Activity for Mithrandir24601
| Type | On... | Excerpt | Status | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Comment | Post #275841 |
In addition, I've gone through a number of (~50) answers in that category and only about a tenth (so far, in my opinion) are what I would term 'definitely good enough'. Whether this is an argument for (more easy to enforce the rules?) or against (trying to enforce the rules won't work?) separate cate... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #275841 |
On WB SE, there was a bit of an issue in that people were very good at ignoring these requirements. Having said that, this was at its worst when a question hit HNQ. We're also not on SE any more (and this is now a science site, so no more e.g. purely magic questions), so... Maybe this is enough of a ... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #275820 |
I do see the issues about 'researched' though... Depending on what we set the requirements to be, I could see 'referenced' quite easily (but I'm biased on that one) (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #275820 |
Would different people understand 'rigorous' in different ways? Would be my main question - for one person, this could be a solid mathematical proof, for the next, a long detailed argument containing no numbers, so is there an easy way to reconcile this, or would that matter if we had it clearly writ... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #275788 |
@sigma That idea potentially falls down if people are here *only* for that category, in my view, but it would make it easier to moderate everything (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #275787 |
@aCVn Would I put a citation to a NASA webpage in a paper? It depends - I'd download data on e.g. locations of astronomical objects and use that data. But NASA do publish papers as well, so it was actual science I wanted, yes, I'd refer to their papers. To me, this seems pretty reasonable for a categ... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #275787 |
The more I think about it, the more I'm beginning to think that 'good enough quality for a paper' (even if nothing on here is ever actually suitable for a paper, the expected standard should be the same?) is what we want - if you want to start from equations, you need to at least cite either a review... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #275801 |
I'm against 'scientific WB' - it narrows the scope down to a narrow subset of WB (although it appears that a lot of people aren't particularly aware of what WB actually is anyway, as far as I can tell), while simultaneously getting rid of questions about science that aren't about WB. As a scientist, ... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #275787 |
I would also consider adding 'conference proceedings' to 'scientific papers' as these are potentially considered on a par with (if not more important than) papers in some fields e.g. Computer Science (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |