* It's impractical to prove that an example doesn't exist.
* Given that it's impractical to prove that an example doesn't exist, unless an example meeting all criteria is available, the next-best answer is an example that meets some of the criteria, i.e. partial answers.
* It's probable the OP will be interested in partial answers, since they are after all the next-best available answer.
Ultimately it's for the OP to decide if the answers are helpful. If they don't object, then others shouldn't either.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_4: The question is a distraction, perhaps, but a pleasant distraction. If it gives the users (and those providing early answers are frequent users) a bit of room to stretch their mental muscles then it does little harm. And it informs the rest of us about an interesting topic. Too rigid adherence to the rules can make the place dull. Leave it be, please. Keep calm and carry on.
Upvotes: 2 |
2022/01/24 | 708 | 2,730 | <issue_start>username_0: Questions about drawing software appear periodically on this site, and get either closed as off-topic or closed as duplicate of [this one](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/1095), which is again closed.
I think that this state of affairs is unsatisfactory for the following reasons:
1. Certain types of [software recommendations](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4675/what-are-the-limits-of-shopping-questions-when-it-comes-to-software) are now considered on-topic, and I think that drawing software is definitely a software that "solves a practical problem that is specific to academia or teaching", and the fact that questions of these kind pop up every now and then is a sign that this is a problem felt by many academic users.
2. Closing a question as duplicate of a closed question which cannot be updated is useless.
My proposal is then that of considering, once and for all, drawing software recommendations on-topic according to our current policy on software recommendation and reopen [this question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/1095) and the others that are not duplicate.<issue_comment>username_1: #### Yes, we should allow questions requesting recommendations for software which focus on completing tasks important in academia, including drawing software.
As [<NAME>](https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/958/federico-poloni) mentions in the linked [Meta post](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4675/what-are-the-limits-of-shopping-questions-when-it-comes-to-software)
>
> Using software to teach, do research and write papers is a part of our work....Suppose you need to find a good linear algebra book; would you ask a linear algebra expert, or a "book expert"?
>
>
>
To be considered on topic, such questions should be properly scoped as [outlined by SoftwareRecs.SE](https://softwarerecs.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic). Questions should include:
>
> 1. A purpose — a task to accomplish, a user story
> 2. Some objective requirements — a minimum set of features
> 3. Manifest relevance to a large swath of academia -- i.e., questions about drawing figures generally would be disallowed (not specific to academia), as would questions about diagrams showing submerged baskets (only relevant to a certain subfield).
>
>
>
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: This site should continue to be limited to topics *specific* to academia. Drawing, and drawing software, are part of academia, but they are also part of all other industries. Questions about drawing software should go where they have traditionally gone: <https://softwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/drawing?tab=Votes>
Upvotes: -1 |
2022/01/28 | 1,109 | 4,523 | <issue_start>username_0: In the tour of this stack exchange, it is suggested that questions covering these topics should be posted:
1. academic careers,
2. requirements and expectations of students, postdocs, or professors,
3. inner workings of research departments,
4. academic writing and publishing,
5. studying and teaching at institutions of higher education (universities, colleges, …),
Given that the Stack Exchange is called "Academia", would it not also be sensible to allow questions directly related to the practical undertaking of research, given it is so fundamental to academia?
As an example (and at the risk of having it closed), a question on the practical undertaking of research could be something like this:
[What Query String Parameters can be used with Google Scholar?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/181612/what-query-string-parameters-can-be-used-with-google-scholar?noredirect=1#comment487875_181612)
A further example of one which has been closed, but which I believe could also fall under the practical undertaking of research:
[How can I search for Academic Grants in the UK (Physics, Materials, Tech)?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/181566/how-can-i-search-for-academic-grants-in-the-uk-physics-materials-tech?noredirect=1#comment487788_181566)
I understand the latter question is intentionally specific, but to me, that feels like a very broad question that could help a broad range of community members. I am not sure rules which necessitate the closing of such questions are ideal for the community.<issue_comment>username_1: My understanding is that we already take questions about the "practical undertaking of research" so long as it can be addressed by academics generally rather than requiring knowledge of a particular subfield. This question comes to mind as a well-received, on-topic question about research: [How to by-pass bioethics for a trivial bio-experiment?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/124654)
I agree that the list you linked doesn't indicate that these questions are allowed. Perhaps we should add:
>
> 6. the academic research process
>
>
>
we could add add a qualifier "(but not domain-specific questions about research)", but the more concise sentence seems to better fit with the existing list.
**Update:** I added bullet #6 as written to the [linked page](https://academia.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic); this seemed to be the common denominator that (most) everyone liked. Some alternative phrasings and other potentially good ideas were raised in the comments -- if anyone would like to pursue any of these further, please make a new meta post with a specific proposal so that the community can consider.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I was prompted to ask nearly the same by the discussion under the academic grants question as well and believe that if not for the scope, the community would benefit from a clearer guidance.
That is, it is obvious that if shopping questions (and overly specific questions in general) are allowed, they would overtake the site and would be of not much use to most people reading, which is not the SE way. However, I find it a bit baffling to not be provided with any directions whatsoever.
To be clear, I do not mean that academia.SE should massively expand its operations all of a sudden - rather, the scenario of someone asking a question and being bounced back to their academic network is way too common. They obviously do not have a strong network in place, maybe their advisor is utterly unhelpful or even useless, maybe their university does not provide the required infrastructure and yet the advice they get is akin to "just stop being poor". Personally, that leaves a bad taste - it does not seem to be at all impossible to help those in need of the actual networking they have probably hoped to find here in some shape or form, although it is also obvious this could not possibly fit the SE format.
To that end, I would suggest adding a collection of links to external resources in a form of community question. Maybe a "guide to finding academic connections online if your on-site facilities are lacking". Anything better than "you get to a good place or die trying, this is the way of academia and has been by generations, follow the same path" would be an improvement, IMHO.
Wrapping it up: expanding the scope of the community - no, looking for ways to provide help when we could not answer these questions - yes.
Upvotes: 2 |
2022/02/22 | 588 | 2,568 | <issue_start>username_0: There are some questions on the site that can be answered with a few seconds spent with a search engine such as Google or Duck Duck Go. There is no obvious way to close them that I can see. Here is an example: [Digital object identification in arxiv](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/182656/75368)
A comment "Use Google" is sufficient, but leaves the question unanswered. An answer "Use Google" is probably more suitable as a comment.
Should "Use Google" be a site-specific option for voting to close such questions. The boilerplate comment for the close could say "Use Google" or similar.<issue_comment>username_1: There has been some tension on this across SE. One view is that as a repository of questions and answers, the entire *point* of SE is to be the most useful/top Google result for whatever question you would ask. Even if you can get the answer on Google easily, if it isn't on SE yet *it should be* because this format is thought to be the best way to get people to the information they need from the question they have. Certainly for many programming questions SO serves that role well; other SE sites fall at different points.
Another view is that askers should put enough effort in their question such that if it's easily answerable from some simpler references they haven't really put in that effort. This has been a big issue on the other sites I moderate, Biology and Psych&Neuroscience, in part because those sites are also trying to avoid being "homework cheat" sites and give students answers that they can write on their assignments directly when they should be learning how to find the answers independently (paradoxically, it's not as big of a problem if the way they find an answer is through an *existing* Q&A post). I think that specific issue isn't as important with the sorts of questions posted here, of course.
I don't think there's a need for a "let me google that for you" close reason. I'd recommend using the "needs details/clarity" option when an asker has not sufficiently supported the basis of their question, for example by explaining why a dictionary definition wasn't sufficient for them to understand in a particular context. I'd recommend using the "depends on individual factors" close reason when the answer is some form of "look it up on that institution's website" (or use a broader search engine to find it directly).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: The downvote button is labeled "Does not show any research effort." Use it for questions that can be googled easily.
Upvotes: 2 |
2022/03/04 | 505 | 2,209 | <issue_start>username_0: [This question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/182935) seems very straightforward to me: do professors get any financial "rewards" for winning grants? It seems like OP was wondering whether this explained why professors (who already have tenured, relatively well-paid positions) spent so much time applying for and executing grants.
Why was this closed? It looks like there were three votes for "details or clarity" and two votes for "too broad."
* I don't understand the complaints about details/clarity at all; the question seems perfectly clear to me.
* The "too broad" complaint makes a bit more sense, since the question does also ask if the same logic would apply to industry researchers. But this seems like a matter that can be resolved with a quick edit rather than closure.
I propose we reopen this question, and moving forward, I would encourage people to only vote to close if the question is truly unsalvageable. But maybe I am missing something -- other thoughts?
**Update:** Appreciate the discussion. Some good points on both sides, so we'll let the normal voting process play out rather than making a binding decision here. Five users (myself included) have now voted to reopen, so the question is open for now -- but it remains eligible to be re-closed by voting in the usual way.<issue_comment>username_1: The question, even in its current form, is asking us to give insight into why somebody has made certain life choices that the OP deems inadvisable or incorrect. It invites uninformed speculation into whether or not monetary gain may explain that person's behavior. Since such choices are seen across all employment areas that I have encountered, it is not specific to academia.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: The answer depends on the funder, and potentially also on the university or individual employee's contract. Therefore, the question could be closed as either lacking details of those things, or as strongly depending on individual circumstances.
As written now, the answer should be "Yes, but the details vary." That's not a helpful answer.
The comments on a professor's behavior didn't belong in the question.
Upvotes: -1 |
2022/05/30 | 1,375 | 5,678 | <issue_start>username_0: I've been somewhat confused by how the moderation on our controversial questions is conducted. That's not to say that the mods need to be superhuman, but I really do think things are frequently handled inconsistently.
In January, we had this question go through: [Examples of successful push-backs against DEI (diversity, etc.) initiatives in academia?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/181132/examples-of-successful-push-backs-against-dei-diversity-etc-initiatives-in-a)
This was obviously a controversial post, and the moderation philosophy was aggressively focused on deleting comments (even those that weren't consulted) and on keeping the post open. I'm not really happy about how it was handled, but at least that is one policy.
Today, we've had the controversial post [Was it appropriate to discuss the reply-all?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/185707/was-it-appropriate-to-discuss-the-reply-all?noredirect=1) come through, where the response was to issue a 24 hour lock because a moderator was unhappy with the original poster's edit strategy.
Is there something I'm missing that differentiates these questions substantially enough that they require such different strategies? I feel like we could have just let a regular close vote of one sort or another execute on the second question and that would've been closer to the spirit of how the first was handled.<issue_comment>username_1: Different issues need different responses.
I’ve locked today’s post not because it is controversial, but because in a few hours it was edited twenty times in a way that completely changed the core question and context, thus invalidating existing answers and making it impossible for users to answer.
The lock lasts for one day, and it does not correspond to the closure of the question: it is meant to prevent further rushed changes (closing a question does not prevent this), but it can be removed by us moderators any time the author reaches a final decision on the content (as it happened shortly after I wrote this). It also (again *temporarily*) prevents further answers because such answers would be at risk of being invalidated by new edits.
The January’s question didn’t have this issue: it was edited just six times and none of the edits changed the core question.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: **To the title question**: The only difference in policy between a "controversial" question and a regular question is that the former have a post notice reminding people of the rules. Specifically, this notice reminds people (especially new users or hot-network-question users) that this is not a discussion site, and we do not welcome arguments, debates, or opinions, only authoritative answers backed by personal expertise in academia and/or references.
With respect to your first example, you say:
>
> "the moderation philosophy was aggressively focused on deleting comments (even those that weren't consulted)."
>
>
>
I'm not sure what "consulted" means in this context. But as you know, the purpose of comments is to suggest improvements or request clarification. Comments that do not do either of those things may be deleted without notice. In many cases, we do give grace periods or move comments to chat rather than just deleting; we do not want to be obnoxious with deleting comments that are just a hair over the line. But when the controversial post notice has already reminded people about the acceptable uses of comments, we are less likely to give the benefit of the doubt.
>
> "and on keeping the post open"
>
>
>
I'm not sure what you mean by this; the mods did not take any special action to keep this post open. I suppose we could have unilaterally closed it, but we normally leave such decisions to the community.
>
> the response was to issue a 24 hour lock because a moderator was unhappy with the original poster's edit strategy
>
>
>
Locking a question is pretty unusual; I don't think this is a routine "strategy." But I also don't think it's exactly a mystery why a moderator took this action -- this post has been through 20 revisions, many of which substantially change the question being asked, which will lead to a bunch of answers that address different questions. As the moderator said in the comments, this lock will be lifted as soon as OP tells us that the question has stabilized.
>
> I feel like we could have just let a regular close vote of one sort or another execute on the second question
>
>
>
For this specific problem -- a constantly-changing question -- I doubt it. Getting five close votes takes some time, which will lead to confusion and delay. Further, closing the question is not really appropriate if the question itself is on-topic. This is the sort of "exceptional case" that moderators were designed for -- and indeed, a user correctly flagged this post so that we could intervene.
Anyway: thanks for asking, it is good to be able to explain our actions and get feedback. But I'm pretty comfortable with how our team handled these two cases.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: There is no relationship between the two questions.
I requested moderator intervention in [Was it appropriate to discuss the reply-all?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/185707/was-it-appropriate-to-discuss-the-reply-all?noredirect=1) because there were an unreasonable number of edits to the question, making it impractical to tell what had been changed. This seems like abuse to me.
I do not think the question should have been closed as "opinion based" because the several answers and most voters were in general agreement.
Upvotes: 2 |
2022/07/02 | 1,224 | 5,071 | <issue_start>username_0: Please read the following question
[What all can be understood from more 'Review invitations sent'?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/186587/what-all-can-be-understood-from-review-invitations-sent-3)
The question received 3 close votes (2 duplicate & 1 community-specific reason) and 2 down votes.
It is not at all a duplicate of another. And I am not aware whether the community-specific reason is apt because I don't know about the notation used by Elsevier. I don't know whether I need to interpret it based on the context of peer-reviewing or as in the general case.
I want to know what are the potential issues with this question to refrain before posting questions on our main site.
The main objections from users I found are
1. It is a trivial question and not related to academia alone.
How can I know whether it is trivial or not if I am not in to review process and didn't find explicit information regarding it? How safe it is to say that the interpretation of '3+' is the same as in programming or others if I don't know about the review requests etc., You can read one of my comments
>
> If we are uncertain about the number, it is recommended to keep 'n+'.
> But if the editor sends a review request to a particular(fixed) number of
> reviewers, then what is the need to tell '>=n' instead of the exact
> number? So, there might be some information like the review process
> will be started if at least 'n' reviewers accept and the remaining can
> be extra or optional!
>
>
>
2. It is not useful in any way
I did not ask the question because it is useful to me. I am just curious to understand. And I don't think usability is a necessary criterion to ask any question on our main site.
No one provided an exact answer till now. Then how can I convince myself that it is a trivial question or of low standard?<issue_comment>username_1: First, beware that sometimes votes—whether up or down—are not really indicative of the quality of a question, but more of the preferences of the voters: some are just irritated by certain types of questions, typos, topics etc.
Then, what it is generally suggested in answers and comments about the publication process, and something we should probably add to the canonical answer, is to avoid interpreting or guessing every single detail of what appears in the manuscript status. Every journal has its own internal idiosyncrasies which are totally irrelevant to the authors: sometimes such details are hidden to the authors, sometimes the web interface provides pieces of information which are best ignored because without knowing the actual internal processes they might just lead to anxiety (*why is this happening to my manuscript? did I do anything wrong?*). What you're asking about falls essentially in this category: whether 3+ means 3, 4 or more is irrelevant to the authors and the actual number depends on the editor handling the submission, something we cannot know. Moreover, this kind of information might vary at every update of the web interface, and questions of this type may quickly become obsolete.
Finally, it can be argued that the answer to your question is in the linked duplicate target:
>
> The editor selects a number of potential referees to review the
> manuscript. Should a referee decline to review or not perform the
> review in a certain time (as given by the editor or journal), the
> editor usually has to select a new referee. The main exception to this
> is if the other referees already provided sufficient reviews at this
> point.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: The question is a duplicate of "[How should I interpret a particular submission status](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/55665/)?"
The answer says "The editor selects a number of potential referees to review the manuscript." That happens to be the best answer; the editor can select the number.
Questions like this are closed [very frequently](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/linked/55665?lq=1).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: As one of the down-voters on this one, a couple things:
1. It's certainly not a personal judgement directed at the asker, but...
2. I personally downvoted rather than flagged to close because I'm not
entirely positive the question is a duplicate or needed to be closed
for another reason, but I do think it's not a great question for the
site.
It's just a question that is hard to give a good answer to. As seriously, even if a precise answer to the question asked was available (e.g. "exactly 5 every time"), it's hard to avoid the admittedly subjective judgement that the question misses the forest for the trees as far as the peer review process is concerned. Another way to put this is that the question seems really to need a frame challenge. There's some hesitancy against frame challenges in answers and they take longer to write up for basically the same outcome as downvoting the question, so the down vote seemed better than e.g. waiting or writing a frame-challenge answer.
Upvotes: 2 |
2022/07/24 | 1,293 | 5,112 | <issue_start>username_0: We have a very high number of questions about switching fields after PhD. Most of these are duplicates except for the fields in question. Here are some examples (by no means a complete list, I just got tired of copying and pasting):
* [Change of field between PhD and Postdoc](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/182680/change-of-field-between-phd-and-postdoc) (civil engineering --> atmospheric)
* [How to: Change of research field after thesis](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/170391/how-to-change-of-research-field-after-thesis) (math --> math)
* [Is just after your PhD a good time to switch your research area?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/149933/is-just-after-your-phd-a-good-time-to-switch-your-research-area)
* [Recent PhD graduate, can I change fields and get back into it?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/103203/recent-phd-graduate-can-i-change-fields-and-get-back-into-it)
* [Transition from PhD to postdoc with an intent to change field](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/7997/transition-from-phd-to-postdoc-with-an-intent-to-change-field) (theoretical physics --> theoretical physics)
* [Practical aspects -- how to change subfields between PhD and postdoc?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/144187/practical-aspects-how-to-change-subfields-between-phd-and-postdoc) (biological physics --> theoretical physics)
* [Physics PhD switching fields after short career break?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/128281/physics-phd-switching-fields-after-short-career-break) (particle physics --> atmospheric physics)
* [Is it possible to change the application area of research while looking for a postdoc position after PhD?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/130803/) (material science --> green energy)
* [Switching fields in a postdoc after PhD, is that possible in psychology?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/118470/switching-fields-in-a-postdoc-after-phd-is-that-possible-in-psychology) (neuropsychology --> clinical psychology)
Since there are a lot of combinations between current field and target field, we could potentially have thousands of versions of this same question. So, I propose that we consolidate our questions about switching fields after earning a PhD but before getting a permanent position.
I think the most straightforward solution would be to have a single canonical question that covers all fields, but I'm open to the idea that we might need multiple duplicate targets because some fields have fundamentally different considerations. Thoughts?
**Update**: A candidate for this canonical question now exists [here](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/187461/how-can-i-switch-from-field-x-to-field-y-after-getting-my-phd).<issue_comment>username_1: My suggestion: Yes, but with some type of PSA in the question regarding how to use it as a duplicate target. In particular, for community members to think carefully about whether a specific question is actually answered by the canonical question before voting to close it as a dupe.
I think this is a fair canonical question but a bit fraught. As a matter of format, I agree that it makes sense that a canonical question would aggregate common considerations in a few broad categories. Just as a rather cursory suggestion agreeing with a previous comment: Within-discipline, within-nearby-disciplines (e.g. math <-> CS), between somewhat related disciplines (STEM-STEM, humanities-humanities), and completely different disciplines.
My major concern about whether this is advisable is more about how our community will make use of the duplicate target. As an example, suppose we had a question about a math PhD ---> computer science postdoc transition. There could be some useful specific answer depending on the question that goes beyond general advice.
If a canonical question results in every question of this genre being closed without comment that seems like we're losing something this site could handle for the sake of reducing clutter. In an ideal world we'd have the canonical question. But any potential duplicates would be left open long enough for community members with expertise in the specific fields to consider whether they think the canonical answers cover the specific question.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Following up on the discussion in the comments,
**Is there any field-specific advice (about changing fields post-PhD) that we would want to preserve / curate / generate / leave placeholders for? Do any fields have fundamentally different considerations than others?**
* If so, please leave a comment on this answer explaining which field needs handled separately and why it has different considerations. If this field-specific advice already exists in an answer somewhere, please link to it.
* Otherwise, my assumption is that it's possible to write one answer that addresses most/all possible switches (the advice for intra-field switches vs. switching to a remote field might be different, but we can address both in one post).
Upvotes: 1 |
2022/08/02 | 1,464 | 5,966 | <issue_start>username_0: 2 suggestions for canonical questions:
1. The recently established [canonical question for field switching
after PhD](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/187461/how-can-i-switch-from-field-x-to-field-y-after-getting-my-phd) has the following added to note to close voters:
>
> Questions about switching from X to Y may be closed as a duplicate of this. However, please be sure that the below answer actually
> answers OP's question before voting to close! If the question asks
> about something not covered below (other than the specific fields),
> the question should be left open until its answers are merged into
> this canonical question.
>
>
>
I think that is a great addition and should be included in all
canonical questions, as I have the feeling that often, questions
that kind of fall into canonical territory get closed even though
the specific answer is not (yet satisfactory) included in the
canonical answer (the [journal workflow](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/55665/what-does-the-typical-workflow-of-a-journal-look-like-how-should-i-interpret-a) is one of those).
2. Although canonical questions do exist, they are not easy to find as the float around in the sea of questions indistinguishable from other, non-canonical questions unless you actively click on them. My suggestion for making the canonical questions more "findable" would be to simply create a tag named canonical and ad this tag to all the canonical questions, with an explanation in the tag wiki on how canonical questions work, how people are invited to add to them etc.<issue_comment>username_1: Thanks for your suggestions. I'll write my responses in two different answers, so people can upvote/downvote individually.
**I agree we should add some version of the quoted text to each canonical question.** Naturally, we'll have to think a little bit carefully about phrasing these: we should try to be clear about which questions are merely "specific instances" of the canonical question (and should be closed) and which are asking for general information that should be in the canonical answer but isn't.
Along similar lines, I like how the newest canonical question's "notice to readers" paragraph gives a brief explanation for why questions about switching from X to Y are now considered duplicates of the canonical question; this should reduce confusion / annoyance when someone's specific question is closed as a "duplicate" of the much broader question. We should make sure the other canonical questions have something similar.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_1: Thanks for your suggestions. I'll write my responses in two different answers, so people can upvote/downvote individually.
**I agree the "canonical question" tag is probably a good idea. But, there are some potential issues we should be aware of.**
First, meta-tags have been [banned from Stack Overflow](https://stackoverflow.blog/2010/08/07/the-death-of-meta-tags/?_ga=2.193700142.2027830398.1658846982-513819996.1593103406) and are explicitly discouraged elsewhere. Looking through the rationale, many of the concerns would not apply to a [canonical-question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/canonical-question "show questions tagged 'canonical-question'") tag, but this ones does: "The reason meta-tags are a problem is that they do not describe the content of the question. They describe some other aspect of the question, like the author’s skill level, or the author’s motivation for asking it, or generally what 'kind' of question it is (poll, how-to, etc.)." I think creating a singular meta-tag is probably not a terrible idea notwithstanding the above, but we should be clear that this is a singular event and not a precedent.
Second, there is concern that novice users will misuse this tag and make random questions "canonical." [Mod-only tags](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4991/) were suggested a year ago; I think mod-only tags are a fine idea, but they would have to be implemented by the StackExchange developers, which would take years (if they agree to do it at all, which I think is unlikely given the above). So, we would have to manually detect and remove incorrect applications of this tag; this is a bit of a maintenance burden (though I think it's probably worth it in this case; people have been complaining about how difficult it is to find canonical questions for years).
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: We already have [a list of canonical questions](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3824/7734). The advantage of this (over a tag) is that it can be sorted by category and similar. The obvious problem is that users are not sufficiently aware of this list or otherwise don’t know where to look for canonical questions.
If we add a banner to canonical questions, we can also include a link to this list. This should obviate the need for a specific tag, as it is then visible on every canonical question, just like the tag. This way we avoid the problems of a tag, like mistagged questions, the tag being removed, etc.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: >
> However, please be sure that the **below answer** actually answers OP's question before voting to close!
>
>
>
This is wrong.
* When voting to close, you are voting for a duplicate **question**, not a duplicate answer.
* If two questions are the same, or should have the same answer, then they are duplicates, **even if no answers exist** in the site. This rule should apply to all questions, canonical or not.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_3: >
> canonical questions do exist, they are not easy to find
>
>
>
My suggestion is: This is not a bug. Canonical questions are the same as every other question, except that they have been discussed on the meta site. They do not need special treatment.
The good ones are easy to find because there are many duplicates pointing to them.
Upvotes: 0 |
2022/08/08 | 793 | 2,985 | <issue_start>username_0: I am new to this Stack, though I have been participating in other stacks before. I answered a couple of question but have got constantly bad reactions, which for some reason are not very well liked.
1. In [this](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/186811/is-it-academic-dishonesty-if-i-committed-my-exam-answers-into-a-private-github-r/186896#186896) questions I gave an answer, which was tagged "unclear". I don't see that and even another commenter did not see that.
2. In [this](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/186988/are-there-any-international-standards-laws-or-governing-bodies-that-deal-with/187285#187285) query I give an answer based on my expert knowledge, which seems to be somewhat not acceptable for others.
3. In [this](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/186887/advisor-is-using-my-ideas-as-grant-proposal/186895#186895) query that is content-wise correct, even though others disagree if my suggestion is smart.
As a consequence I am banned from answering, which paralyzes me on this platform. My take on this platform is: I participate in Academia stack because I am science manager. I have a PhD, I worked at different academic institutions. Since my PhD is on copyright policy, I have some good knowledge about it. I can contribute with answers and suggestions, but not with questions. So my question is
1. How to unban myself?
2. How to prevent from being banned again?
Overall, I am wondering, whether the modus of right/wrong is suitable for most of the questions asked on this platform, because the questions seem to be very often rather vague, which makes answer suggestions.<issue_comment>username_1: See [What can I do when getting "We are no longer accepting questions/answers from this account"?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/86997/401068) which answers your questions about how this happened and how to undo it.
This is an automated system and we cannot intervene to override it.
The specific algorithm is a secret to make the system more difficult to abuse, but in general you get an answer ban when you receive mostly downvotes and few upvotes across multiple posts, including deleted ones.
Although you say you are an expert in some aspects of copyright, it seems all of the answers you link were likely downvoted for confusing plagiarism and other academic ethics concepts with copyright, which are separate concepts that are nonetheless often confused, and I think that makes people fairly aggressive about emphasizing when they are incorrectly interchanged.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> I am wondering, whether the modus of right/wrong is suitable for most of the questions asked on this platform, because the questions seem to be very often rather vague, which makes answer suggestions.
>
>
>
In that case, you should refrain from answering the question. If you had sufficient reputation, you could vote to close the question using the "opinion" reason.
Upvotes: 2 |
2022/08/12 | 1,131 | 4,149 | <issue_start>username_0: Quite often, questions like [this recent](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/187703/professor-stopped-replying-after-showing-interest-in-introductory-email) one are posted, all with the same tenor:
>
> I was in contact with a professor/supervisor/etc. about a position/PhD program/masters program/etc. , and they seemed to think I am a good fit. After initial contact I sent them a follow up email to which they did not reply (yet). It has been XX days since I wrote the email (sometimes as little as 3 days if I remember correctly), should I write a follow up email/call/etc.?"
>
>
>
I think there must have been 10 or so questions like this within the last few months.
So the question is: as this seems to be a common issue, should we make a canonical question about the etiquette and strategies when waiting for an answer? Or is this problem to profane for that and we simply keep on linking them to the oldest such question and close as duplicates?<issue_comment>username_1: I was under the impression [we already had a canonical question.](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/9542/is-ignoring-emails-acceptable-in-academia?noredirect=1&lq=1)
I do not see a need for a change.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: There is a well-written older question, [How to get people to reply to emails and what to make of a no response?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/45616/17254), that is quite general, and should be a good duplicate target for at least some of these questions. It does not currently address how to interpret a sudden switch from open communication to apparent radio silence, but could potentially be modified to cover this.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I dug around a bit. It seems like there are a few different question types under the same umbrella:
1. *I am an e-mailing someone about an academic matter (research or teaching). Why am I not getting responses to my e-mails? How can I improve my likelihood of getting a response?* For this one, I think [this question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/45616/how-to-get-people-to-reply-to-emails-and-what-to-make-of-a-no-response) already covers the ground well, as username_2 suggested. Perhaps we could also edit it to add a link to [this](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/9542/is-ignoring-emails-acceptable-in-academia?noredirect=1&lq=1) one that AP suggested.
2. *I am a student e-mailing professors I'd like to work with. How to interpret lack of response? Should I e-mail again?* [Here](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/5330) is an example.
3. *I am a student e-mailing professors I'd like to hire me. Is my way of writing e-mails good?* This isn't exactly what you suggested in the proposal, but I think a good answer to #2 will need to cover this ground, or link to a post that covers it. [This question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/173122/) seems like a good example, as it explains the most common mistake people make and how to avoid it. We can also add a note explaining that this only applies to countries where you apply to supervisors directly (i.e., not the US).
4. *I have a PhD and am e-mailing people about post-docs or jobs, but not getting responses*. [This one](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/161884/i-didnt-hear-back-after-a-postdoc-interview-can-i-set-a-deadline-for-a-respons) is an example.
My empirical sense is that #2 (and by extension, #3 also) is by far the most commonly-recurring question. If we were going to make a new canonical question, I would suggest focusing it on this. But I suggest we start with the following:
1. Clean up these four posts by editing, perhaps merge in any other good answers from duplicate posts and add links to related post, and
2. Close questions that are duplicates of these four questions. That will make these four questions easier to find, and will prune some of the questions that cover the same ground less thoroughly.
After that, if we want to make further changes, or want to raise any of these four to "canonical" status, we can discuss in a separate thread.
Upvotes: 2 |
2022/08/13 | 1,581 | 6,681 | <issue_start>username_0: >
> However, please be sure that the below **answer** actually answers OP's question before voting to close! If the question asks about something not covered below (other than the specific fields), the question should be left open until its answers are **merged** into this canonical question.
>
>
>
In [(How) Can I switch from field X to field Y after getting my PhD?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/187461/how-can-i-switch-from-field-x-to-field-y-after-getting-my-phd)<issue_comment>username_1: These instructions should be removed because:
* It is impractical to determine the contents of a long and changing community wiki for each potential duplicate.
* Voting to close a question as a duplicate of another question should be based on the content of the question, not the content of answers.
* Merging answers is impractical and undermines the answer voting process.
* Redoing close voting after merging answers is also impractical.
* If it is unclear if a question is a duplicate, the meta site provides a good mechanism for resolving any uncertainty.
* We do not need more rules and special cases.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: **The instructions are stating what should be obvious: don't hammer a question for being asked-and-answered unless it has actually been asked and answered.**
It is understandably infuriating for the asker when they ask "how does X affect Y" and it gets closed as a duplicate of "how does Y work?", but the linked question does not address X, does not address any generalization of X, and does not explain why we're not addressing X.
Moreover, this is a problem for the site: if the canonical question should address X, but it doesn't, and we close all questions that ask about X, then there's no way for askers to learn about X or for answerers to realize that their expertise on X might be valuable.
I won't go line-by-line through your points, but I want to address the first two:
>
> It is impractical to determine the contents of a long and changing community wiki for each potential duplicate.
>
>
>
Disagree completely. If you are going to close someone's question as a duplicate of another question, it is **your responsibility** to verify that it is actually a duplicate. It is not good enough to say "well, they're basically the same, it's too much work to make sure it actually contains an answer." No one is forcing you to exercise your close votes or reopen votes, but casting a duplicate vote means telling a human being "your post should be deleted because it's been asked-and-answered elsewhere." If you're going to do this, you should take the time to make sure that you are correct.
>
> Voting to close a question as a duplicate of another question should be based on the content of the question, not the content of answers.
>
>
>
If the two questions are identical, then there is no issue: close away! The instructions don't state otherwise. As discussed above, the issue is where to draw the line when the questions are close but not identical (most often, the new question asks about a specific case of the canonical question).
[By the way, I did not invent these instructions out of the blue, they were specifically requested [here](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5181/)].
**Update, 6 mos later**: I decided to reword these instructions to make them a bit more concise. The "question closure instructions" have now been edited into the main canonical question intro paragraph. This is just wordsmithing and does not imply any change to our closure procedures.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_1: Here's a possible alternative wording:
>
> Note to close voters: please consider [this meta discussion](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5181/should-we-have-a-canonical-question-about-changing-fields-after-phd) before closing a question as a duplicate.
>
>
>
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_3: I do not have moderator powers and don't anticipate earning enough rep for them, so I'm hesitant to comment on the precise wording of the preface text.
But as I requested it, maybe some further explanation as to why would be useful.
As a totally anecdotal observation, this Stack closes questions more often compared to some others. I think this is good-- we have relatively low volume, so can afford the time to try to help askers find an answer to their question. The busier Stacks seem to rely more heavily on downvotes in contrast, which can be pretty frustrating for the asker since they don't necessarily get to know what the issue was.
The downside of our predisposition is that borderline questions are more likely to be closed on balance, which is final in that it stops answers from accruing and is still jolting to proactive askers. Once a question is closed as a duplicate, the burden of making an argument convincing enough to reopen it usually falls on the asker. But the close voters are more likely to be familiar with that context in the first place, so clearly should have more responsibility for knowing the answer base.
I suggested some form of warning for this specific canonical question because it seems to me there are a lot of related questions and answers in the genre that are within scope and unlikely to be consulted by general advice answers. The way this concern arose was straightforward: When I tried to think of a simple typology from which to construct answers to a canonical question, I had difficulties.
Cag made a compelling case, however, that we have a history over time of receiving essentially identical questions and producing essentially similar general-advice answers. A preface warning's content may seem obvious, but my thought was it represented a reasonable PSA in a likely-to-be-seen place that succinctly highlights this tension to flaggers and voters.
On a particular point:
>
> We do not need more rules and special cases.
>
>
>
I agree with this and do not think the preface is either a rule or a special case. It is not a special case because all duplicate voters/flaggers should make the suggested consideration in every case. It is not a rule in the same sense that almost every moderation decision on Stack doesn't arise from an explicit rule but from some consensus amongst the users who have moderation powers. In particular, none of the diamond moderators suggest they will user "superpowers" to enforce it.
That being said, I wouldn't be bothering with these replies and suggestions if I didn't think they were useful. I hope Stack members will at least give them a thought if they interface with this particular genre of question.
Upvotes: 2 |
2022/08/30 | 900 | 3,846 | <issue_start>username_0: SE sites used to allow anyone to ask questions in guest mode, with a user name of the form userXXXXX . See [this question](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2001/asking-a-question-anonymously). This is particularly valuable for sites which often involve legal or interpersonal issues; I was going to ask such a question this morning.
That is why I learned that, if you go to academia.SE in incognito mode and attempt to ask a question you will now see this screen:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/BiMoF.png)
Moreover, the site will not simply let you create an account with a fake e-mail address, but will send a confirmation e-mail to the address you enter, so you need an actual throw away.
I am annoyed. While it is obviously possible to get a throw away e-mail and set up a throw away account, this is adding extra hurdles. Was this really necessary to keep out spam?<issue_comment>username_1: Not a full explanation, but some general information:
* This is a site-specific setting.
* This was activated earlier this year and successfully put an end to a very annoying spam wave. So, it was arguably necessary at the time.
* Whether this is still necessary now is up to debate and something we will naturally only truly know after deactivation.
* A welcome side effect of this was that it reduced other unwelcome contributions.
* Naturally, it’s difficult to estimate to what extent this reduced welcome contributions.
I initiated a discussion with the other mods and CMs as to whether we want to change this setting.
Mind that we will likely not just put this up to a vote here on meta, because you (the community) do not have access to a considerable amount of information factoring in this decision.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_1: We moderators conferred with the staff and decided to leave unregistered posting disabled for the following reasons (summarised):
* Before being disabled, the vast majority of posts from unregistered users had been bad by objective standards (votes, closure, etc.).
* Since unregistered posting was disabled, we have seen a subjective reduction of abusive behaviour and other nastiness. This is stuff that causes disruption and requires moderator work to a significant extent.
* It reduces blatant spam. This doesn’t require much moderator work, but it may be visible for some hours if no moderator is around, causing disruption.
Mind that we do see the upsides of enabling unregistered posts, such as lowering the entry barrier.
We decided not to actively put this to a vote by the community. **However,** if anybody feels sufficiently strongly enough about this to make a meta post soliciting a community consensus on this, we see this as an indicator that the downsides of disabling registered voting may need more attention.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I *think* this policy is OK moving forward, but consideration needs to be given to the multiple-account approach that would be required to "anonymously" post.
Multiple accounts are allowed for valid reasons ([How should sockpuppets be handled on Stack Exchange?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/57682/how-should-sockpuppets-be-handled-on-stack-exchange)), which would facilitate anonymous questions, but at the cost of a little more trouble for the person asking.
Personally, my assumption is that there's *always* a risk of account info being compromised, and the user doxxed -- so my policy moving forward would be to *not ask* any questions that I wouldn't want associated with my personal identity, unless I could ask it completely anonymously, without any potential link to any identifying information. I don't know enough about SE user policies to know if that's possible.
Upvotes: 1 |
2022/09/04 | 398 | 1,448 | <issue_start>username_0: [Why would I ever create a new exam when I can just re-use an old exam and then accuse any student of obtaining a copy as cheating?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/188407) was deleted as *rude or abusive.* Why?<issue_comment>username_1: *I was not involved in the deletion of your question. But here is why I would arrive at the same decision:*
Taken out of context, your last paragraph is misogynistic victim blaming.
Within context, I have the problem that your post is not really clear (it has too many unclear references and does not describe its line of thought well) and thus I cannot tell why that paragraph is there.
Thus, I turn to the most lenient interpretation ([in dubio pro reo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_dubio_pro_reo)) of why that paragraph is there:
You want to illustrate the concept of victim blaming to somebody who never heard it.
But even then, the word choices and tone of the paragraph are totally out of place and re-iterate the victim blaming itself, thus violating the [Code of Conduct](https://academia.stackexchange.com/conduct):
>
> ### No bigotry.
>
>
> We don’t tolerate any language likely to offend or alienate people based on […] gender, […]. […]. When in doubt, don't use language that might offend or alienate.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Posting incomprehensible text is abuse. Please consult the help before posting questions.
Upvotes: -1 |
2022/11/30 | 620 | 2,515 | <issue_start>username_0: [This answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/191033/72211) is technically correct.
However, it suggests to the author that they adopt practices that are harmful to acadaemia as a whole purely for their own career advancement.
This doesn't sit right with me. Should we allow answers like this?<issue_comment>username_1: I think we should be realistic. Certain practices, whether one likes it or not, are common across many fields and actively encouraged by certain selection criteria, and by not recognizing and accepting them in answers, we would just promote an idealistic view of academia that doesn't exist in practice, *possibly damaging young researchers*.
And I'd like to stress further the last point: for a well-funded tenured researcher, it's easy to promote the best ideals, but this should not be done at the expenses of younger untenured researchers, who typically have to face and advance in a much less-than-ideal world.
So, yes, I think we should allow answers like that one because they're anchored to reality.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: First, we don't moderate like this. We don't delete answers for being *wrong*, that's what voting is for. Each user gets a lot of leeway in how they use their votes, as long as they vote for *content* rather than users. Your judge of content is your own; if you want to downvote answers that suggest doing things that you think are bad, that's your prerogative. The tooltip on the downvote button for answers states "This answer is not useful" - you decide what "useful" means.
For this particular case:
>
> However, it suggests to the author that they adopt practices that are harmful to acadaemia as a whole purely for their own career advancement.
>
>
>
I disagree; this answer tells the question asker how their applications will likely be evaluated, and makes clear that this is not an ideal state of things.
I expect the same user would give a very different answer if instead of a postdoc asking how to make their job applications competitive it was a hiring committee member asking how they should evaluate job applications.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: >
> it suggests to the author that they adopt practices
>
>
>
You are mistaken. The answer does not advocate for any particular course of action.
An answer that did suggest adoption of bad practices should be down voted. Deletion would only be appropriate if there was a possibility of immediate harm.
Upvotes: 2 |
2022/12/06 | 780 | 3,056 | <issue_start>username_0: [ChatGPT](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ChatGPT) is a human assisted AI that can be used to generate reasonable looking answers to questions. It seems to have been used for at least one answer here (now deleted). However [StackOverflow has (temporarily) banned it](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/421831/8209853) for answers there.
One major criticism of it is that it generates text that can be factually "questionable" since it depends on the data that was used to train it, which isn't always reliable.
Should we take a position and make policy on using it?
The possibilities are to forbid it, permit it with citation, or to permit it generally. There might be others as well.
One problem I see is that it might be difficult to "notice" its use. It might, therefore, be hard or impossible to enforce any policy.
Another problem is that humans also (present company excluded) sometimes generate faulty reasoning and unfactual "facts".
Personally, I think its use could greatly degrade the usefulness and validity of this site if it is overused. But, then, I'm generally skeptical of AI in its present form. We are, after all, trying to provide valid career guidance to our peers.
---
Insights into how a restrictive policy might be enforced would be welcome in answers if you believe they are appropriate. [Here is some discussion](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/421880/8209853) about how to recognize these).
---
The New York Times has an [article (probably paywalled)](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/05/technology/chatgpt-ai-twitter.html) concerning ChatGPT.<issue_comment>username_1: I believe we should have a firm policy that things like ChatGPT are not allowed. For most of our questions, the personal experiences of humans are critical to a good answer. Some auto-generated pablum in no way is useful to the users of the site. If anything, it is more harmful than spam.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: I **do not see any value** in posted answers generated by ChatGPT-like services.
* If the answer is bad -> the answer should be deleted.
* If the answer is somewhat good -> then, ChatGPT-answer can be looked similar to search engines; thus, a user could have asked ChatGPT the question directly without asking it on Academia SE. Nobody would find posting a "screenshot" of Google search results as an answer useful.
Therefore, I completely do not see a place for ChatGPT answers, **particularly at Academia SE**, where, in my opinion, there is a very small percentage of questions that can be answered adequately by an AI. Thus, regardless of the decision on the network-wide ban on ChatGPT-like answers, Academia SE should adopt a strict policy against ChatGPT answers.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: I see no value in making new rules before we have precise information about the difference between ChatGPT answers and human answers.
Excessive posting of bad answers should continue to be punished, via downvotes, with revocation of the ability to post questions and answers.
Upvotes: -1 |
2022/12/10 | 955 | 3,861 | <issue_start>username_0: Do we have a firm policy on questions, answers, or comments that are automatically generated using a tool like GPT-3?
This post follows a previous request for Academia SE community input: [Should this site take an official position on answers generated by ChatGPT?](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5219/should-this-site-take-an-official-position-on-answers-generated-by-chatgpt) See also the related discussions [on StackOverflow](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/421831/temporary-policy-chatgpt-is-banned) (see also [here](https://stackoverflow.com/help/gpt-policy)) and [network wide](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/384396/ban-chatgpt-network-wide).<issue_comment>username_1: ### Policy: Questions, answers, and comments may not be auto-generated on Academia.SE.
While the technology is impressive, these answers are not based on references or personal expertise in academia. Rather, our experience is that they only contain contain common sense advice that is often off-topic. There is also significant potential for harm since the AI might produce plausible-looking answers to difficult questions; these might attract upvotes and give the impression of credibility when in fact the answer could well be incorrect.
If there is some reason why you feel that you need to auto-generate text, it's probably best to seek pre-approval on meta. Note that simply citing the AI model used or disclosing that the text was auto-generated is not sufficient under this policy (though it's a step in the right direction).
### What should I do if I see something that I think was written by a chatbot?
Flag it! Good-faith flags on questions or answers will usually be marked "helpful." Good-faith flags on comments are also appreciated, but mechanically such flags are always marked as "declined" unless the comment is deleted.
### How will you know if someone has used a chatbot?
We deliberately don't reveal our entire bag of tricks. It is possible there will be some false positives. However, answers that are sufficiently low-quality as to be indistinguishable from a chatbot are also not really desirable, so we don't see this as much of a problem. False negatives are a bit more of a problem, since an answer may seem okay but actually be harmful.
### What if I'm asking a question about dealing with chatbots in an academic setting?
The question itself may not be auto-generated. However, if quoting the exact words that the chatbot used is important for your question, you may provide a brief quote from the chatbot.
### What if I have a suggestion for improving this policy?
For the next week or so, we'll edit this policy based on discussion in the comments and/or other answers. After that, you should make a new meta post to propose any changes.
### Update 31 May 2023
We are aware of [this unpopular directive pushed on us from above](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/389582), which will effectively make policies like this one unenforceable. This policy may need to be updated accordingly, stay tuned.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: While there may be background, even automated, solutions, I suggest a user-facing change to some of the user dialogs.
Adding "Seems to be auto-generated", or similar, to either or both the flag and site-specific close dialogs would let users help keep things out as needed.
This is, perhaps, fraught if it would flood the mods with false positives, so consideration/thought is needed.
If SE overall makes a policy then such might be added to the more general close dialog, of course.
I don't know how difficult it is to change these dialogs and how much power the mods have to do it on their own. A "feature request" might be needed.
Added: It might be useful to add something to the help center advice.
Upvotes: 2 |
2022/12/31 | 278 | 1,108 | <issue_start>username_0: Someone, please tell me why [this question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/192084/75368) is closed. and is the closed question appeared on the screen for others or not? how to reopen it?<issue_comment>username_1: One major reason is that you haven't said why the paper was retracted, implying only that it was the supervisor's pressure. The normal reasons are plagiarism, lack of novelty, bad fit for a journal (though it would have been rejected initially for that), errors in the paper, etc.
Yes, others can see closed questions. We can't answer them, however, but can still comment.
The way to get the question reopened is to edit it so that it is possible to answer and not a rant and then flag it for the mods to deal with or just wait to see if you get votes to reopen.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: You want a specific answer to a situation for which you do not provide specific details. Until you give specific facts, such as quoting correspondence with the publisher (rather than paraphrase or report hearsay), there is really nothing to be done.
Upvotes: 3 |
2023/01/09 | 838 | 3,082 | <issue_start>username_0: I recently made a rather misguided attempt to make a canonical answer for all of the questions that take this form.
<https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/192370/can-i-contact-x-person-about-y?noredirect=1#comment519890_192370>
Apologies, I was unaware of the process by which this is usually managed.
Do we think this needs a canonical answer? If so, what should the canonical answer be?
---
It's worth noting that I make a huge distinction between "can I" and "should I", this question only concerns the former. While the latter would, in my opinion, have broadly the same answer, that does have some more nuance that would make a canonical answer far harder.<issue_comment>username_1: My two pence is that, yes, this needs a canonical answer. This is because there is one simple answer that covers every scenario that I can think of. Although, I'd happily be proven wrong. That answer is:
>
> Yes, you can contact any person, about anything, for any reason, at
> any time.
>
>
> Just be nice, polite, and avoid being demanding. They are under no
> obligation to answer you.
>
>
> The obvious exception of this is when you're not supposed to be able
> to work out who the person you want to contact is. Don't go trying to
> break anonymous review.
>
>
>
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: **Short answer:** My personal view is that you should keep thinking, you may be on to something here. But, I don't think the proposed canonical question and answer is the right one as-written.
**Longer answer...**
>
> These questions all boil down to the same thing. Can I contact this person about this thing?
>
>
>
I agree there are (to paraphrase one amazing comment from several years ago) many questions on that site that say "How do I tell Joe I don't want to wibble anymore?" and the answer is always "Just say: hey Joe, I want to stop wibbling!". The trouble is, there are also many questions that don't fit the pattern. For example: "How do I tell my student that they are terrible and should drop out of grad school?" seems like it matches the pattern, but it actually doesn't.
So, trying to come up with a one-size-fits all answer is fraught. It may be possible to come up with a canonical question here, but I think it would have to be narrower than the one in your title.
>
> I make a huge distinction between "can I" and "should I"
>
>
>
This is one option for making the question narrower, but I don't think it's a good one. While the questions are different, the intent of the asker is usually the same. If the question is "Can I ask <NAME> to review my physics homework?", saying "you *could* do that..." would not be terribly helpful, even if technically correct.
Finally, note that we already have [How should I phrase an important question that I need to ask a professor?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/90725/how-should-i-phrase-an-important-question-that-i-need-to-ask-a-professor). This could be viewed as another attempt to identify a narrower version of the question.
Upvotes: 3 |
2023/02/09 | 792 | 3,181 | <issue_start>username_0: I recently linked the "[Academia differs more than you think](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4471/academia-varies-more-than-you-think-it-does-the-movie#4477)" meta question in a comment on a question on the main site. And started to wonder why this question is on meta and not as a canonical question on the main site, as it contains actually a lot of content that would be (IMHO) be better suited for the main site and not meta.
So my question is: should we migrate (or duplicate) this good and informative content from meta to the main site in the form of a canonical question?<issue_comment>username_1: Strongly agree with username_2's take. The question is almost definitionally meta, by the usual definition of the term... it's not focusing any particular aspect of academia, but highlighting the difficulty of answering academia-related questions.
For me, since it's not a question about any of the things on [this list](https://academia.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic), but *is* particularly useful to keep in mind when *answering* those types of questions, it belongs on Meta.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: This is a tough one:
* The intent of the linked question is to remind answerers not to overgeneralize from their experience. It's less useful for askers. In fact, you could look at it as a policy, or at least a best practice.
* On the other hand, we normally draw the line between the sites by saying that while many questions on the main site are "meta about academia," questions on meta should be "meta about the site." By this definition, much of the content in the linked question does seem better suited for the main site.
*Note, I converted this analysis to an answer to avoid answering in the comments; however, this answer does not take a position either way. So, we will not consider upvotes/downvotes on this answer when deciding what to do.*
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: After looking at it a couple times, it seems like the *intent* behind the original question would be categorized as meta. But the actual question as posed (under heading **This Question**):
>
> In which respects does academia vary more than many people expect?
>
>
>
is a question which is not a meta question. It would belong on the main site topically, though perhaps violate one rule or another given how open-ended it is.
**Suggestion:** The question remains on meta but is updated slightly. Something like the following, though I'm by no means married to the precise wording:
>
> What are some common respects in which academia varies that have led to overly-generalized answers in the past?
>
>
>
The topic-by-topic answers then seem right to me in this context, if extensive. In some ways they could each also be their own questions and answers on the main site, but maybe not good ones according to some of our policies.
For instance, I think each topic would be a "list question" on the main site. The lists seem to be worth having here on meta to signpost a specific genre of problems we encounter in the Q&A format. They're impossible to complete as standalone main site questions.
Upvotes: 2 |
2023/02/13 | 592 | 2,418 | <issue_start>username_0: We frequently get questions like [this](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/193421/timeline-to-ask-postdoc-interview-outcome) [one](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/193745/assistant-professor-tenure-track-netherlands), along the lines of "I submitted an application / had an interview, but haven't heard back after X days / weeks / months. Have I been rejected? At what point can I send a follow-up e-mail?" It is understandable that askers are anxious, but of course the fact is that no one here can tell them what the status of their application is.
It seems like we do not have a consistent policy for these; they are usually left open, but occasionally closed as a duplicate or "individual factors." As I see it, there are three possible options:
* Make a canonical question "What is the usual hiring timeline for academic positions in the US and Europe? Why haven't I heard back?", and the caveats about how things vary widely. This is probably the "friendliest" thing to do.
* Close the questions as "depends on individual factors," since we cannot predict how long things will take or how a follow-up e-mail would be perceived.
* Leave the questions open. This seems to be the most common outcome now.
I'd be inclined toward one of the first two. Thoughts?
**Edit/Update**: A candidate question/answer has been posted [here](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/193773/). Please feel free to edit to improve. If more severe changes are needed, let's make a new meta post.<issue_comment>username_1: Make a canonical question "What is the usual hiring timeline for academic positions in the US and Europe? Why haven't I heard back?", and the caveats about how things vary widely.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_1: Close the questions as "depends on individual factors," since we cannot predict how long things will take or how a follow-up e-mail would be perceived.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Leave the question open unless it fits the typical scenario. Some such questions actually point to special circumstances that might affect the direction of an answer.
This would avoid the canonical answer from having too much "if this-then that".
Typical scenarios are asking after a few weeks. Typical answers are "You can ask *but*...".
Some such questions are asking for specific guidance on uncommon scenarios.
Upvotes: -1 |
2023/03/10 | 906 | 3,646 | <issue_start>username_0: To give some context, I have a quite simple question (i.e. the number of international doctoral students in the US), but I have two different sources that give apparently conflicting figures. Would it be appropriate to ask a question about it on this website?
I asked a [similar question](https://opendata.stackexchange.com/questions/20869/where-to-find-more-detailed-data-relative-to-doctoral-students-registered-in-the) on the opendata stackexchange website a few weeks ago without getting answers. But now I'm wondering if the academia website would be more appropriate for this question, as the bottom-line issue is not strictly about getting data, but rather about understanding why sources are conflicting on this subject.
Anyway, besides my particular question, I guess that it's interesting to know if we can ask this kind of academia figures/statistics question here, or if it's off-topic.
I'm not used to this website at all, so forgive me is my question is ignorant. The pages <https://academia.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic> and <https://academia.stackexchange.com/help/dont-ask> did not really clarify things for me, even if the "vibe" I get from them is that this kind of question would be off-topic.
Thanks,<issue_comment>username_1: This is a good question. I'm not aware of any past discussion on this topic.
My view is that "questions about academia itself" are **manifestly on topic** on an Academia StackExchange. This includes the history of academia (see [this interesting question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/17518/how-did-graduate-schools-come-into-existence)) as well as requests for statistics about academia (like [this one](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/7465/where-can-i-find-statistics-about-international-movement-of-students-academics)), in addition to various questions about "how academia works," which are somewhat more common here. But this is just my view, we will see if others disagree.
Even given this view, though, I would add two cautions:
* Most of our users are practicing academics (professors, researchers, college instructors, students, etc.). We don't really know these statistics offhand, and our "back-of-the-envelope" estimates are probably the sort of estimates you could make yourself. We could search Google and read the reports we find, but you could do that as well. So, while I think such questions should be allowed here, it is true that our expertise in this topic is limited.
* Statistics change over time and methodologies vary. This is not the best fit to the StackExchange format. Ideally, answers should provide enough detail that future readers, years from now, should still be able to benefit from the answer even if the bottom-line number is no longer reliable. But this guidance applies more to answers than to askers.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Just a caveat. While your question seems fine and didn't ring any alarm bells for me, I appreciate it when the asker of such question says why they want to know the information. Sometimes it is just curiosity and sometimes there is an action item behind it. Normally fine. I don't (can't) require that information, but appreciate when it is given. It sometimes helps one to format an answer also.
But it isn't our job here do so research for those asking questions. So if a question seems like the asker is looking for research data here, I'd consider it off topic.
That's not intended to disqualify questions the answers to which might appear as, say, a reference or explanation in a paper, however. It can be a bit subtle.
Upvotes: 2 |
2023/03/12 | 1,041 | 4,445 | <issue_start>username_0: There seems to have been an unusual spate of questions on Academia with a similar "unsung genius" theme. I'm not going to highlight any particular post but the bulk of them relate to fields of physics (especially quantum mechanics and relativity), psychology, and mathematics, but occasionally include other domains. The questions usually involve one or more of the following things:
1. A statement about the researcher's unappreciated independent work that would, could, or in their view already has, produced a revolutionary new way of looking at the topic of interest.
2. A description of the paucity of their own academic training or credentials usually due to the lack of time the author has had to pursue a mundane academic career while working on the revolutionary theory, or due to bias on the part of a degree awarding institution.
3. One or more self-publications, predatory journal publications, or YouTube videos.
4. A desire for money (employment as a senior research director), pinnacle fame (nomination for a prize of award of some kind), widespread recognition (adoption of my theories into mainstream physics, medical, mathematics, or psychological practice).
5. A request for suggestions about how to force, coerce, convince, bribe, leverage or otherwise manipulate others into overcoming the hurdles the OP has faced.
Ultimately, most of the posts get closed for want of clarity... but I'm wondering whether it would be more ***useful*** to:
* Produce a community answer of the kind that I've seen elsewhere, that addresses the main problems. Such an answer might include separate sections with comments that are domain specific
* Close the questions as being ***duplicates***, rather than as merely *requiring clarification*. The advantages of doing that would be that all similar questions were ultimately directed towards a useful generic answer and the OP would be given clear information about how their question would have to be improved before it could be reopened as a non-duplicate.
The second of the points above would also cater to those questions (of which I've seen several) which, at a first glance, *appear to be like those I've described **but turn out not to be***.<issue_comment>username_1: I think that many questions of the kind you describe can be considered duplicate of
[I believe I have solved a famous open problem. How do I convince people in the field that I am not a crank?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/18491/20058)
or
[I believe I have a clever idea/tool that should be widely adopted by the research community. How to interpret a lukewarm response?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/165526/20058)
The latter has a negative total score, but the answers therein are on spot.
There might be other similar questions too, and I don’t know whether we could say much more on the topic.
When encountering similar questions, it is certainly advisable to vote to close them as duplicates of one of the two above targets, depending on which one fits better. However, regarding a few of the recent questions we have received, I admit that I've found them unclear, and in such cases it's reasonable to ask for clarification before closing.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: These questions are not really different to other questions, so we should treat them the same (close as duplicate if they are, otherwise not).
However, for those questions especially we should remember that they are valid questions, often asked in good spirit and not talk the user down or insult them. This meta-question for example has, in my opinion, a bit of "down-talking". Mostly, the user asking those truely believed they improved physics etc. While as a researcher, you know there are millions of those people, they still deserve a valid answer (which should also tell them that they are likely to be wrong, but in friendly terms).
I have seen on this site those kinds of questions and people suggesting that they are duplicates of some other, not useful question, because in both questions the asker is identified as a "crank". This is not useful and adds to the "arrogance of the academics", possibly intesifying the feeling of "I can do it better without academic educations".
So if the duplicate is relly a duplicate, close it with that reason, otherwise give helpful answers. I believe a community answer would be too much and too confusing to help here.
Upvotes: 0 |
2023/03/22 | 394 | 1,619 | <issue_start>username_0: I just stumbled upon the tag [paperwork](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/paperwork "show questions tagged 'paperwork'") when reviewing a question and I am unsure if that tag really makes sense to keep. In many instances the tag is (IMHO) misused for questions related to (scientific) papers instead of paperwork.
In the few other instances where it kind of makes sense, it is (again IMHO) not really necessary.
Should we
a) delete the tag
b) remove the tag from the questions where it is used incorrectly and see if it is worth keeping for the rest of the questions?
c) leave everything as it is?<issue_comment>username_1: Thanks for finding this. I agree almost all of those questions are mistagged; we should fix this at least.
I hesitate to just nuke the tag, because there are two possible legit uses:
* organizing physical and digital papers
* dealing with bureaucracy
So, I suspect we should choose option B and also consider renaming or redefining the “paperwork” tag
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: The tag only has six questions so should be easy to just cleanup. I think a tag with a better name, for such things as administrative process would be worth keeping. Maybe there is already such a tag. If not, I don't have a name at the moment. Maybe bureaucracy.
Organizing papers is a different concept that might need a separate tag if there are enough examples at the moment. Some questions on the site are about recommendations for "personal process", but research process seems to cover that idea.
But "as is" it is terrible, I agree.
Upvotes: 0 |
2023/03/23 | 851 | 3,242 | <issue_start>username_0: This is a follow-up to: [Is the paperwork tag really necessary?](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5271/tag-cleanup-is-the-paperwork-tag-really-necessary?cb=1)
After removing the tag [paperwork](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/paperwork "show questions tagged 'paperwork'") from questions where the tag was misused I had a look at the remaing questions and other questions as well.
I suggest the follwing: change the name of the tag from [paperwork](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/paperwork "show questions tagged 'paperwork'") to [bureaucracy](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/bureaucracy "show questions tagged 'bureaucracy'") as that lies at the heart of said paperwork, also there are several other questions not previously in the [paperwork](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/paperwork "show questions tagged 'paperwork'") where such a tag would fit well. Of course the wiki entry would have to be slightly changed as well.
On top of that, I noticed there are quite of few questions about structuring and organizing files, paper, bibliography etc. that do not really have a good tag that fits. I propose to create a new tag for that but I am unable to find a suitable, succinct phrase for such a tag as "organizing" doesn't really fit 100%. What do you think of this proposal?<issue_comment>username_1: I don't really see a need for a [bureaucracy](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/bureaucracy "show questions tagged 'bureaucracy'") tag, so I'd suggest just getting rid of the last instances of [paperwork](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/paperwork "show questions tagged 'paperwork'"). While, as Dr. <NAME> said, "the bureaucratic mentality is the only constant in the universe", it takes different forms in different contexts and places. As such, tags such as [administration](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/administration "show questions tagged 'administration'") and ones based on the type of job or location seem more appropriate in most cases. Admittedly, [this question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/56146/17254) might be an exception. Arguably, there are also some questions about record keeping that might qualify as [paperwork](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/paperwork "show questions tagged 'paperwork'") but not necessarily [bureaucracy](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/bureaucracy "show questions tagged 'bureaucracy'"): [example](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/154146/17254).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I would be inclined to just redefine the [paperwork](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/paperwork "show questions tagged 'paperwork'") description such that it covers both:
* organizing physical and digital papers
* dealing with bureaucracy (defined here to mean low-level administrative tasks like filling out forms and getting approvals signed).
The latter has some overlap with [administration](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/administration "show questions tagged 'administration'"), but not too much I think.
Upvotes: -1 |
2023/03/31 | 654 | 2,618 | <issue_start>username_0: This is a [follow-up of this question](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5273/rename-tag-paperwork-and-create-new-tag-for-organizing-structuring-files-pa) about how to proceed with the tag [paperwork](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/paperwork "show questions tagged 'paperwork'"). Sorry for the series of questions, but as every one of them is slightly different I thought it best to create a new one.
I have now deleted the tag [paperwork](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/paperwork "show questions tagged 'paperwork'") in all instances where it was mistagged. Following Anyon's upvoted answer that a tag [bureaucracy](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/bureaucracy "show questions tagged 'bureaucracy'") should not be created, I retagged some of them where bureaucracy would fit with [administration](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/administration "show questions tagged 'administration'"), as they actually also are about administration issues, so I think that is a good alternative. There is now no question left with the tag [paperwork](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/paperwork "show questions tagged 'paperwork'"), so I guess it can be deleted.
As per my suggestion to create a new tag for organizing papers, articles etc. I have also created the new tag [document-organization](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/document-organization "show questions tagged 'document-organization'") which I think is an OK name for that - please suggest different names if you can think of a better one. I will try to retag the questions that fit into [document-organization](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/document-organization "show questions tagged 'document-organization'") within the next days.<issue_comment>username_1: I suggest that a better name for this tag might be document-organization. I added some wiki to indicate that the tag shouldn't be used for filing complaints or applications, but the name is currently likely to lead to such usage.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I've renamed the tag, so that we can consider this [status-completed](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/status-completed "show questions tagged 'status-completed'").
About the deletion of the older tag, mods can't directly delete tags, but as explained in [this post](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/19754/300001) on the main Meta, *tags not associated with any question are automatically destroyed at 03:00 UTC every day*.
Upvotes: 1 |
2023/05/31 | 476 | 1,974 | <issue_start>username_0: The title says it all: I'm resigning. In the last few days the Stack Exchange staff introduced [a new policy](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/389582) about AI-generated content and how we should moderate it.
This is a policy hastily created by Stack Exchange and forced to us moderators in an insulting way, irrespectful of the expertise and the work we have volunteered so far.
Therefore, I'm no longer interested in spending my time for Stack Exchange.
Here I've learned a lot, and it's been a pleasure and a honour to serve this community as a moderator, working together with all the other moderators, past and present.
So, well, so long and thanks for all the fish!<issue_comment>username_1: Thank you for serving as a moderator at Academia SE. It was a pleasure to interact with you here as well as all over the Stack Exchange.
It is a shame what Stack Exchange (as a company) is doing to the community. The way it was done is simply disrespectful, and I have a strong feeling that this is not going to be an isolated incident. Even though, given the history of how the company interacts with us, the pattern has been established long ago.
Thanks, Massimo.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: While I think your outward contributions of amazing answers speak for themselves about the type of member the community is losing, the community might not be aware of how respected of a moderator you were internally. As a former moderator, I always knew I could count on you to contribute to the drudgery of cleaning up flags. While constantly cleaning up spills for years on end is no small feat, it is not what made your hidden contributions special. What always impressed me about you was how your words and actions always helped lead the mod team through the truly difficult issues that we sometimes faced.
I hope you can walk away with pride knowing that while SE may have let you down, you did not let this community down.
Upvotes: 6 |
2023/06/02 | 1,585 | 6,284 | <issue_start>username_0: Effective immediately, the moderators of Academia.SE (wrzlprmft, cag51, and <NAME>) are on strike. This is part of the network-wide action [described here](https://openletter.mousetail.nl/), and follows an Academia moderator [resignation](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5283/its-time-for-me-to-resign?cb=1) a few days ago. We will not perform any moderation functions until this situation is resolved. Other users are welcome to join us by refusing to perform moderation functions such as voting, voting to close and editing posts (but everyone will make their own choice; please don't harass users who continue to participate normally).
### Why is this happening?
We moderators have been [ordered](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/389583/386376) not to intervene when AI-generated content is posted to our site, except under very limited circumstances. While the exact details are not public, even the publicly-available guidance effectively allows almost all AI-generated content site-wide, and admits that "this standard would exclude most suspensions issued to date." In other words: [our policy banning AI-generated answers](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5225/) is unenforceable; automatically-generated content cannot be treated differently than human-generated content.
It is hardly necessary to explain why this is a problem generally (and others [already](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/389558/386376) [have](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/389617/discussion-network-policy-regarding-ai-generated-content)). But here on Academia.SE, we are particularly concerned because many of our users are asking for advice on life-altering career decisions. In such a setting, automatically-generated content is not a mere nuisance, but can cause irreparable damage to someone's life. While we recognize that AI-generated content is increasingly difficult to detect, and there will be false positives and false negatives, the current policy (don't do anything at all) is the worst possible response.
### Is this an overreaction?
Not really, this seems to be our only option short of allowing AI-generated content to run rampant over our network. Moderators network-wide have been pushing back against this policy for a week already to no avail. On the contrary, we've been told about another policy in the pipeline that will make the situation even worse. And the company has historically shown little flexibility even when they were clearly wrong\*\*; as a result company-moderator trust is not very high.
### When will this end?
Our sole demand is that any network-wide policies must allow this stack to delete the majority of automatically-generated content and message/suspend users who post it. We acknowledge that there will be false positives and false negatives, and so we are willing to take guidance. But a policy that effectively allows all automatically-generated content is unacceptable.
Alternatively, this will end when we all get fired and new moderators are elected. That's fine, we don't get paid (even the [swag](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/358195/) we were promised never arrived), and there is little point in sticking around so we can impotently preside over a hellscape where bots talk to bots. In that case....we appreciate you for having elected us; so long, and thanks for all the fish.
\*\* For context: in 2019, a popular moderator was fired and slandered publicly; after a huge uproar, the company issued a lawyer-speak apology but refused to reinstate the moderator. Instead, their solution was to form a "moderator council" to make us feel heard, but the council never had much influence and has since disbanded. Even so, the individual community managers have been great, and we had successfully built a certain amount of trust before this incident destroyed everything again.<issue_comment>username_1: Thanks Cag. I hope nobody will begrudge my answering to associate myself with these remarks and the strike. This isn't really a problem solely for moderators, though I very much appreciate the mods being so quick to inform the stack at large about the ongoing extent of SE's misconduct. Certainly I don't see a reason to keep filtering content for them if they intend to fight actively against our ability to do that in a responsible way. If they want to be like Yahoo Answers, that's still going strong, right (/s)?
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: I think this is the only valid response to such abysmal decisions. One thing I wonder, is it possible to post this message (or a shorter one) to the main page? I feel quite many (newer) users don't even know meta exists and it would be great to inform them, too.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: I wonder what SE sees as the worthwhile benefits to users of posting AI generated stuff here ?
But maybe it's just a slick way of "tuning" AI generators so the output can "fool" real people.
I'm 100% behind the strike I almost didn't know about.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: **Much respect and full support to @cag51, to @wrzlprmft and to @BryanKrause.**
[A strike song for you :-)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsNVzwuJeVk)
It's preposterous for SE Inc. to enact this policy - and this just illustrates how the mechanism of them dictating policies arbitrary is itself broken and inappropriate.
Please don't hesitate to ask me - or users in general - for concrete measures of support to the extent that you need them. And yes, that definitely includes off-site action, and even monetary support if there are legal expenses or if someone needs to take time off their day job etc.
I personally believe the strike's demands should be expanded and deepened, as I elaborated in my [MSE post regarding the strike](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/389925/196834); but like I said - full support for your current demand.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: Sorry, what was this all about?
SE has this page from 8 months ago <https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/421831/temporary-policy-generative-ai-e-g-chatgpt-is-banned?cb=1>
where they state that AI-assisted content generation is not allowed. Are they rewriting history or simply playing with the moderator?
Upvotes: -1 |
2023/06/11 | 1,232 | 4,829 | <issue_start>username_0: Academia.SE is quite particular in the sense that
* all its moderators [seem to be on strike](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5286/112007)
* it is not one of the highest-volume sites, so SE might not see it as a priority to intervene here
* however, the traffic is high enough that moderation should be necessary regularly.
For these reasons, when the strike was announced on Academia.SE, I imagined that this site would be a good one to evaluate the impact of the moderation strike and see how much pressure it can put on SE. However, browsing the questions on the [main page](https://academia.stackexchange.com/), nothing out of the ordinary catches my attention.
So is there a noticeable impact of the strike on Academia.SE? Or is someone else (staff or regular users) taking care of the moderation?<issue_comment>username_1: A little bit of all, I think.
* Many flags have been handled by regular users and the AutoMod. I would guess this is the most significant factor -- what normally happens is that the first flag brings it to our attention and then we nuke it, but during the strike, the content has persisted until it has accumulated several flags, at which point the AutoMod has nuked it.
* There is a small backlog of flags that would normally be handled by moderators
* A few flags that would normally be handled by moderators have instead been handled by staff
* And we've been a little lucky in that things have been fairly quiet. I personally haven't observed any behavior that would normally result in a mod message / suspension (for context, [58](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5247/) such messages were sent in 2022). Not really surprising; June is not really our busy season.
Perhaps the "bigger picture" is that SE policy requires 3+ moderators per site. If the policy doesn't change and the current moderation team all resigns or gets fired, then a new election will have to be held, in which (at least) 4 candidates will be needed. We have historically had real trouble finding would-be moderators, so it's quite likely that a new election would fail for lack of candidates (especially in the current climate). This would put the long-term future of Academia.SE in jeopardy (i.e., the company may simply allow the site to fail).
**Update**: Two weeks later, the flag backlog is rather considerable, and the quality is noticeably down —- the home page has more off-topic questions than usual, new users aren’t being handheld, and there are lots of answers in the comments. But, we’ve been a bit fortunate that there haven’t yet been (m)any egregious interpersonal issues that would normally require moderator intervention, and regular users + the automod are handling the spam quite well.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I'd briefly point out that curation problems have accumulated quite rapidly, whatever the case with the traditional "moderator level" flags. I don't believe there's been more than a scant handful of question closures resolved in the past week, and that includes our main site post about the strike which was reopened by curators. Edits continue to trickle through because of the lower threshold. Even glancing at the front page, I count 13 questions I'd personally find worth closing. 12 if you don't count the strike post, which is off topic and only remains due to a lack of enforcement.
We may not be swamped with outright incoherent posts at the moment, but we are by both low quality posts as well as posts that we as a matter of policy don't usually leave open. This is especially true for questions asking for individual advice on life choices that people on the internet can't really make for them.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Literally the entire front page is spam.
----------------------------------------
At the moment I am writing this, literally the entire front page is spam advertising prostitutes in Middle-Eastern countries.
Literally the entire page. There is not a single question that even asks a question, let alone a question relevant to Academia.
Did you know that there's a limit of 15 flags per user per day? I didn't, and I ran out of flags long before I ran out of spam to flag.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: As username_3 states in an [answer](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5308/17254), the site is currently completely overrun with spam. Here's a screenshot of the current front page:
>
> [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/0pwBI.png)
>
>
>
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: In my 16months on 30+ SE sites, I have never seen a spam attack as big as todays with more than 500+ posts. I wouldn't be surprised if this was the worst spam attack in SE history today.
Upvotes: -1 |
2023/06/12 | 1,059 | 4,022 | <issue_start>username_0: Here is the draft of my question:
>
> The [WE1S (WhatEvery1Says)](https://we1s.ucsb.edu/ "WE1S – A 4Humanities Project") project is so resourceful and well documented that I really want to use it. Unfortunately, I still don't know where is the repo that the [Workspace documentation](https://whatevery1says.github.io/we1s-templates/creating-a-project/ "Creating a Project - Getting Started with the WE1S Workspace") referring to? I search for the [`new_project.ipynb`](https://github.com/search?q=org%3Awhatevery1says+new_project.ipynb&type=code) file in the whole organization and yet the string only appears in the doc repo. I asked on both their GitHub, Facebook page and Twitter, but yet received a reply.
>
>
>
Would this question be on-topic?
* **No,** because [questions about the content of research and coursework rather than the processes of researching, teaching, and learning are off-topic](https://academia.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic)?
* **Yes,** because [questions asking technical issues on academic services are on-topic](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4162/14341)?
Now, you may argue that this project is not a service, but if you spend some time to read about the project, you will see that it tries really hard to serve people. I must say that I'm very impressed on its effort to make tools, documentations and reports for others to use. And even if you still classify this project as a research, then I can make an argument that asking about the tools it used is more about the processes of researching, not the content of research.
Though I'm not completely convinced that "processes of researching" includes tools of researching. It's more about the interactions with the people and institutions<issue_comment>username_1: To me this seems like it's essentially a Python framework and so it would be off-topic here. By the same logic, it seems like it should be on topic at a number of different stacks, including StackOverflow, though I can make no guarantees.
Even if it's arguably not off-topic here, I suspect it would be poorly-received. Only a tiny fraction of our users follow the latest Python frameworks, so the odds that someone here writes a useful answer seem very low.
Finally, I should register my amusement at the way this package is "so resourceful and well documented" that you can't find the equivalent of the on button, and it "tries really hard to serve people" but they have been completely unresponsive after you pinged them on three different channels.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: This is a slightly weird one to me. You're not really looking to ask a technical python question, nor one about the content of research itself. Instead, you're asking about the structure of a given software tool, or about locating certain files within it or for it. I am rather ambivalent to whether that is on- or off-topic.
In a comment you write:
>
> any technical issue should be on-topic here as long as it's an academic service. So our focus should not be "it's a technical issue", but "is it an academic service?"
>
>
>
That is inconsistent with practice. Quite a few questions about Google Scholar, for example, end up closed with a comment to the effect that "we're not Google's help desk".
---
Anyway, if you're truly just looking for the `new_project.ipynb` file, per WE1S' [Research Tools Overview](https://we1s.ucsb.edu/research/we1s-tools-and-software/), it seems to exist in a [Zenodo deposit](https://zenodo.org/record/5034712#.Yfb_wOqIaBE) and (currently!) also in the [we1s-templates](https://github.com/whatevery1says/we1s-templates) GitHub repo. (Seems [you already noticed](https://github.com/whatevery1says/we1s-templates/issues/1) the Zenodo repo.)
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: I would look to close this question, because you are asking for technical support for a specialist tool - hence the only sensible answer is to ask in a tool-specific venue (which I realise you have tried)
Upvotes: 0 |
2023/07/06 | 702 | 2,599 | <issue_start>username_0: This is not related to Academia at all, however, I've noticed that in the past week or so, numerous questions pop up that are spam. I flagged around 30 of them so far (or more) but they keep popping up in the Questions section, shadowing proper questions users have that are indeed related to Academia. Is there a way to solve this problem?<issue_comment>username_1: This is a consequence of the [moderation strike](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5286/17254), and of the community-built and community-run spam detection tool [SmokeDetector](https://charcoal-se.org/) having shut down as part of the strike. To quote from @cocomac on [the main meta](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/390507/552049):
>
> We have extremely good [community spam protection](https://charcoal-se.org/). Or, we used to. Normally, there’s a number of tools used to fight spam and get it flagged very quickly 24/7. This means most spam gets deleted extremely quickly.
>
>
> A number of users (myself included) object to recent actions by SE and are now on strike. As such, when the subset of the community dedicated to fighting spam stops fighting spam, there will be more spam visible. That is ... kinda the point. People notice when less moderation means more garbage (spam). Notably, the strike includes the primary system used for spam fighting.
>
>
>
The question of whether StackExchange itself should improve its own anti-spam system was raised [here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/390642/552049). In the meantime, users can either flag the spam posts, or leave them alone and hope the presence of spam serves as motivation for StackExchange to proceed with negotiations. [Some progress has been made](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5303/17254).
I would also suggest users refrain from editing out the spam in spam posts. This is not particularly productive, and can even slow down future conscientious flaggers; see [Should spam posts be edited?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/110030/552049) for more details.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I guess an effective way to deal with them is to upvote them.
It will force SE to filter them out and because of transparency SE should declare what tools they are using to filter them out.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_3: Not an answer but a bump.
I guess some desperate academics must be taking loans from them, because they have come back. Obviously there are lucrative customers among us somewhere, because otherwise why keep going in this backwater.... (rhetorical).
Upvotes: 1 |
2023/07/07 | 688 | 2,787 | <issue_start>username_0: I've been seeing way to many people editing spam, upvoting spam, downvoting spam, closing spam, and using the wrong flags for spam. So, this is a reminder. If you are not on strike, flag spam, that's it. Even if you are on strike, don't do anything. But certainly don't upvote spam.<issue_comment>username_1: Clearly flagging doesn't work, or at least doesn't work fast enough in the current conditions. Plus, people run out of flags (and downvotes).
Right now the situation is farcical. Although enough flags will delete a question, there are so many spam posts and they arrive so fast (they come at the rate of about one every 15seconds now) that it's not possible for a post to accumulate enough flags to close.
Even if the spam poster is banned, another account under a different username is immediately created to keep the wheel moving.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Update
------
With the [moderation strike ending](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5329/56207), moderators are back to flagging. If you do see spam on this scale again, spam flagging as much as you can will help posts like these get in front of mods — at least if they're online. (It's too soon for Charcoal to have discussed its own direction, but the outlook is positive.)
Old answer is below. Let's not get to the point where we need it ever again (SE Inc, I mean).
---
This cannot be solved with just flagging
----------------------------------------
(But close voting or editing is absolutely useless.)
I took a look at one spammer and then another. Ten posts from the first and fifteen from the second. Since I have 25 flags, this would have used up all my flags without even putting a dent in the mass of it all — remember, each one of those posts needs other spam flaggers, or four total per post with the current configuration. The sheer number of posts is why spam is usually handled by a [semi-automated system](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/291301/323179) (which is now on strike) using flags from users who may not even participate otherwise on this site (many of whom are also on strike). Failing that, mods would step in, but, at least on Academia, the strike strikes again.
Desperate times call for "Contact Us"
-------------------------------------
Without diamond mods, there are only diamond employees. As a moderator (elsewhere), I used the "Community Emergency" option under my site's contact page, which sent an expedited message to the community team. Shortly after this, the spam posts disappeared. While regular users won't have this option, your message sent via the contact form will eventually reach staff. Then they can handle it, and maybe even pass the pressure on upwards so that the strike can end.
Upvotes: 3 |
2023/07/07 | 256 | 1,049 | <issue_start>username_0: Earlier today there was a massive spam attack. One very disturbing thing that I noticed was people upvoting spam. This isn't actually only happening here, I've seen it a bit on other sites too. So, this is a reminder. **PLEASE DO NOT UPVOTE SPAM**! Thank you, and have a nice (hopefully spam free now) day.<issue_comment>username_1: I suspect the majority of spam upvotes come from accounts involved in the spamming operations. You'd just need a few initial upvotes, whether accidental or from non-spam posting (possibly aided by chatGPT) to bootstrap to a point where you can upvote a couple of spam accounts to a point where they can start upvoting other spam accounts. If those accounts do not get removed quickly it can just snowball from there.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Another possibility is that different spammers accepted each other's posts, which requires no rep at all and then snowballed from there. But, if non-spammers upvoted these, please don't. There is no excuse.
Upvotes: -1 |
2023/07/25 | 1,235 | 4,723 | <issue_start>username_0: At the moment, there are 81 posts with the phrase "chatGPT". Although it is generally not a favourite topic around here (but still will probably only become more relevant), I would say it is enough traffic about the topic that it would merit the creation of a `chatgpt` tag (or a more general tag that can be used for questions about the use of AI tools in the context of academia). Especially since [artificial-inteligence](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/artificial-inteligence "show questions tagged 'artificial-inteligence'") is explicitly not for such questions, but only for questions concerning the study of or a career in AI.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/FQshb.png)<issue_comment>username_1: I went ahead and [created](https://academia.stackexchange.com/posts/191197/revisions) a tag following [Bryan Krause](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/users/63475/bryan-krause "95,342 reputation")'s suggestion: [genai](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/genai "show questions tagged 'genai'").
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: I agree that we should have a tag for this, being named [generative-ai](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/generative-ai "show questions tagged 'generative-ai'") with [genai](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/genai "show questions tagged 'genai'") and [chatgpt](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/chatgpt "show questions tagged 'chatgpt'") as synonyms. The tag description should make clear that this is about **the usage** of generative AI in an academic setting, not about researching, understanding, or operating it.
This tag is useful, since:
* Users can have a particular expertise on the legal, ethical, and other professional aspects of using generative AI in an academic context. Thus there are conceivably people who subscribe to this tag.
* Questions on the subject are not necessarily easily searchable since there is no keyword that is certain to be used in such questions. A tag addresses this problem.
The only argument against it I heard so far is [from username_3 in chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/64221475#64221475):
>
> the questions aren't about generative ai, per se, but about its use as a writing tool.
>
>
>
I don’t see why this is a problem. As evidenced by the questions on it, using this tool raises ethical questions and this is some of the things this site is about. Understanding generative AI per se would be off-topic here, as would be questions on how to exactly operate it.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I believe genai is a terrible name (sorry), especially for those who don't speak English as a main language. Even gen-ai would be better, but if a tag is needed, then (strong opinion) spell it out: generative-ai, and hyphenate it. There is no downside to this with the current UI. A chatgpt tag is (IMO) too specialized. It is only an example.
Another strong opinion: If you want to add a new tag, and aren't a novice here, then, at least give it tag wiki. Had that been done then I might not have immediately started deleting it. Both the name (genai) and the lack of wiki led me to think it was a misspelling of something else.
I don't personally think a new tag is needed but won't object if it is clearer, both in name and intent (as stated in the wiki).
I do, however, have serious reservations about chatGPT and its ilk. I think it is taking us in a wrong direction. It isn't intelligent. It has no ethical sense. It has no judgement. Worse, it is now recursively getting worse as the "training" data is now too-much the old results that it created itself. I think it is dangerous for all use other than research in such tools, which might have potential, but now seem to present only danger.
Additionally, for this site, retagging 81 old questions with any new tag is a mistake unless done one or two at a time over many days. It floods out all of the new posts on the active questions page. We've faced this problem before in phasing out a poor tag.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: I believe it makes sense to have a tag for generative AI related questions as there are quite a lot of them. There are tags for much less frequented topics and just the fact we might not like the topic itself (I'm with username_3 there) is IMO no justification to not create a tag and not make site navigation easier.
The creation of a tag also makes finding previous questions easier and might thus prevent duplicates.
But I completely agree that genai is a terrible tag name and that a description is needed.
Upvotes: 1 |
2023/08/02 | 743 | 3,078 | <issue_start>username_0: Subject says it all: the moderation strike [announced here](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5286/) is over. We moderators are satisfied with the [negotiation results](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/391847) and are back at work. Flags raised during the strike will be handled over the next few days.<issue_comment>username_1: Some thoughts on lessons learned:
* We had a serious spam wave and at least one seriously disruptive user who caused a lot of problems. Other than those two things, the site worked pretty smoothly. While there were some problematic interactions, most of it remained localized. The community really does moderate itself.
* During the strike, many duplicate questions weren't closed as duplicates. A lot of these posts got considerable engagement. We might want to consider how we handle this in future -- should we leave popular posts open for a few days before closing as duplicates? Before the strike, I would have said no. Now, I am not so sure; it was nice to see so many new users engaging with the site.
* A lot of moderation is "soft power": hand-holding new users, suggesting edits and related posts, and keeping the comments sections under control. It seems like little of this happened during the strike -- probably because the non-diamonds who usually help with this were also supporting the strike. It's really hard to measure how important this stuff is. On one hand, the site seemed to work perfectly fine without people doing that stuff. But on the other hand, I certainly noticed a few posts that might have led to interesting discussions and positive outcomes for the asker if anyone had been willing to jump in.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_1: One other tidbit: when the company "unfeatured" the post announcing the strike, some users engaged in "civil disobedience" to make a [main-site version of the announcement](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/196930). This is now the third-highest-voted question on the site.
Now that the strike is over, I expect that we will put a "historical significance lock" on the above-linked post. This will keep the post visible in perpetuity while making it clear that this is not the usual type of question that we accept. Any other strike-related meta-posts-on-the-main-site will be reviewed individually, but I suspect only the above one is needed long-term.
**Update**: based on the strong response to Wrzlprmft's suggestion below, and the fact that we were within hours of the deadline for doing so, we have migrated the post to meta. So, this is all set.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: As another sign of the strike end, the Charcoal team has [announced](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/391912/552049) that the community-run anti-spam system SmokeDetector is back to running. The presence of large numbers of spam posts has arguably been one of the most visible consequences of the moderation strike, not least on Academia. With SmokeDetector working again, hopefully that'll be much less of an issue.
Upvotes: 3 |
2023/06/05 | 2,210 | 8,296 | <issue_start>username_0: There is currently a moderation strike on this site:
[Academia.SE Moderation Strike](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5286/academia-se-moderation-strike)
Which is part of a moderation strike network-wide: [Moderation Strike: Stack Overflow, Inc. cannot consistently ignore, mistreat, and malign its volunteers](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/389811/moderation-strike-stack-overflow-inc-cannot-consistently-ignore-mistreat-an)
Normally this type of key information about AC.SE would be posted in meta and featured on the main site. The community deserves to know when big changes are happening.
But since [SE employees are taking it upon themselves to circumvent the community standards](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/389843/why-is-se-staff-violating-se-policy-by-un-featuring-posts-about-the-strike-on-pe), and [removing the featured tag](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/posts/5286/revisions), I thought it would be appropriate to post that information here.
*Note: this was originally posted to the main site since the company's leadership was suppressing meta posts about the strike. The strike has since [finished successfully](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5329/moderation-strike-is-over?cb=1), and so we have decided to move the post to meta so as to keep it around long-term without introducing confusion on the main site*.<issue_comment>username_1: Writing an answer in hopes that it helps the algorithm to make this question network famous
---
Success!
========
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/y3CXs.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/oZ0pP.png)
---
6/7/23 (after close and reopen of this question):
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/aVEwE.png)
Still available on 6/8/23, the puzzling stackexchange post is no longer on front page tho.
6/9/23: No longer on HNQ :c
Upvotes: 8 <issue_comment>username_2: As a brief point in support: This strike isn't just for mods. There tends to be a lot of focus on the moderators, especially for StackOverflow. The strike organizers are occasionally a bit self-important about that, though I don't think our mods for Academia.SE are.
I think this point has been made, but is particularly true here. Upvoting and downvoting are, absent other policies, the primary way the entire SE platform is designed to deal with whether an answer is semantically correct or incorrect. Upvotes are easier to cast than downvotes, however. There are good reasons why the privileges have been set up this way.
As the current status quo without additional AI related policies sits, we are not supposed to close syntactically reasonable questions that are nevertheless semantically incorrect unless they fulfill fairly strict semantic criteria (advertisement, plagiarism, or offensive/harmful content as per the code of conduct).
We experience some negative side effects of these policies here with some frequency, *especially* with the Hot Network Questions queue. We're a small, relatively slow Stack. Syntactically reasonable but semantically incorrect answers are simply very hard for us to collectively bury with downvotes. Furthermore, that kind of aggressive policy strikes me as at least if not more unwelcoming than an extremely rare and appeal-able suspension justified by our current (by company fiat, unenforceable) AI content policy.
I think these conditions are worth emphasizing alongside the original question's, and make the strike particularly worthwhile for Academia.SE. We are a small Stack doing our level best to cultivate a usable Q&A framework for largely non-technical questions. A local policy is a particularly obvious solution for us, and particularly low impact for the rest of network.
Upvotes: 7 <issue_comment>username_3: I'm posting to point out at this writing that @StrongBad's question is the top network hot post. Plus, thanks to @StrongBad's return, they immediately became the #1 top network asker. So, well done crafting this.
(And it's only secondarily that I accidentally bumped this question from the top of SE Academia and wish to make penance.)
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_4: IMO this is an excellent idea and I think this development has potential to greatly improve the site.
Is there a chance the strike could spread to other sites on the network as well, so that they could benefit from its positive consequences?
Also, I think an even more efficient way to provoke action from SX management would be to popularize competing, alternative sites. It's not 2008 anymore when StackOverflow was the only game in town. Lots of other people have copied the model, even improving the software, their only disadvantage is being dwarfed by SO/SX's pre-existing reputation. I'm sure word of mouth would naturally drive users away from here to better managed sites, but this strike is a great opportunity to accelerate that.
Kind off topic answer, but I'm expecting no downvotes since there is a moderation strike :)
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_5: Thanks @StrongBad for bringing this to the main page by these means, an excellent idea! I am very sad that a few people on top are making such bad decisions that are so disruptive for a great community and Ressource that I have been very happy and grateful to have joined and discovered.
Let's hope that this strike has a positive outcome! And as others gave said, non-moderators, join in on the striking!
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_6: OrangeDog wrote, [Here we go again](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/333965/firing-mods-and-forced-relicensing-is-stack-exchange-still-interested-in-cooper). I can't help but get a feeling, even if remote, that perhaps the approach to the new AI policy was a **smokescreen** for 'another' #purge
Inbtw, I'm not a mod but I participate actively as much as I could. In the process, I get bewildered on some of my answers that are struck down and I couldn't get valid or very good reasons for.
By and large, we all need and want quality contents on SO/SX. May the (AI) strike works well (#fruitful) and *may the mods also reflect on some of their acts*!
PS: there's a mod strike, hence no downvote on this!!!
---
Regarding AI generated content, one danger is truth value and provenance. AI ain't infallible. Indeed, we've seen how they can be: Even more so with research. IMHO, ChatGPT is almost a disaster with academic references. Perplexity AI fare better but still untrustworthy.
[Out-of-scope] My view on generative AI/LLM is summarised in my LinkedIn post: [Digital Pedagogy: Towards a Policy for ChatGPT](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/digital-pedagogy-towards-policy-chatgpt-a-kayode-adesemowo?trk=article-ssr-frontend-pulse_more-articles_related-content-card)
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_7: There once was a site StackExchange
Which did well-writ answers arrange
A corps of free mods
Would even the odds
Against porn and spam and 'net rage
One day to the website did ride
The Large Language Models blank-eyed
While they did perchance
Write like (noob) humans
They oft [bullshitted](https://undark.org/2023/04/06/chatgpt-isnt-hallucinating-its-bullshitting/) far and wide
At first StackExchange said, "No way!
No AI answer can display
The hard-earned merit
And empathic wit
Of a real human's repartee."
But then the mods heard from on high:
"We now take answers from AI!"
No reason was given
For this fall from 'net heaven
Just orders to change and comply
Receiving such stone-faced rebuff
The mods can but show themselves tough:
Until management
Should cleanly repent
The mods' great lights shall stay snuffed!
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_8: Something that I would like to clarify is while **the AI policy was the final and quite large straw, it is not the sole perpetrator** of this strike. It is also about the general refusal to listen to our feedback. Then, of course, there’s the vote arrows, the AI integrated into the site, the prompt design site, and the removal (and eventual reinstatement) of the data dump.
Upvotes: 2 |
2023/08/22 | 731 | 2,996 | <issue_start>username_0: Not too long ago, I posted the question: [Why don't " 'inclusive' access" textbook publishers find a way to prevent resale, without requiring automatic textbook self-destruction after a year?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/200918/why-dont-inclusive-access-textbook-publishers-find-a-way-to-prevent-resale) It appears to have received zero upvotes and one downvote.
What are your thoughts about the question? Is there anything I can do to possibly improve it?
Thank you!<issue_comment>username_1: I wouldn't normally have said anything, but since you asked....
* There is no obvious difference between this question and [your previous question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/200913/why-do-inclusive-access-textbooks-normally-self-destruct-after-a-year-or-so). So, the new question is likely to be closed. Sure, it's possible there is some technical difference buried in the post, but the difference is not obvious. One reason for which is....
* It is far too long. The ideal post length is a couple of short paragraphs, perhaps with an additional "more details" section. You may be willing to write a lot of words, but your audience is usually not willing to read a lot of words.
* Random words are bolded.
* The "my question" section alone is 8 paragraphs. You need to "boil this down" to a clear question.
* If you had boiled it down, it would be something like "why do publishers rent access to digital books rather than selling indefinite access?" And it seems like the only possible answer is the trivial one (this way increases revenue, which is the only thing that matters) -- which indeed, is basically the answer you got. And so this feels more like a rant than a genuine question (though the original post got 13 upvotes, so I guess not everyone agrees with me here).
* Edits should (usually) be edited into the original post, not added as a separate "edit" section. We already have the machinery to see what changed. If the edit improves your post, just make the change in-line. If the edit does not improve the post, then it probably shouldn't be an edit. For example...
* On your original post, the "is my post title clickbait?" is unnecessary. First, you have a length problem already, and this does not help. And second, there is no need to raise the question at all. Perhaps someone suggested in the comments that your title could be improved, but you are free to reject this suggestion; either way, best to avoid addressing these types of issues in the post itself.
On the good side, your post shows effort, is on an interesting topic, uses bullets strategically, is grammatically correct, and is well sourced.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I just thought it a toss up between a duplicate and off topic. There a difference between "interesting", which it is, and appropriate for this stack. If you really want an answer, perhaps the Security stack might be better, but read their tour carefully first.
Upvotes: 1 |
2023/08/31 | 642 | 2,810 | <issue_start>username_0: Maybe it's just me, but I have the feeling that there is an increase in very long, very, very detailed posts, often not even formatted but wall-of-text style. I often stop reading midway through because it is very difficult to find the actual issue OP is inquiring about within the convoluted heaps of texts. And more often than not, those overly long posts tend to be unanswerable because they are dependent on individual factors. It often feels like people just need a place to tell their story.
Is there any way to add a pop-up that tells askers that their question might be too long and that they should try to shorten their question? I do not think a word limit is useful, as in some cases people might really do need such long questions. Just a short message popping up along the lines of
>
> Your post is very long. If possible, try to keep it short and concise to increase the chance of good answers.
>
>
><issue_comment>username_1: While it might be technically possible to install such a warning (I would have to ask staff), I am afraid it won’t be worth the effort.
By experience, most users who post overly detailed question cannot filter them down to what’s actually important to the question, either because they cannot do so in general or they don’t know what’s relevant in their particular case (after all, they are asking a question about it). This becomes most evident when authors of such questions are asked to shorten their question by commentors: Even when the authors honestly try, they are most often unable to properly shorten their question. Only when the commentors give explicit instructions related to the question, this has a good chance of working, but then it’s often easier if experienced users edit the question themselves.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I think this is a good idea. I suspect that many new users assume that longer is better -- the more details they give, the more helpful we can be. And after they take the time to write a very long, detailed post, it can seem counter-intuitive when (seemingly) random people start commenting that the post needs to be shortened. While I agree with username_1 that users might not be able to fix up their posts without help, having the automated message will at least "plant the seed" that the post will need edited. This may make them more receptive to suggestions in the comments and suggested edits.
I would suggest something like:
>
> Your post is very long. Concise, well-defined questions tend to get better answers. Remember, good questions are such that others in the future could potentially have the same question.
>
>
>
Unfortunately, we would have to ask staff to implement this for us. This is likely to take a long time to happen, if it happens at all.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/02/14 | 389 | 1,347 | <issue_start>username_0: As from title. What kind of visa class do I have to apply for, in order to work as an academic in Japan ?<issue_comment>username_1: [This](http://www.mofa.go.jp/j_info/visit/visa/process/long.html) might help or [this.](http://www.mofa.go.jp/j_info/visit/visa/long/visa1.html) Here is the crux of the information:
The period of stay is quoted as 3 years/1 year with the following documents needed:
```
Passport
One visa application form (nationals of Russia or NIS countries need to submit two visa application forms)
One photograph (nationals of Russia or NIS countries need to submit two photographs)
Certificate of Eligibility (Note) - the original and one copy
```
This visa applied for **Long-term stay** for the following occupations:
Working visa: professor, artist, religious activities, journalist, investor/business manager, legal/accounting services, medical services, researcher, instructor, engineer, specialist in humanities/International Services
The algorithm for obtaining the visa is given on [the first link I added](http://www.mofa.go.jp/j_info/visit/visa/process/long.html).
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: In 2018 I worked there as an unpaid intern at the Tokyo University. I had the "cultural activity visa".
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/02/14 | 391 | 1,420 | <issue_start>username_0: Which online resources are available for job search at the Ph.D. level in the computational chemistry field?<issue_comment>username_1: One of the best resources for jobs in computational chemistry (not limited to PhD level positions) is the job section of the [Computational Chemistry List](http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/a/jobs/index.shtml).
Another place where I've regularly seen relevant postings is the ["Computational Chemists" group on LinkedIn](http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Computational-Chemists-94648).
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: If you are based in Europe, or would consider a position in Europe, I strongly recommend the [CCP5 mailing-lists](http://www.ccp5.ac.uk/mailing.shtml) for this purpose. I also second the advice about the Computational Chemistry List, these are the two places I post job openings for my own group.
In the UK, all academic positions open are posted to [jobs.ac.uk](http://www.jobs.ac.uk), making it really invaluable for job search.
Finally, some journals have a job listings section as well, such as [Nature jobs](http://www.nature.com/naturejobs/science/), [Science Careers](http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org). The learned society of your field might also have job listing, as e.g. the [Royal Society of Chemistry](http://jobs.rsc.org) or the ACS’s [Chemistry jobs](http://chemistryjobs.acs.org/jobs) listing.
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/02/14 | 889 | 3,561 | <issue_start>username_0: As from title. Not all journals provide the impact factor on their homepage. For those who don't where can I find their impact factor ?<issue_comment>username_1: If your institution has a subscription to Journal Citation Reports (JCR), you can check it there. Try this URL:
<https://jcr.clarivate.com>
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: There is a list at [Science Gateway](http://www.sciencegateway.org/rank/index.html).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Apart from the ones already mentioned there are two excellent open access options.
[Eigenfactor](http://www.eigenfactor.org/) is quite authoritative, and depending on field its metrics may carry the same weight as the Reuters stuff. They also offer the ISI metric (impact factor)using the exact same formula. You can search by ISSN, journal names, discipline etc.
However when I make my own decision on an appropriate journal to target for publishing my articles, then I use [SCImago Journal & Country Rank](http://www.scimagojr.com/index.php). They have a wide variety of metrics, which include upcoming ones like H-index, the traditional impact factor, and other tweaked versions of the same. One of most useful functions on Scimago is the ability to compare a set of journals using a graph format and any metric that you desire. This can be exceptionally helpful in identifying the prestigious dinosaurs and the new but cutting edge journals. Placing your article is half the game, so this is incredibly useful.
That said, this site does not appear to have the same level of authority. So, while it is good for one to get a good feel of the quality of a journal, it doesn't carry the same authority in a formal evaluation as Eigenfactor or ISI. Plus, if I understand correctly, their database goes back only up to 1996, though their coverage of even lesser known journals is comprehensive. This would make it difficult to judge the impact of an article published way back (but for older articles, citations are the standard measure anyway).
I also feel it is a shame to be paying to access impact factor statistics. Even if you cannot publish open access, at least the rent seeking involved in paying for the ISI rankings can be avoided by using the open access rankings.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: You should *not* be able to access Impact Factors on a large scale from anywhere beyond Clarivate Analytics' (commercial) Journal Citation Reports (JCR) and InCites.
The reason is stated in the [Terms of Use for Clarivate Analytics' products](https://clarivate.com/legal/terms-of-business/), and for InCites specifically. For instance, the [product terms for InCites](https://clarivate.com/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2019/08/Product-Terms-v2.4.1.pdf) (as of May 2020) states that:
>
> **(b) Extracts.** You may include limited extracts of our data that have no independent
> commercial value and could not be used as a substitute for any service
> (or a substantial part of it) provided by us, our affiliates or third
> party providers, in internal documents and systems that are your
> property, provided that you do not create a searchable database. **(c)
> Distribution**. You may distribute limited extracts of our data that
> have no independent commercial value and could not be used as a
> substitute for any service (or a substantial part of it) provided by
> us, our affiliates or third party providers, to third parties as
> incidental samples for illustrative or demonstration purposes only.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 0 |
2012/02/14 | 753 | 2,975 | <issue_start>username_0: I have seen many engineering departments want professional engineer registration. Why do they care?<issue_comment>username_1: This is because, in the U.S. as in many other countries (like Canada), Engineering is a regulated profession, like medicine and law. To call yourself an engineer, or to perform certain 'engineering' tasks, you need to be accredited (or registered or ..., name changes by country) to do so.
They care for the same reason that they want lawyers that have passed their bar exam to teach law, etc.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: There are 2 major theories about credentials: [human capital theory](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_capital) and [signaling theory](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_theory). Under HCT, a license (such as a PE) shows that you have accumulated a credible amount of knowledge (you must graduate from an accredited engineering school) and experience (you need to have worked for 4 years after your bachelors to sit for the PE exam). Under signalling theory, the PE shows that you have done what it takes to legally call yourself an engineer. One interesting comparison of the differences of HCT and ST is [The Career Consequences of Failing versus Forgetting](http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/02/the_career_cons.html). You may know just as much as another person, but the one of you that passes some hurdle signals to prospective employers that the hurdle passer is the better candidate. This is because hiring a person is trying to predict future behavior/success with limited information, and many people use signals as heuristics.
You will also find out that universities hire people who have degrees. A cynical view is that they have a vested interest in maintaining the supply of people who get degrees. A signalling theory viewpoint is that universities think degrees are important enough that they only hire teachers who have them.
In many fields of engineering, your working career will be very short if you do not pass your PE. Civil is one such. Other engineering fields, such as Electrical (which is mine), typically have state exemptions for manufacturing, so very few EEs take their PE. When I was younger, I was quite opposed to licensure. Now, I see it as a way to distinguish myself from other candidates. One interesting blog post that inspired me to sit for my PE exam is [this one](http://brucefwebster.com/2008/11/18/is-it-work-true-engineering-or-just-plumbing/). Another is a [dissertation](http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/directory/rivera_lauren.aspx) (which is not online) titled *"Hiring and Inequality in Elite Professional Service Firms".*
My advice is to take your EIT and PE exams as soon as practical. Some US universities require you to take your EIT exam during your senior year (as in they won't issue your diploma without passing it).
Disclaimer: I am registered to take the PE exam this April.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer] |
2012/02/14 | 1,381 | 5,548 | <issue_start>username_0: If I publish a pre-print paper on arXiv, how can I guarantee exclusive rights to the publisher afterwards? Am I unable to publish on non-open access journals after I publish a pre-print on arXiv ?<issue_comment>username_1: Not necessarily, but this is to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. You can have an idea of which policies have been adopted by which publishers/journals by having a look at [the webpage of Sherpa/Romeo](http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/).
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: You are generally allowed to publish even in a non-open access journal even if a pre-print is on the arXiv. Most journal copyright agreements explicitly allow the authors to post the article online. Here's an example of a fairly generous one:
>
> The ASL hereby grants to the Author the non-exclusive right to reproduce the Article, to create
> derivative works based upon the Article, and to distribute and display the Article and any such derivative
> work by any means and in any media, provided the provisions of clause (3) below are met. The Author may
> sub-license any publisher or other third party to exercise those rights.
>
>
>
and a less generous one which still allows the author to post a copy online:
>
> I understand that I retain or am hereby granted (without the need to obtain further permission) rights to use certain versions of the Article for certain
> scholarly purposes, as described and defined below (“Retained Rights”), and that no rights in patents, trademarks or other intellectual property rights
> are transferred to the journal.
>
>
> The Retained Rights include the right to use the Pre-print or Accepted Authors Manuscript for Personal Use, Internal Institutional Use and for
> Scholarly Posting; and the Published Journal Article for Personal Use and Internal Institutional Use.
>
>
>
I've seen examples where the journal actually did some genuine copyediting beyond what the referee did where the author wasn't allowed to post the version that benefited from the copyediting, but could still post the earlier version.
So, for most journals, the answer is that you're allowed to post the article online because it's specifically allowed by the document they ask you to sign. But it is possible that posting on the arxiv will rule out particular journals that have more restrictive policies.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: The Ingelfinger rule is generally disregarded now by scientific publishers. F1000 has done a lot of research into this for their poster repository. Of the few notable publishers who do suggest they do not allow preprints, blood was singled out as apparently they said they wouldn't allow it but appeared to have no way of checking this and so do allow it, albeit by default. The following 2 links from the embargo watch blog describe the story:
[Faculty of 1000 strikes a blow against the Ingelfinger Rule](http://embargowatch.wordpress.com/2011/04/01/faculty-of-1000-strikes-a-blow-against-the-ingelfinger-rule/)
[F1000 vs. Ingelfinger, part two: Blood and The Journal of Proteome Research respond](http://embargowatch.wordpress.com/2011/04/21/f1000-vs-ingelfinger-part-two-blood-and-the-journal-of-proteome-research-respond/)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: You should ask senior people in your field, or look at the polies and publishing agreements of journals you care about.
In math, every major journal will accept submissions of papers that have previously been posted to the arXiv. (I'm pretty sure that *every* journal will, but I suppose I can't rule out some obscure exception. If any journal tried to enforce a policy against submitting papers that were on the arXiv, there would be a big uproar and they would have no choice but to allow it.) I believe the same is true in physics and CS.
But keep in mind that this may vary between fields. For example, my understanding is that the American Chemical Society has particularly draconian copyright and dissemination policies, and that they may object to arXiv posting. They are on the wrong side of history, but it doesn't mean they can't still cause trouble. And then there are journals like Science, with embargo policies and corresponding rules about what constitutes prior distribution.
So the answer is that this is very simple if you're in a field in which the arXiv has become widespread, but much more subtle otherwise.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_5: A standard workaround is that you post a draft of your paper on the arxiv and assign the copyright in the final version to the journal. You can't update the arxiv with your final version, but the journal publishers will only be able to enforce their copyright on those parts of the final version which are not already present in the arxiv prior art.
Since you will almost inevitably make some revisions as part of the submission process, you don't have to explicitly plan to leave anything out of the arxiv version.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: Although most journals allow publication of the pre-print (before peer review version) elsewhere, they only do so *after* they accepted and published the final version of the paper. Otherwise they might take it as previous publication and reject the manuscript. [<NAME> ran into this problem with the ACM](http://r6.ca/blog/20110930T012533Z.html) when he tried to secure open access and free use by putting the material into public domain by uploading it to the ArXiv before submitting it to the ACM.
Upvotes: -1 |
2012/02/14 | 220 | 905 | <issue_start>username_0: An increasing number of funding organizations require publications on the research that they fund to be open access, i.e. available to the public without having to subscribe to a journal or pay a fee. Does anybody know where I can find a list of journals/publishers that do not allow material that they publish to be published this way?<issue_comment>username_1: [This answer to a related question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/10/12) points to <http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/>, which allows you to look up the policy of specific journals.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: [Directory of open access journals](http://www.doaj.org/) is the most comprehensive listing for the open access ones, so if you find a journal there, it's open. If not, then you need further research. Though usually clicking on an article link should be sufficient.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/02/14 | 1,181 | 4,456 | <issue_start>username_0: Whether we like it or not, modern academia is increasingly being measured, in some vain attempt to get objective measures. Although it is unwise to fight 'being measured', it is at least possible to steer the measures away from meaningless ones, backed by peer-reviewed research that establishes this unrefutably.
There are a lot of different metrics that have been defined - I am not looking for those. What I want is pointers to the research behind the scientific validity of those metrics.
So the question is: where should I look for scientific assessments of bibliometrics?<issue_comment>username_1: Although just a start, we had a "journal club" over at the stats.se site on such bibliometrics, and had a chat over this particular article;
>
> Arnold, <NAME>. & <NAME>. 2011. Nefarious Numbers.
> *Notices of the AMS* 58(3): 434-437. [PDF link from publisher](http://www.ams.org/notices/201103/rtx110300434p.pdf)
>
>
> Abstract from initial [ArXiv print](http://arxiv.org/abs/1010.0278):
>
>
> We investigate the journal impact factor, focusing on the applied
> mathematics category. We discuss impact factor manipulation and
> demonstrate that the impact factor gives an inaccurate view of journal
> quality, which is poorly correlated with expert opinion.
>
>
>
As far as scientific assessments the authors in the above article are pretty negative of such rankings, and give a few examples of editors having citation practices that intentionally inflate their journals rankings.
I'm sure more literature on the topic exists than this though (so I look forward to any other suggestions).
---
Unfortunately the transcript from the chat is currently not linked to in the [applicable thread](https://stats.meta.stackexchange.com/a/836/1036) on meta stats. But I will update here if it becomes available.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Concenrning mathematics as in the answer of [username_1](https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/3/andy-w), the International Mathematical Union has a [report](http://www.mathunion.org/fileadmin/IMU/Report/WG_JRP_Report_01.pdf) on possible policies to measure and rank journals.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: <NAME> and <NAME> are two researchers to follow in this area. Bollen did an [analysis of 39 different citation-based metrics](http://www.mendeley.com/research/principal-component-analysis-39-scientific-impact-measures/) which is a good place to start. However, it's crucial to note that there are serious errors in trying to use citation-counting methods as some sort of ground truth. Citation counting is problematic because:
* Different fields have different citation practices. In biology it's common to have 10 or more authors on one paper, whereas in math you often have only one or two.
* Citations take a long time to accumulate, penalizing early-stage researchers.
* Citations only tell part of the story, leaving out the useful contributions made by researchers in the form of code written and datasets released.
* Citations often [mutate](http://classic.the-scientist.com/news/display/57689/) over time.
It's now possible to get more information about a paper than just who cited it, and it's possible to get this information before several years have passed and before the information about the impact of the paper becomes old and less useful. The [Public Library of Science](http://alm.plos.org) makes detailed article-level metrics available and [Mendeley](http://dev.mendeley.com) has an API from which you can collect real-time data about how many readers a paper has, as well as social metadata such as tags and annotations and reader demographics. These metrics are being consumed by services such as [Total Impact](http://total-impact.org) and combined with data from Github, Twitter, and traditional citation metrics. My bet is that if you're looking for a meaningful set of measures, you're going to find it in these richer sets of aggregated data.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_4: I'm against "productivity-based measures" like the *h*-index, to the point that I wrote an article on an alternative measure. This measure is based on impact, and it tries to remove productivity as a factor for evaluating scientific work. The article is open, and you can find it in [Scientific Reports.](http://www.nature.com/srep/2013/130411/srep01649/full/srep01649.html)
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/02/14 | 342 | 1,367 | <issue_start>username_0: Who are the evaluators of the <NAME> Intra-European Fellowship proposals? Other academics ? How are they selected ?<issue_comment>username_1: You will find details on the evaluation process in the Guide for Applicants. The evaluators are experts (=researchers) in the field. They will be matched to the proposal according to their profile and to the abstract and keywords. They will for sure be in the general research area, but might not be in the exact same field of the proposal. It is (at least, officially) not possible to find out who evaluated the proposal afterwards, but you can find a list of former evaluators here:
<http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/experts_en.html>
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: *Who are the evaluators...?* I am. Along with a few hundred other people, of course! The evaluators ("experts" in EU jargon) are mostly academics from across Europe, with a decent number of scientists from industry, government, etc.
*How are they selected?* There is an open application process to become an EU H2020 expert. You fill out a form on the H2020 website, where you detail your scientific expertise, list your publications, grants etc. Then there is some selection process where, if your profile matches a vacancy on one of the evaluation panels, you get invited to be a panel member.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/02/14 | 650 | 2,680 | <issue_start>username_0: I've applied to several graduate (MSc) programs overseas, and I've received several acceptance letters. Now I have the problem to select one of those programs. How should I do it? What should I look into each program?
* No program offers funding, and some programs are elegible for a local scholarship.
* I can fund some programs with my own money.<issue_comment>username_1: Depending on which country you are talking about, there may be league tables for the universities in that country. While the total ranking can be misleading, they provide useful information such as staff to student ratios -- the higher the ratio, the more opportunity you will have to ask questions.
I would also look at the reputation of the universities in the specific field that you want to do your MSc in, e.g. how many people work in that area and are they well-known (involved in many conferences/journals and similar).
In the end it might boil down to money though, so you should probably look at what you can afford first (not only in terms of tuition, but also living expenses in that area).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: May I ask why you chose an MSc instead of a PhD? What is your career goal? I don't mean to imply one is better than the other. If you are going to spend a lot of money and time, it should be well-spent.
In some places, like the UK, not much more time is needed to get a PhD beyond an MSc. In the U.S., PhD's in the sciences are usually completely funded. Per badp this seems not to be the case in Italy.
For either an MSc or PHD I suggest looking at the career paths of former graduates of that lab. This is something I wish someone had told me when I entered *my* lab. **The charisma of the lab boss or excellence of the equipment are meaningless if, after 2-3 years, you can't move on as you hoped.** Trace the career path of the last few graduates - from MSc all the way to how many wanted to and got faculty positions and how long it took them. In my experience what you do is much less important that who you know, which comes from getting into the right environment.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: As you are presumably pursuing this degree so you can eventually work in industry, I would consider the following:
* Find out which programs are more highly regarded in industry.
* Consider the success rates of each university in helping their graduates find employment; this can vary significantly from institution to institution.
* Consider the extra-curricular aspects; what does each program's city have to offer? Programs with ties to local industry may help you obtain some useful internship experience.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/02/14 | 1,026 | 4,221 | <issue_start>username_0: If I publish a book on my research topics while employed for an academic institution, can they claim part of the revenues I get from royalties ? My question is relative to Europe, but if someone knows also for other countries, I will welcome additional answers.<issue_comment>username_1: I published a book myself, and know many collegues who published books, and the academic institution never claimed any part from the royalties. This is for sure the case in Germany, Hungary, Austria and Italy.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: In general, no. (This is based on my experience in the US.) One's employing institution does not have any claim on royalties from books written while a student or faculty member. However, it's possible that there might be exceptions: for example, sometimes a university may help financially in the publication of a book, and this might be reflected in the publication contract. Of course, in such circumstances the book is not expected to make any money, which is why the university is helping out in the first place.
A related and very common phenomenon is for the publisher to hold the copyright on an academic title. My own book is like this. I am entitled to royalties, but the press holds the copyright for some defined period. Again, this is due to the terrible economics of publishing academic monographs.
There have been cases where universities have tried to assert very broad rights over the intellectual property of their faculty employees (e.g., lecture notes as well as books, etc), but I think these have generally failed. It does still happen: [here's an example](http://chronicle.com/article/Faculty-Cry-Foul-Over/130800/?key=HG13cFRsbXIVN35gZGlFZzkBbHM/NUp6ZHdOY30ibl1WEA==) where the University of Louisiana is trying to broadly claim rights to scholarly output, including royalties from books. These sweeping assertions of rights have sometimes been motivated by the desire of administrators to claim a share of some of the genuinely lucrative things now produced by some university researchers, such as patentable biotechnologies, with books caught up in the net but not really directly targeted. Patents are an area with real money at stake, where the university's investment (in laboratory space and so on) is much higher, and where university claims on income from work done while employed are strongly and successfully asserted. Books, not so much.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: Perhaps you should check with your own institution as some universities (at least in the UK) have a policy on this issue. Also your employment contract might already cover this. For example, in several UK universities the copyright of course notes and lecture notes lecturers create often belong to the institution, not the individual lecturer. And the same might apply to books they write unless individually negotiated.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: Reiterating what others have said: there is danger here, but at "better" universities in the US, the venal impulses of university administrations have at least recognized that they'll not make gazillions of dollars on grabbing royalties on textbooks or monographs, ... so they just let it go.
One should pay attention to the local rules. Yes, the UK rules in the last few years are disturbing... Maybe they've changed.
In the US, the contractual idea is that if one does something "specified, under contract", that the product is owned by the "entity" that engaged one to produce the work. Universities have been a teensy-bit more ... fair... about this kind of thing, but one should look around.
But we should address the dangerous cases: yes, some colleges/universities will claim that whatever you write/produce/do is their property. (I can't help recommending that you send them stool samples... maybe daily...)
In summary, obviously, try to use common sense. Yet be alter to the (duh, human nature) problem that "things are more complicated on the ground".
The net is that novices are coerced to give up "rights". This is ill, but I cannot change it. Apparently we must all "cope". (Sorry I can't give better/happier advice" It is disturbing ...)
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/02/14 | 1,092 | 4,323 | <issue_start>username_0: The National Institues of Health (NIH) funds Medical Scientist Training Programs (MSTPs) also known as MD/PhD programs to create a group of researchers whose work more rapidly effects medical practice. For example, they would help to develop new diagnostic tools, drugs, or surgical procedures.
It sounds good, but how many of the students actually pursue this track? Does anyone know of data about the NIH's return on investment besides the somewhat dated data about three New York programs?
Thanks for your time,
Mike<issue_comment>username_1: I don't know where you'll find hard data on this, but from experience working at a hospital/university center (University of Pittsburgh, a subset of which is the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center), very few MD/PhDs end up doing full-time, or even half-time, research. Being a clinician is *very* demanding on one's time, and doing meaningful research requires a significant time commitment. Many of the MD/PhDs I know ended up dropping their research work due to a combined lack of progress and time.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I have no idea how you'd find hard data on the program itself and its results, but as an idle musing I checked how many full time faculty members in the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health's Dept. of Epidemiology held an MD/PhD or DrPH. The department was chosen as a very good department in a very good school with a strong medical school that I'm not affiliated with.
Ten of the 94 listed faculty members were MD/PhD or DrPH's. Little under 11% of the faculty. And that's not including other possible "physician scientists" like MD/MPH degree holders...if you do that the number rises to 23 faculty members with an MD degree in a related, but non-clinical research department. Nearly a quarter of the faculty total.
Of course, this is only a very crude proxy for how many physician-scientists pursue academic tracks, and even the representation of clinician-scientists in research departments will likely vary wildly by said department. That being said, I've met a considerable number of them in my graduate school career, either entirely in academic settings, or balancing research with practice. It's absolutely a viable path, though not an easy one.
As another data point, here is the list of alumni for the UNC School of Medicine's MD/PhD program: <http://www.med.unc.edu/mdphd/fps/alumni-1> . That should give you a decent glimpse at where those particular graduates go - it looks like a fair number ended up in research or hybrid positions.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I'm a student enrolled in a MD/PhD program in Canada. I don't know about NIH very well, but our experience here is that it is very difficult to continue research. I agree with username_1: it takes a lot to be a great clinician (and being a mediocre clinician is very hard on one's conscience). 50%+ of students rethink their decision during their first year of medicine and do not begin the PhD portion of the program. Only those who begin 80/20 in terms of devolution (80 research, 20 clinician) seem to be able to continue the research path, with considerable sacrifice of their clinical skills (fewer clinical elective during both medical school and residency), as well as many more years of education.
Once done, however, the career path in academic medicine is relatively good. The PhD really helps with those jobs and their attendant excitement and opportunities, although they often pay significantly lower than a pure clinican job.
I know that in the States, the culture of MD/PhD's is more pronounced than in Canada, since there's a massive amount of NIH funds. I heard that nearly a quarter of the class in U of Pennsylvania at least begin as MD/PhD's (don't quote me). Dropping out of the PhD is harder, because you have to give up your funding. I expect that many of them are able to complete the program, but few manage to continue in the research path.
Many of the professors who are MD and PhD's often complete their PhD separately from the MD - they either had it before the MD or got it afterwards. Materially, it's a more difficult path, with less funding and guarantees, but there's less room to regret and it's easier to cut one's losses, since it's 2 big decisions, not 1.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/02/14 | 678 | 2,536 | <issue_start>username_0: Is there a good source to compare academic salaries at European universities? For example, what are the salaries of full professors in different countries?
I would particularly welcome a possible source, a link pointing to a page where this information is available.<issue_comment>username_1: I don't know how to get information about different countries, but [this webpage](http://www.gehaltsvergleich.com) allows you to query the information on salaries in different parts of Germany. If you query for "professor" you will find several categories depending upon the status of the academic institution (University, University of applied sciences (Fachhochschule) etc.). [Here](http://www.gehaltsvergleich.com/gehalt/Professor-Professorin-Wissenschaftliche-Hochschulen.html) is the link to the salaries of full professor in normal universities.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: I think [this page](http://www.eui.eu/ProgrammesAndFellowships/AcademicCareersObservatory/CareerComparisons/SalaryComparisons.aspx) has what you are looking for. As far as I can tell (e.g. for France) the numbers are fine.
However, we should keep in mind that the comparison can be made difficult. For instance, "full professor" is not an actual rank in french academia. You are either a "maitre de conférences" (roughly equivalent to assistant prof. position to "junior" associate prof.), then "professeur des universités" (roughly from more senior associate prof. to full prof.).
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: <http://www.glassdoor.com/> works by getting anonymous information from users and sharing it. It is really vast and accurate as far as I am aware.
Examples:
TA: Brigham Young University $10.41/hour
Professor: University of Warwick: £103/year-£112/year
You must only Select Salaries on the dropdown menu, add a description or phrase of the position and/or location.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: For Germany the best website to see professor salaries is the following:
<https://www.academics.de/wissenschaft/w-besoldung-2014-eine-uebersicht-der-grundgehaelter_56973.html>
It gives the W1, W2, and W3 Professor ranges. Just keep in mind that it is not strictly comparable to an assist, assoc, full ranking as W2 is considered also a full professor. Also, there is not tenure track system in Germany, although a couple universities are starting to experiment with it so you can have a permanent or temporary contract that may become permanent in the future or may not.
Upvotes: 0 |
Subsets and Splits