Skip to main content
Meta Stack Exchange

Return to Answer

edited body
Source Link
Pete L. Clark
Pete L. Clark
  • 413
  • 2
  • 7

I am a mathematics professor who has been very active on both Math Overflow and the newer math.SE. The help that I give to others on the site is often on the professional level: indeed, a substantial proportion of the hundreds of questions I have answered on that site have required my expertise as a post-PhD mathematician. Nor has it been one-sided, not at all: there are many other research mathematicians active on the site, including some of the very top ones in the world. When I talk on this site I talk carefully, and when I listen I listen carefully: there is a lot to learn.

Let us call this latest practice what is is: a form of censorship. As an academic behaving in a de facto professional capacity, my reaction to my writing being censored is what you would expect: a mixture of bemusement, bewilderment and outrage. Certain people and organizations have historically had the right to censor, including academic writing. For the last 100 hundred years or so in the Western world, those who have exercised this right have, usually, given very careful thought to make sure that their reasons for censoring are compelling and necessary. The exceptions to this rule have become infamous and long remembered.

Many people here have remarked that the reasons given for this censorship are very far from compelling. In fact it seems to me that they are not reasons at all but rather quickly boil down to I am the boss, so I can make whatever changes will, in my opinion, improve the site. This is true, but as a justification for censorship in a de facto academic environment? Wow. This is going to be negatively remembered by a lot of people for a long time.

Postscript: Some people have said that the SE sites are "wikis" which means that users should expect that others can and will edit their writing. This is technically true, I suppose, but misses the mark in a lot of ways. First, the SE citessites are not like wikipedia (in which I have been active) since on the latter site all users enter with essentially full editorial privileges, whereas on SE these privileges are carefully graduated as the user becomes more experienced and "trusted". Second, on math.SE at least, edits to others' questions beyond the level of spelling, formatting and punctuation are done very sparingly: for instance, when I spot what I am convinced is a mathematical error in someone else's answer I do not edit it but rather leave a comment and wait for the answerer to respond. This is respectful and ultimately more efficient -- in most cases the answerer and I (possibly with the help of other commenters) quickly come to an understanding. When people do edit each others' posts even in rather minor ways they often leave comments saying "I changed X; I hope that is okay with you." If some user repeatedly made stylistic changes in others' answers without telling them, the community would quickly intervene to put a stop to it. Third, these edits are edits to the comments, which are strongly linked to a particular person. An analogous change on a wiki would be to make edits in others' signed comments on a discussion page, which everyone has the ability to do and in all my experience on wikipedia no one was stupid enough to attempt. Fourth, these edits are done automatically and without (public, at least) record: if I edit someone else's answer then -- although it rarely comes to this -- they can simply roll it back: the record of the original is preserved. Here the original writing is being altered irrevocably and without even alerting the writer that this is taking place. Thus it is censorship of a rather craven variety, the kind that the censors hope will not be noticed. (But we have noticed it, of course, to say the least.)

I am a mathematics professor who has been very active on both Math Overflow and the newer math.SE. The help that I give to others on the site is often on the professional level: indeed, a substantial proportion of the hundreds of questions I have answered on that site have required my expertise as a post-PhD mathematician. Nor has it been one-sided, not at all: there are many other research mathematicians active on the site, including some of the very top ones in the world. When I talk on this site I talk carefully, and when I listen I listen carefully: there is a lot to learn.

Let us call this latest practice what is is: a form of censorship. As an academic behaving in a de facto professional capacity, my reaction to my writing being censored is what you would expect: a mixture of bemusement, bewilderment and outrage. Certain people and organizations have historically had the right to censor, including academic writing. For the last 100 hundred years or so in the Western world, those who have exercised this right have, usually, given very careful thought to make sure that their reasons for censoring are compelling and necessary. The exceptions to this rule have become infamous and long remembered.

Many people here have remarked that the reasons given for this censorship are very far from compelling. In fact it seems to me that they are not reasons at all but rather quickly boil down to I am the boss, so I can make whatever changes will, in my opinion, improve the site. This is true, but as a justification for censorship in a de facto academic environment? Wow. This is going to be negatively remembered by a lot of people for a long time.

Postscript: Some people have said that the SE sites are "wikis" which means that users should expect that others can and will edit their writing. This is technically true, I suppose, but misses the mark in a lot of ways. First, the SE cites are not like wikipedia (in which I have been active) since on the latter site all users enter with essentially full editorial privileges, whereas on SE these privileges are carefully graduated as the user becomes more experienced and "trusted". Second, on math.SE at least, edits to others' questions beyond the level of spelling, formatting and punctuation are done very sparingly: for instance, when I spot what I am convinced is a mathematical error in someone else's answer I do not edit it but rather leave a comment and wait for the answerer to respond. This is respectful and ultimately more efficient -- in most cases the answerer and I (possibly with the help of other commenters) quickly come to an understanding. When people do edit each others' posts even in rather minor ways they often leave comments saying "I changed X; I hope that is okay with you." If some user repeatedly made stylistic changes in others' answers without telling them, the community would quickly intervene to put a stop to it. Third, these edits are edits to the comments, which are strongly linked to a particular person. An analogous change on a wiki would be to make edits in others' signed comments on a discussion page, which everyone has the ability to do and in all my experience on wikipedia no one was stupid enough to attempt. Fourth, these edits are done automatically and without (public, at least) record: if I edit someone else's answer then -- although it rarely comes to this -- they can simply roll it back: the record of the original is preserved. Here the original writing is being altered irrevocably and without even alerting the writer that this is taking place. Thus it is censorship of a rather craven variety, the kind that the censors hope will not be noticed. (But we have noticed it, of course, to say the least.)

I am a mathematics professor who has been very active on both Math Overflow and the newer math.SE. The help that I give to others on the site is often on the professional level: indeed, a substantial proportion of the hundreds of questions I have answered on that site have required my expertise as a post-PhD mathematician. Nor has it been one-sided, not at all: there are many other research mathematicians active on the site, including some of the very top ones in the world. When I talk on this site I talk carefully, and when I listen I listen carefully: there is a lot to learn.

Let us call this latest practice what is is: a form of censorship. As an academic behaving in a de facto professional capacity, my reaction to my writing being censored is what you would expect: a mixture of bemusement, bewilderment and outrage. Certain people and organizations have historically had the right to censor, including academic writing. For the last 100 hundred years or so in the Western world, those who have exercised this right have, usually, given very careful thought to make sure that their reasons for censoring are compelling and necessary. The exceptions to this rule have become infamous and long remembered.

Many people here have remarked that the reasons given for this censorship are very far from compelling. In fact it seems to me that they are not reasons at all but rather quickly boil down to I am the boss, so I can make whatever changes will, in my opinion, improve the site. This is true, but as a justification for censorship in a de facto academic environment? Wow. This is going to be negatively remembered by a lot of people for a long time.

Postscript: Some people have said that the SE sites are "wikis" which means that users should expect that others can and will edit their writing. This is technically true, I suppose, but misses the mark in a lot of ways. First, the SE sites are not like wikipedia (in which I have been active) since on the latter site all users enter with essentially full editorial privileges, whereas on SE these privileges are carefully graduated as the user becomes more experienced and "trusted". Second, on math.SE at least, edits to others' questions beyond the level of spelling, formatting and punctuation are done very sparingly: for instance, when I spot what I am convinced is a mathematical error in someone else's answer I do not edit it but rather leave a comment and wait for the answerer to respond. This is respectful and ultimately more efficient -- in most cases the answerer and I (possibly with the help of other commenters) quickly come to an understanding. When people do edit each others' posts even in rather minor ways they often leave comments saying "I changed X; I hope that is okay with you." If some user repeatedly made stylistic changes in others' answers without telling them, the community would quickly intervene to put a stop to it. Third, these edits are edits to the comments, which are strongly linked to a particular person. An analogous change on a wiki would be to make edits in others' signed comments on a discussion page, which everyone has the ability to do and in all my experience on wikipedia no one was stupid enough to attempt. Fourth, these edits are done automatically and without (public, at least) record: if I edit someone else's answer then -- although it rarely comes to this -- they can simply roll it back: the record of the original is preserved. Here the original writing is being altered irrevocably and without even alerting the writer that this is taking place. Thus it is censorship of a rather craven variety, the kind that the censors hope will not be noticed. (But we have noticed it, of course, to say the least.)

Source Link
Pete L. Clark
Pete L. Clark
  • 413
  • 2
  • 7

I am a mathematics professor who has been very active on both Math Overflow and the newer math.SE. The help that I give to others on the site is often on the professional level: indeed, a substantial proportion of the hundreds of questions I have answered on that site have required my expertise as a post-PhD mathematician. Nor has it been one-sided, not at all: there are many other research mathematicians active on the site, including some of the very top ones in the world. When I talk on this site I talk carefully, and when I listen I listen carefully: there is a lot to learn.

Let us call this latest practice what is is: a form of censorship. As an academic behaving in a de facto professional capacity, my reaction to my writing being censored is what you would expect: a mixture of bemusement, bewilderment and outrage. Certain people and organizations have historically had the right to censor, including academic writing. For the last 100 hundred years or so in the Western world, those who have exercised this right have, usually, given very careful thought to make sure that their reasons for censoring are compelling and necessary. The exceptions to this rule have become infamous and long remembered.

Many people here have remarked that the reasons given for this censorship are very far from compelling. In fact it seems to me that they are not reasons at all but rather quickly boil down to I am the boss, so I can make whatever changes will, in my opinion, improve the site. This is true, but as a justification for censorship in a de facto academic environment? Wow. This is going to be negatively remembered by a lot of people for a long time.

Postscript: Some people have said that the SE sites are "wikis" which means that users should expect that others can and will edit their writing. This is technically true, I suppose, but misses the mark in a lot of ways. First, the SE cites are not like wikipedia (in which I have been active) since on the latter site all users enter with essentially full editorial privileges, whereas on SE these privileges are carefully graduated as the user becomes more experienced and "trusted". Second, on math.SE at least, edits to others' questions beyond the level of spelling, formatting and punctuation are done very sparingly: for instance, when I spot what I am convinced is a mathematical error in someone else's answer I do not edit it but rather leave a comment and wait for the answerer to respond. This is respectful and ultimately more efficient -- in most cases the answerer and I (possibly with the help of other commenters) quickly come to an understanding. When people do edit each others' posts even in rather minor ways they often leave comments saying "I changed X; I hope that is okay with you." If some user repeatedly made stylistic changes in others' answers without telling them, the community would quickly intervene to put a stop to it. Third, these edits are edits to the comments, which are strongly linked to a particular person. An analogous change on a wiki would be to make edits in others' signed comments on a discussion page, which everyone has the ability to do and in all my experience on wikipedia no one was stupid enough to attempt. Fourth, these edits are done automatically and without (public, at least) record: if I edit someone else's answer then -- although it rarely comes to this -- they can simply roll it back: the record of the original is preserved. Here the original writing is being altered irrevocably and without even alerting the writer that this is taking place. Thus it is censorship of a rather craven variety, the kind that the censors hope will not be noticed. (But we have noticed it, of course, to say the least.)