6
$\begingroup$

We have a proposal for new a site covering complex network and analysis. I need your help. Please have a look through the example questions linked below. Do you see a preponderance of questions that cannot be asked on either Cross Validated or another Stack Exchange site? (You can ignore questions that would not be a good fit on any SE site)

Proposal: Complex Networks

The goal of Area 51 is to propose new subjects that cannot already be asked elsewhere on a live Stack Exchange site(s). The community already provide a list of sites from to which to draw inspiration, but does this proposal constitute an inextricable cross-dicipline problem where the example don't belong on either site?

We do not generally split off subjects simply to give them their own space, so does this proposal define a new topic?

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ There are several situations where networks appear in statistics: Neural Networks, Bayesian Networks, Markov Networks, Microeconometric regression systems such (SEM) and several others. Nonetheless not every networks can also be viewed through the eyes of a "non-statistician". $\endgroup$ – Ferdi Aug 21 '17 at 19:20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Ferdi I find your last sentence a little confusing; it doesn't seem to fit with the implication of the first sentence (which combined with "Nonetheless" immediately after it suggests you would be trying to emphasize there are non-statistical aspects of networks in the second sentence, while it seems to actually emphasize again that there's statistical aspects -- the "not every" ... "non-statistician") $\endgroup$ – Glen_b Aug 21 '17 at 21:19
  • $\begingroup$ @Glen_b you can have a look at networks from the statistical perspective, but you can also look at it from other disciplines such as biology, ecology, economics or business. $\endgroup$ – Ferdi Aug 22 '17 at 6:43
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Good, that's what I thought you probably intended but it wasn't what your second sentence says. If you replace "not every" with "some" it fits that better. $\endgroup$ – Glen_b Aug 22 '17 at 7:30
13
$\begingroup$

I'd say there's definite overlap with our coverage but it's easy to argue that there's plenty outside statistics and machine learning.

Given that Data Science got up (with which our overlap is much more significant and with which there were substantial and strong objections raised here, on multiple occasions) I really can't see a major issue here -- if that was somehow okay, why would we concern ourselves very much about this less substantial overlap?

| |
$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .