Discussion on answer by Xander Henderson: What context are we supposed to add for technical questions?

Feeds

16:12

8

A: What context are we supposed to add for technical questions?

Some Context There are, very roughly speaking, two vocal groups of users on Math SE: there are tutors, and there are curators. The tutors believe that the goal of Math SE should be to teach people mathematics, even if it is only one person at a time. They welcome all questions as long as the que...

Misha Lavrov

The tutors see no problem with providing answers to every homework problem that gets asked on the site, while the curators would prefer to see those problems removed. - this seems exactly backwards to me. From the curator point of view, all homework problems should have an answer on the site somewhere, and if it doesn't exist then you should add one. From the tutor point of view, you want to stop and get the author to think about their own problem first; the question, "What have you tried?" is the question office hours begin with.

Xander Henderson

@MishaLavrov I don't think that is the case---curation involves selecting questions and ensuring that the database remains searchable. Being a solutions manual for every text ever written is just not viable. As to the "tutors", maybe better nomenclature would help, but every term people have used in the past is pretty disparaging.

N. Virgo

I had already reconsidered my attitude at the time of writing the meta question, hence having already deleted the section you refer to. I agree with some of the stuff in this answer, but I really wish the discussion on this meta question would draw a sharper distinction between what makes a good question (which is inherently subjective) and what makes an acceptable question, in the sense that it's not subject to closure (which is hopefully meant to be much less subjective).

Personally I'm very much on the side of the curators, but as I argue in my answer I don't think it's necessarily the case that more content makes a question better from that perspective. Though that does depend a lot on what exactly "context" means, and if anything this meta discussion suggests that there's very little consensus on what that is. From the comments under my question I don't think the people voting to close it were asking for the same thing you describe in this answer.

Sarvesh Ravichandran Iyer

@N.Virgo Your thoughts on this post? I agree that it might be too large as a list, but if someone is doing all that and putting up their question I really cannot see why it might be closed.

N. Virgo

@SarveshRavichandranIyer I guess I feel the same as my comment above. The purpose of closing a question is to prevent answers from being posted until the question is edited so that it meets the standards of the site. For that to make any sense, those standards have to be codified in a reasonably precise way. There need clear criteria such that if the question meets them then it's permitted to remain open. That post has a list of things that make a question good, but that's an almost entirely different thing.

In other words, close votes and down votes are completely different things that serve completely different purposes. A down vote means a question is bad; a close vote means it breaks the rules. We're discussing close votes, so we should be talking about the rules (what they are and also what they should be) and not about good questions vs. bad ones.

Xander Henderson

16:12

@N.Virgo What is it in this answer that you think is not clear? Note that the linked answer is highly upvoted and attached to a faq tagged question (there are only around 30 of these on the site). That question is also automatically linked when a question is closed for lacking context. How do you suggest making these codified standards more visible or clear?

N. Virgo

@XanderHenderson I do not think your previous comment is in good faith, given the discussion we've had on this topic so far. I invite you to read my post immediately preceding it.

Xander Henderson

@N.Virgo I have already read your comment, and I genuinely don't understand what it is that you want. I am confused. Accusing me of bad faith does not solve my confusion...

N. Virgo

@XanderHenderson that post makes a distinction between good vs bad posts on the one hand, and whether a post is within the rules or not on the other. You replied to it with a post titled "How to ask a good question?".

Xander Henderson

@N.Virgo That post outlines the rules for asking a question which won't be closed... You are making a distinction between "bad questions" and "questions which should be closed" which doesn't exist...

N. Virgo

The fact that you don't think that distinction exists is exactly the problem I'm trying to highlight. Of course it exists. If it didn't, down votes and close votes would not be two separate features.

This particular SE site doesn't make as big a distinction as most other sites do, and this causes all sorts of problems. Not the least of which is the one we're discussing here - nobody agrees on what "context" is or how much is needed, with the result that questions are constantly closed and reopened and no-one knows what they're allowed to ask and what they're not. This is nota good thing.

And lest you claim there is actually agreement and that the rules are given by the link you just posted, I note that the content of that link is quite substantially different than what you've said in your answer and the other comment threads here.

Xander Henderson

16:12

@N.Virgo You are arguing in circles. The meta post How to ask a good question outlines the standards for this site. When a question is closed for lacking context, it points to that question, which includes an answer outlining what context means. You are making a distinction between "good" questions, and "questions which won't be closed", but the distinction you are trying to draw doesn't exist. If a question does not meet the standards outlined in that question and answers, it is likely to get closed.

N. Virgo

@XanderHenderson I am sorry but de facto that simply isn't true. That post doesn't specify a rule, it only gives some hints and tips. It presents a list of things that can "help the potential responders to your question give you the best help you need", but doesn't say or even imply that any of them are required in order for a question to be acceptable. It's quite a nice post in terms of helping people get the best out of the site, but if you're taking it as somehow specifying the site's rules then it's no wonder your moderation actions have never made the slightest bit of sense to me.

I also note another answer to the same FAQ question, also highly upvoted, and also linked from the question. If you would take that answer as being the rules you'd have immediately reopened my original question and we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.

Xander Henderson

@N.Virgo I think you mean de jure, not de facto. The facts on the ground are that questions which don't meet the standards of this site are generally closed, and often deleted. This is the de facto practice on this site. I would argue that, because this is a community moderated site, and because the rules are negotiated on meta, it is also the de jure practice---that post outlines the rules. But you seem to be arguing otherwise.

N. Virgo

I mean de facto. Questions on this site to not generally include all of the points in that answer, though they do often include some of them.

Xander Henderson

@N.Virgo I don't see a contradiciton.

One answer says "You need to provide context." The other says "Don't include irrelevant detail".

@N.Virgo You seem to be misreading the answer on context. Nowhere in that answer does it say "You must include all of these details."

It says you need to include context, which could include any of the listed things. It does not say you must include all of them, nor does it indicate that these are the only ways to provide context.

Xander Henderson

16:27

@N.Virgo Comments have been moved to chat. If you want to continue the discussion, it needs to be here.

@N.Virgo Contrary to your flags and inappropriate edits to the question you asked, chat is not a place to "hide" content. Chat allows one to reply to specific comments, and is better suited to the kind of discussion you seem to want to have.

Moreover, comments on the site have a fairly limited scope and are treated as second class citizens, at best. We have exceeded that scope.

If you want to continue the conversation, this is the place to do it.

Transcript for

$Mathematics$ Discussion on answer by Xander Hender…