Timeline for Gaps to Fill Without a 'Homework' Close Reason -- Overview
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 1, 2019 at 14:04 | comment | added | Gaurang Tandon | I agree with you. | |
| Jun 1, 2019 at 9:19 | comment | added | M.A.R. | Furthermore, canonicals, if anyone writes them, are usually just our way of saying "we believe this information obtained from and usually found in textbooks to be factually accurate". So they can solve part of that problem as well. | |
| Jun 1, 2019 at 9:16 | comment | added | M.A.R. | @Gau I feel like that can be adequately addressed by not accepting certain sources to be reliable. "No, your random YouTube channel is not an authoritative source." It's usually not what the sources contain, but merely the fact they tend to contain this material that matters. Dictionaries are also the same, some reputable, some not. But that hasn't stopped the close reason from being effective when applied to dictionary questions (language sites have a tendency to shove several reasons into one, this particular close vote is research + general reference) | |
| Jun 1, 2019 at 7:29 | comment | added | Gaurang Tandon | I think we both are trying to say similar things. However, regarding "I also personally believe that re-explaining a topic...": I believe that defining what exact literature comprises basic questions in chemistry is very vague, enough to not use it as a metric. There's a lot of diversity in textbooks. Different curricula teach different level of detail for the same topic. A question answered in one textbook may not be in another. There's no objective way for us to tell apart this distinction. Therefore, we cannot close questions correctly using such a metric, if one is ever made. | |
| May 31, 2019 at 15:22 | history | edited | M.A.R. | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 9 characters in body
|
| May 31, 2019 at 15:14 | history | answered | M.A.R. | CC BY-SA 4.0 |