19

Just to clarify --as with the "Brothers, we are not Christians" post --the point is not that none of us are philosophers (which would be false), it is that we are not here in our capacity as philosophers, but in our capacity as subject matter experts about the field of philosophy. Our task is to answer questions about philosophy, not philosophy questions ...


13

Yes, we should adopt a homework policy and introduce a new "no-effort homework" reason to close a question.


9

What that user told you is basically correct. This site is for Q&A about philosophy, and not for discussion. The site is modeled on stackoverflow (and owned by the same company). There, users post specific technical questions about programming and get answers that fit their needs. You might analogously say that stackoverflow is not for learning ...


8

I also have given you a downvote here or there. I'm sorry if you felt hurt by anything I wrote. I think one of the challenges with philosophy.se is that the word "philosophy" has quite a few meanings running about. Philosophy as an academic discipline (which is what I take us to mean here at philosophy.se) has a very long history and is, in my experience, ...


8

So, I'm a mid-rep user who gave you a down vote. I did leave a rather short comment explaining why, though I did not use the "-1" convention. In this case I thought you had not answered the question at all. Anyway, some reasons... Inquisitive comments on questions are very common here, especially if your question is very short. Personally I welcome them, ...


7

I guess I don't understand the problem because the whole point of the SE design is that users are the authorities. Even with almost no rep everyone has the power to vote up/down questions which alters their visibility on the site, they can vote to close or delete, etc. It is an error to think of ♦ Moderators as sole "authorities" in the sense we dictate how ...


6

From the help center: When should I comment? You should submit a comment if you want to: Request clarification from the author; Leave constructive criticism that guides the author in improving the post; Add relevant but minor or transient information to a post (e.g. a link to a related question, or an alert to the author that the question has been updated)....


6

In a comment to Eliran's answer, you write "it's not a very good idea to learn philosophy under such absurd restrictions." But these restrictions are on this site, not on on learning philosophy - there are other resources for learning philosophy! At no point is a user of this site restricting themselves to this site and nothing else. Yes, this site ...


6

A general problem with philosophy.SE indeed is that humanities work kind of differently compared to, say, mathematics or programming. The main problem is that the kind of questions which arise in mathematics or programming only arise to mathematicians (or students thereof) or programmers respectively. All other questions which theoretically do count to the ...


5

Thinking is allowed here, but the format is a question and answer site, not a discussion forum. Posts should be brief and clear and an exercise in rhetorical persuasion. You want to convince people that your question is worth spending time on and your answer is reasonably correct. This is not as easy as it sounds. When I write an answer I am only ...


5

I think we could realise the StackExchange model (mind, "Experts answer your questions") more rigorously. The real question ever since I joined this site is: Do we want to? I remember several tries back when @virmaior had been moderator. A pretty good example for a site with a working, hard policy is Sceptics.SE. There are several options available, of ...


4

Mi Yodeya does this with their purim-torah-in-jest tag for a few days each year. Not being Jewish, I cannot say how well said tag is accepted, but as someone who wanders past their SE every now and then, I enjoy their efforts. One reason I think Purim Torah works so well is that the answers appear to take the questions dead seriously, so the satire comes ...


3

Generally speaking , it could be true, but not for the reasons you cite. If you look at the reputation tables for each year, the number of reputation points gained by the top ten users for that year has steadily increased over time from about 17,000 points in 2012 to 50,000 in 2016. Similarly, the number of users increasing their reputation by 1000 points or ...


3

If the proposal is to change Philosophy.SE settings to be a bit more forgiving of automatic deletion of posts, then yes, I'd be all for that. Understandably, it makes sense to give new users a chance to update posts to something that fits with what we're trying to build here, and encourage new users in the process. If the proposal is for participants to ...


3

Fix headlines so they are questions This data explorer query shows questions without question marks at the end of their title. It would be great to try to fix a lot of them at once. Another thing to look out for here might be questions with "this" in them (this query might help). We started with north of 1400 questions that didn't end in question marks ...


3

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is the review queues. That's where the community can exercise its moderating power in a more systematic way. Currently, the review queues are dominated by 2-3 users that, judging by the review history, tend to be quite lenient. For instance, they voted to leave open 38 out of 50 questions that have been nominated for ...


3

Serious matters are raised here. I offer a few observations. The question about security cameras and miracles plainly has no place but how representative is it ? What proportion of our questions is anything like as inappropriate as this ? I am glad that the slew of questions about fallacies has stopped. It was at its fullest about a year ago. Adequate ...


2

I have some thoughts on these issues, I'm not sure how they'd address the specific questions mentioned. In many ways they are related to this question I don't know how flexible is the SE system and how it works in detail. Some ideas I have in mind would include features as: Allowing the use of chat and meta right away - As far as I remember, this is only ...


2

Another one in need: the impact of QM on free will ... also more generally, we need guidelines for how to manage questions that mix muddled science and philosophizing.


2

To systematically go through the list of unanswered questions, to see if questions should be edited, closed or maybe to answer them is a good way to increase the answered% (which counts towards the graduation criteria). It maybe doesn't count as clean-up per se, but is useful to increase the quality of the site. At BioSE we had a couple of rounds of this ...


2

No, we should not adopt a homework policy, and the close reasons list should stay as-is.


2

You might ask things such as the following: Where did you receive a formal education? What topics did you study? What books are you currently reading? What publications do you have to your credit? Are you on social media besides stack exchange? Some people may not want the above information known especially if they are using a pseudonym here.


2

SE.EnglishLanguageLearners. I fail to understand what intuitive means on "what’s on- and off-topic is not always intuitive". You can ask questions about basic English at the English Language Learners site. This site is for people who are learning English. For example, you might post a new question titled: What does "what’s on- and off-...


2

I voted to close the question because I could not tell what you were trying to ask. To help understand why, consider the current first sentence: Could someone systematically, methodologically, organisedly research Sociology, Civilisation, Culture through Language? If I read this literally, the question is very broad. You seem to be asking people to do ...


2

It's impossible to do philosophy without inciting arguments. Philosophy is meant to convince people of the 'rightness' of given ideas through the process of argumentation. If you do not get some argumentational pushback, then you are not doing philosophy. You are reciting ideology: preaching to the choir (as it were). If no one is arguing, no one is ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible