« first day (3415 days earlier)      last day (1370 days later) » 

LаngLаngС
LаngLаngС
9:42 PM
You're correct that I prefer a certain thoroughness. 'Thoroughness' can be a bottomless pit. Perfectionists may never finish (improving) a post. Since many will readily complain here about 'nothing but straight answer, please' (which often would imo fail the purpose of this site, cf.: needed frame-challenges; make it as simple as possible, but not too simple) — and also about sheer post-length: I'd suggest as a term to look for 'adequacy'. While that may also mean language-level, style, understandibility, readability etc, I'd mean that here to encompass is all that's need really contained i…
 
fredsbend
fredsbend
10:01 PM
There is something to be said about keeping the reader's attention. That's a more ethereal study, having as much to do with style and the reader's assumptions coming in as it does content.
Putting that aside, yes, there can be "too thorough" a post, which to most would be "irrelevancies" down a bottomless pit.
Not to give it an ineffable quality, but I feel I can say "I know it when I see it".
I don't want to name names, but I could point to a few users that I think habitually are not thorough, not that they do it from laziness or even intent to mislead (as I would blame many media outlets for comparison). And at the same time, mods in the past here have removed from answers what I consider dives into thoroughness.
I would put you specifically on the farther end of the spectrum, perhaps diving deeper than I think necessary. Maybe take the Antifa triangle question as an example. Your answer is good, though long. Compare to tim's, which is too short and comes close to showing his biases by his neglect of some things.
Following this example, I think there's a happy medium there, but I can't quite quantify and generalize it. The answer is basically, both parties (Trump campaign and FB) aren't being terribly honest about it.
"honesty" and "fairness" seemingly used to be ... known. So we're back to ineffable. We can't convince many people to look at relevant items from both sides of the argument and weigh them against logic and facts. It's just too easy to pop off the easy answer, the basic fact check.
I'm reminded of the DIKW pyramid:
Data is where we excel. Information is what I think most askers intuitively seek when they come here. Thoroughness in my life is definitely in Knowledge, while Wisdom begins to define my very person.
I think at the least, Information should be the goal for every answer. We should be "connecting parts" not just helping others gather them.
Without similar worldviews (basically, Information), "Knowledge answers" are not subjective, per se, but certainly open to much criticism, too much for this site's format.
@LаngLаngС What do you think? Does this DIKW pyramid help us define "thoroughness" for this site?
DIKW pyramid
The DIKW pyramid, also known variously as the DIKW hierarchy, wisdom hierarchy, knowledge hierarchy, information hierarchy, and the data pyramid, refers loosely to a class of models for representing purported structural and/or functional relationships between data, information, knowledge, and wisdom. "Typically information is defined in terms of data, knowledge in terms of information, and wisdom in terms of knowledge".Not all versions of the DIKW model reference all four components (earlier versions not including data, later versions omitting or downplaying wisdom), and some include additional...
 

« first day (3415 days earlier)      last day (1370 days later) »