Timeline for What makes a question too broadly scoped for askubuntu?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:25 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://askubuntu.com/ with https://askubuntu.com/
|
|
| Apr 6, 2013 at 2:30 | comment | added | user25656 | @EliahKagan, I will. And thank you for understanding that I'm arguing not just for arguing but to better understand how this site functions and should function. Ideally, I'd like a set of rules that people can easily follow without having to think deeply about it. Otherwise, the feature that sets the SE sites apart, that this site is moderated by the users, becomes a bit elitist (in the sense that it sometimes takes reading between the lines to do the right thing). | |
| Apr 5, 2013 at 19:13 | comment | added | Eliah Kagan | @vasa1 Great importance. But both these questions fit will within that. In the original version of my answer here, I listed 11 questions that I thought clarified which of the two common meanings of the word "problem" applies. I now realize that I should have made this explicit, in anticipation for this objection. I've added a new section to the end of my answer that addresses this. This was a significant omission in my answer here--thank you for prompting its correction. (For real--thanks. Please keep disagreeing with anything I say that sounds fishy!) :) | |
| Apr 5, 2013 at 7:11 | comment | added | user25656 | @EliahKagan, how much importance should be given to: You should only ask practical, answerable questions based on actual problems that you face ? Is I want an executive summary an actual problem? | |
| Apr 4, 2013 at 22:22 | comment | added | Eliah Kagan | To expand on my objection to the argument that a book (as the FAQ means it) can be any size: "[A] whole book" in the FAQ is about size. It's saying that if an answer would have to be as long as a book (rather than a short to medium length article), then the question is too broad. So the idea that a question can be too broad even if its answers would be expected to be short is silly. I've explained how the appropriate way to answer the APT question would not actually be very long. To say, then, that how long it is doesn't really matter takes great liberties with (i.e., distorts) the FAQ. | |
| Apr 4, 2013 at 21:47 | comment | added | Eliah Kagan | @vasa1 I don't think either of the questions brought up for discussion here goes against the FAQ at all. You've quoted the FAQ, but not said anything I can read as an explanation for why any particular question is inconsistent with it. Furthermore, I've argued that they are both consistent with it in my answer here. The FAQ says questions should be reasonably scoped. We disagree about whether or not a particular question is unreasonably scoped. Both questions relate to real problems. Neither question requires an entire book to answer well. (Your argument that a book can be tiny is silly.) | |
| Apr 4, 2013 at 3:31 | comment | added | user25656 | What about the other points I raised? Should the "will of the people" prevail over the FAQ? Why not just rewrite the FAQ? Is the "will of the people" consistent over time? I strongly disagree about this "will of the people" being too broadly applied. While voting something up or down is one thing, flouting the FAQ is another. At some point it's going to be quite difficult for any "moderation by the community" to be effective. | |
| Apr 4, 2013 at 1:52 | comment | added | Eliah Kagan | (1) Let's not attribute too little to numbers. There's no fallacy in my answer. At its basis Ask Ubuntu is governed democratically; the "will of the people" should be given weight. The more upvotes a post has, the more useful people probably found it. To think how useful users of the site found a post is not a measure of how useful it really is is to fall to a profound form of elitism. If a post has a high score, we have reason to think it's useful. Of course it might not be, but the votes constitute evidence. (2) You're confusing voting criteria with closure criteria. DV != VTC. | |
| Apr 3, 2013 at 12:01 | history | edited | user25656 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 4 characters in body
|
| Apr 3, 2013 at 11:44 | comment | added | Oli Mod | +1 for R'ing TFM. | |
| Apr 3, 2013 at 7:06 | history | edited | user25656 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
removed bit about coloring the argument
|
| Apr 3, 2013 at 7:04 | comment | added | user25656 | No problem. We're all here to make the site better :) I'll remove that bit. | |
| Apr 3, 2013 at 7:00 | comment | added | Mark Paskal | You're right, conservative is a more descriptive word. No, the purpose was not to color the argument. I was thinking of radical as in fundamentally different from my own way of thinking and I'm sorry if I offended you by my choice of wording. | |
| Apr 3, 2013 at 6:20 | history | answered | user25656 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |