quasi
Posts:
9,078
Registered:
7/15/05
|
|
Re: A new math usenet group
Posted:
Nov 25, 2012 2:55 PM
|
|
Tonico wrote:
>quasi wrote:
>>amzoti wrote:
>>
>>>Leave the cesspool that is sci.math.
>>
>> Sorry you see it that way.
>>
>>>See a real math newsgroup.
>>
>>>http://math.stackexchange.com/questions
>>
>> math.stackexchange is _not_ a newsgroup.
>>
>> It's fine for what it is -- questions and answers, but
>>
>> not much good for back and forth discussions -- it's
>>
>> not designed for that.
>
>Almost agree with that. As it is now, sci.math is a dumper where
>many of us come to have a little fun, to let steam out, etc.
Sure, you can have fun here if you want to -- nothing wrong with
that, but of the non-crank, non-troll sci.math participants (of
which I would estimate that there are currently about 40 regulars
and perhaps 100 or more less regulars), most do not participate
in the mode you describe.
>It doesn't serve almost for mathematics,
I disagree.
Math _is_ done here, and sci.math's free-form, multi-way
discussion format makes the interaction very easy.
>but only for trolls, cranks, or any other bored cyberscum (WM,
>Archimedes P., Musatov, Herc = Cooper, Julio, etc.) to live
>without any fear of being kicked out at once.
Cranks and trolls are no big deal -- they are easily ignored.
>These poor characters wouldn't remain active more than a few
>minutes in SE, Physics Forum or any other more or less serious
>site, and they'd have to dedicate their lives to make up new
>nicks and to have several IP numbers in order to avoid complete
>eviction.
sci.math has free speech, so yes, cranks and trolls are part of
the environment, but as I said, it's no big deal -- that stuff
is easily ignored. It's a small price to pay for the luxury of
true free speech.
>Nevertheless, it'd be nice to have a site that, besides maths,
>could accept open discussions,
It exists -- it's called sci.math.
>as long as the people involved in them are minimally serious.
In a democratic environment, you can't have everything go the
way you want.
>Too bad the intentions of 3-4 years ago to have such a
>moderated site here didn't work out...
In the end, the moderated site concept fails precisely because
of the moderation. It would create a barrier to entry, slow
down the interaction, and leave an anti-democratic stigma of
censors and censorship.
quasi
|
|
