Timeline for "That is not possible" is a valid answer
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 1, 2019 at 20:14 | comment | added | Sergiy Kolodyazhnyy | @mosvy I have no problem with possible/impossible types of answers so long as everything is backed up bu evidence. What I have problem with is that the user did not follow the proper process set up on Stackexchange, did not go on meta but rather to twitter. Sourcejedi did the right thing, the user - did not. This of course stems from no one reading the help center when they sign up or reach out to peers to clarify. | |
| Jun 1, 2019 at 19:13 | comment | added | user313992 | @SergiyKolodyazhnyy As to your opinion being unpopular, I'm aftraid it's just the contrary: that combo of appeal-to-authoritiy accepted as a valid argument and deference to mean rules is WAY too popular, more than it should be for people pretending to live in a free society. | |
| Jun 1, 2019 at 19:08 | comment | added | user313992 | @SergiyKolodyazhnyy sorry for repeating myself, it does not matter: If some random user says that something's not possible, then go on and explain how it's possible. Do no "moderate" him or her, especially when you're not familiar with the subject. And do not invent rules or interpret the (non-binding!) guidelines overly broadly: the "full-disclosure rule" should only be wielded against obnoxious shills and snake-oil sellers, anything else is simply abuse. | |
| May 31, 2019 at 8:05 | comment | added | Sergiy Kolodyazhnyy |
To be fair, Jeff's action was perfectly valid, considering that the answer originally had no mention that the poster is the author of ftrace in question. They've not stated that anywhere in their profile either. From what I've learned over the past 5 or so years of being here and on AskUbuntu, one has to add a small statement saying "Full disclosure: I am the author of the software xyz". I know - that's not gonna be a popular opinion. The author didn't do that, which to me looks like not following SE rules. And fairly enough, it does read as a comment.
|
|
| May 29, 2019 at 11:25 | comment | added | sourcejedi | I agree with the spirit of the answer. This post was caught by a type of moderation that, on balance, probably helps maintain the distinct value of StackExchange. Thank you for your service :-). I just wouldn't point to this answer without being slightly more explicit about what we're balancing against. Also, while it would be great if all moderation was accompanied by a clear objective explanation, I do not believe that is a realistic demand. To the extent that it was explained in this case, it appears to have helped move towards a resolution. | |
| May 25, 2019 at 20:13 | comment | added | Stephen Kitt | @sourcejedi I think the mechanics of SE are sufficiently different to LKML and such to be surprising in any case; on LKML at least, messages aren’t deleted (or “downgraded”), nor are they edited... This doesn’t undermine your question though, which is certainly worth thinking about. As for the main question, I find “that is not possible” answers particularly difficult to write, because I always wonder if it’s that I don’t know something rather than that it isn’t possible. | |
| May 25, 2019 at 17:53 | comment | added | sourcejedi | The context about the Late Answer review queue is helpful. | |
| May 25, 2019 at 17:41 | comment | added | sourcejedi | The question I have in mind is, if someone who works with the notoriously cut and thrust Linux mailing lists is taken aback by our response (and is not able to find any way to contest the response with additional information), is there anything we can learn from it? | |
| May 25, 2019 at 17:35 | comment | added | sourcejedi | I’d like to think about this more later - I have other stuff to do at the moment. It’s a good intention to want to apologize, but if it’s qualified by “given what we've now learned”, it’s not clear to me what you think needs to be apologized for. | |
| May 25, 2019 at 17:34 | comment | added | sourcejedi | Reading this, I can't tell whether nevets will see it. I think "I'd like to apologize" is awkward phrasing in that context. I'm not sure I would use the word if you can't say you have offered (or given) it? - that would be more clear. The phrase used seems more appropriate in a context where it is unambiguous that they would see it. (Or in public statements that address a large group of people). | |
| May 25, 2019 at 17:20 | comment | added | sourcejedi | Thanks for the undelete. That seemed the clear way forward :-). The second “agree” does not follow. In my question I tried to not assert whether or not evidence was required in such answers. The question could be more clear, but at least the quickest clarification would be to remove the second “agree” here :-). I used the word "useful" mostly to refer to answer upvotes or downvotes. Distinct from “valid” v.s. “not an answer”, which would be eligible for flagging. | |
| May 25, 2019 at 16:25 | history | edited | Jeff SchallerMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 57 characters in body
|
| May 25, 2019 at 16:18 | history | answered | Jeff SchallerMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |