Ok I am only making a suggestion here, I am a relatively new user so it will come as no shock to me if there a reasons for which it is not the case, but essentially from my point of view, I have come to believe that one of the site's primary objectives is as effective as possible peer review of ideas exchanged. And in equal significance ideas present themselves as questions and answers, and partial fragments between.

And as successful as the site has been in establishing what I consider holistically to be a more fair and effective system than has ever been achieved, the element of identity prevents it from being peer review in the sense it is formally defined. Therefore I have to ask, why is identity so important to withhold?

and that's my two cents for the night good evening folks.

@Adam Sorry Adam, are you referring to some particular discussion or comment raised here?

@Jack Well, if I should answer your question in the way it is phrased, then the answer would be: "Yes, I did."

There is the FAQ post: Guidelines for good use of $\rm\LaTeX$ in question titles

> Try to make your title take up as little vertical space as possible (the height of $\sum\limits_{n=1}^\infty$ is an approximate upper bound for what is admissible). In particular:

> Do not use display math mode ($$ delimiters) or \displaystyle to force big integrals, sums, and other constructs. Similarly, avoid constructs like \dfrac or \dbinom which implicitly use display mode. To achieve $\lim\limits_{n\to\infty}$, the \limits command exists: \lim\limits_{n\to\infty};

> Do not use \left and \right (or other scaling commands) when this yields very large brackets. Furthermore, do not use environments in titles (such as the "cases" environment \begin{cases} .. \end{cases}).

So both $\lim_{n\to\infty}$ and $\lim\limits_{n\to\infty}$ are fine but $\displaystyle\lim_{n\to\infty}$ is not.

Maybe I should have left some time for others to answer your question about titles, $\lim_{n\to\infty}$ and $\lim\limits_{n\to\infty}$.

But since you've pinged me (for whatever reason), I wrote at least something.

Maybe somebody has some additional links related to this. Or something closer to your question. (Since you did not ask about \displaystyle, but specifically about the preference between limits, sums, unions, etc. with/without \limits.

Well as I stated, the view I put forth is holistic and therefore excludes assessment of a particular case requiring me to become a reductionist and give an appraisal of a specific scenario. But I have read some of the content and that which lead to the meta chat rooms, and of course this can be considered as content that inspired my thoughts expressed. Lets put it as simply as possible I know of your as the dubious placeholder "user" and you know me and the equally dubious "Adam".

I personally wouldn't mind posting a screen shot of my drive's license, and have users in this community know who I am precisely, I truly wouldn't. It therefore perplexes me as to why the omission of identity is so important, when it would clearly bring the community to an internationally accepted for of peer review in my opinion

you*

It's just an opinion of a relatively new user, I am entirely receptive to criticism on it.

I'm sorry if my replies are not frequent, I have a learning disability that makes reading very strenuous, however writing as easy as pie as you can see, so it really is a matter of striking when the iron is hot to get important theorems embedded in my memory.

@Adam You are (it seems) essentially arguing that the community would be improved by the elimination of the pseudo-anonymity we currently enjoy.

While I agree that pseudo-anonymity can, potentially, cause problems, please remember that not everyone in the world enjoys the freedom (either political or academic) to wear their "true" identity on the internet. Requiring people to use their "true" identities on MSE would exclude many.

Moreover, remember that one of the core philosophies of MSE (and SE network in general) is that the site is about content, not users. The goal is not to peer review the work of individuals, but to the peer review the results of the community. This is a wisdom of the crowds design philosophy. In this universe, identity shouldn't matter.

This may be relevant to recent discussions here, in CRUDE, and in Gentle:

I think your ideas would be better fit in a meta room since this room is not designed for such things. Anyway on top of the above, I would also add that there are minors on this site and keeping the anonymity is a really good thing.

← 14 messages moved from GENTLE

@XanderHenderson For who is interested in that, the discussion shlud continue there. But we can also discuss here, if you prefer.