Should Scientific Speculation support information-sharing that isn't in question form?
We've had a couple posts (example (deleted), example) that aren't really questions, but are information and maybe starting points for development. Over on the Worldbuilding proposal we're talking about a 'workshop' category where such posts would fit. This isn't Worldbuilding, though there is a proposal to merge SciSpec into Worldbuilding, and we don't have that concept here yet, but -- should we? If ultimately the communities merge then problem solved, but while SciSpec remains separate, what do folks think about adding a "workshop" category here? It could support either or both of Q&A and wiki posts (articles, collaboratively edited).
3 answers
"Questions" that only exist to present information and not really ask anything are awkward.
Sometimes this one-way information sharing can be useful, but it doesn't fit well within a Q&A format. The solution is a different category that isn't Q&A. I think the generic Codidact term for that is "Article". A good example is the Papers category on the Electrical Engineering site. I think Cooking has one like that too for recipes or something.
I'm not sure what the category should be called. "Papers" sounds too formal for this site. Maybe "Ideas"?
0 comment threads
Prompted by this new answer to this meta question:
This community has very low activity right now, and I wonder if posts in a different category would be missed. It is possible for questions and articles to sit alongside each other in the same category, at the small cost of one extra prompt for post type when starting a post. I'd like to see this community succeed (and it will probably morph along the way), so how about allowing articles right there on the main page? You can see an example of a category that supports both post types on Collab, our community for people developing the platform or setting up other networks using it. On a larger and more active community it would make sense to separate these, like Electrical Engineering does for papers, but Scientific Speculation isn't there yet. If this community grows large enough to want to separate this content, posts can be moved to another category later.
We should be welcoming people with questions, answers, and information to share, and our current structure cuts off some of that. Let's do something about that.
I hardly ever find truthful information or ideas awkward.
But you ask a fine question? What are you here for?
My understanding : how I got here is the "anti-stackexchange stackexhange". While the effort required to get a question on the site is approaching needing one or two rounds of venture capital funding, and the likelihood of getting a good answer is approaching the likelihood of winning powerball, "anti-stackexchange" has an appeal. I think Worldbuilding SE may have morphed from a Q+A site to a place where Editors edit at one another.
Codidact puts people first; we're here to help you share knowledge and get curated answers in a friendly environment
Codidact Scientific Speculation is not very active : 6 new questions in the last year.
Hardly seems like such a small volume of text could offend anyone in any way. Yet, I've been contacted more than once to remove the tiny bit of content I have as "already answered elsewhere" (it wasn't), or "not really science", or "not really a question".
It isn't my site. And I am starting to regret visiting.
As a bit of friendly advice, if this place has just become a burden - why not pull the plug?
Short Version
I would sure like a place, any place, to share and discuss ideas that's a step above a chatroom, forum, reddit, or bulletin board.
I'm happy with re-organizing anywhere, but sure would like it if there's not a huge amount of churn "figuring it out"
1 comment thread
0 comment threads