Paul Ross in a response suggested that a rubric might be in order.

Friends, what exactly is the difference between 'being a philosopher' and 'being a philosophy SME'?

He suggested as guidance:


The following is offered as a focal point for a series of explications to be ADDED TO THE FAQ after building and evaluating a consensus:

  1. Isn't it incumbent upon editors of Q&A philosophy to have a formal explication on what constitutes a good question and a good answer that is neither simple fact nor opinion?
  2. Are the guidelines in the FAQ really so clear as to defuse any confusion?
  3. Do we have adequate explanations and examples of each of the following sorts of questions?

Is the writing clear and free of contradiction?
Are the grammar and spelling correct in accordance with convention?
Is the language used appropriately?

Is a clear question or answer stated?
Is a balanced NPOV argument, or arguments, offered as an answer?
Is the body clearly organized?

Understanding Is a sound understanding of relevant issues demonstrated?
Is the exposition of others’ views accurate?
Are technical terms adequately used or defined?

Neutral Point of View
To what extent does the question or answer use NPOV?
How many citations are present?
What is the nature of the citations?

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .