Timeline for Is it WRONG to 'tip the scales' toward certain answer POVs with a bounty?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 11, 2017 at 16:22 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackStats/status/907278071371325441 | ||
| Sep 10, 2017 at 18:11 | history | edited | David C. Norris | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Finalize the epilogue with link to cross-post
|
| Sep 10, 2017 at 12:33 | history | edited | David C. Norris | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Follow-up by way of epilogue
|
| Sep 9, 2017 at 14:21 | history | edited | Andre Silva |
edited tags
|
|
| Sep 9, 2017 at 13:27 | comment | added | whuber Mod | @gung I do not understand how offering a bounty to request answers from a particular perspective represents a step "further": that seems like a milder thing to do than writing the answer oneself because (a) it's overt and (b) it opens the field up to anyone who would like to provide that kind of answer. | |
| Sep 9, 2017 at 0:19 | comment | added | gung - Reinstate Monica Mod | @whuber, let's stipulate that that has been occurring. It is still better not to take it one step further. | |
| Sep 8, 2017 at 23:24 | vote | accept | David C. Norris | ||
| Sep 8, 2017 at 22:44 | comment | added | whuber Mod | @gung Some people are already doing that, rather aggressively, by posting the same answers (in various forms) all the time. We have tolerated that for years, mainly because despite the repetition they sometimes provide useful insights and perspectives. (You know who they are.) Why should using bounties towards the same end be viewed as a less appropriate approach? | |
| Sep 7, 2017 at 20:25 | comment | added | David C. Norris | That's an interesting perspective @gung. I'm thinking of the relationship between statistics and philosophy of science as something like that connecting programming with various programming paradigms. The spirit in which I'd be thinking of operating (to extend your analogy) would be something like promoting continuation-based or recursive solutions to algorithm design questions. That's not to negate your point, but to indicate the spirit of my intent. | |
| Sep 7, 2017 at 20:12 | comment | added | gung - Reinstate Monica Mod |
This sounds a bit like trying to use CV to advance a philosophical agenda for science. The SE sites are supposed to be a resource of simple factual information in the form of Qs & As. I'm skeptical that this is an appropriate activity for the site. Imagine someone trying to encourage the posting of more answers advocating for Bayesian methods over frequentist ones, at best tangentially related to the question at issue, or analogously advocating for C# over java on Stack Overflow.
|
|
| Sep 7, 2017 at 20:06 | answer | added | whuberMod | timeline score: 16 | |
| Sep 7, 2017 at 20:04 | history | edited | David C. Norris | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Clarification in response to comment.
|
| Sep 7, 2017 at 20:03 | comment | added | David C. Norris | I'm thinking about the latter. Just updated Q to clarify; thanks. | |
| Sep 7, 2017 at 20:02 | comment | added | amoeba | Are you asking about rewarding existing answers? Or about offering a bounty for future answers requesting a certain kind of answer? | |
| Sep 7, 2017 at 19:59 | history | asked | David C. Norris | CC BY-SA 3.0 |