A recent meta question suggested closing a popular question soliciting statistical cartoons as being out-of-scope on the site. It is clear that this post does not fall into the written scope of the site, but it is a beloved post with a large number of up-votes. The consensus in the answers seems to be that this kind of question is an aberration that is allowed despite formal breach of the rules.

I really do not want this site to lose questions like this. Rather than just treating this question as an allowable "aberration", another possible resolution is to create an explicit category for funny posts, allowing for a limited number of these posts with strict moderator discretion. This would mean adding a new tag for various funny questions that are popular on this site (e.g., this, this, this) and making it clear that posts will only survive if they are popular. Here is my tag suggestion (duplicated from my answer to the above meta question but with a better name):

Fun

This tag is used for posts that solicit amusing or pithy material relating to statistical theory and practice (e.g., cartoons, jokes, quotations, stories, etc.). This category is created to allow a limited number of amusing posts beloved by the CV.SE community, that would otherwise by out-of-scope on this site.

Warning: Posts under this category will be closed by the moderators unless they are unique non-duplicated posts, and show immediate and lasting popularity on the site, as evidenced by high numbers of up-votes from CV.SE users, and highly up-voted answers.

  • 1
    My sense is that this doesn't seem like a good idea. We can see what others say. For one thing, not all such posts are actually funny, so I don't think this quite captures the exception being made. I also don't think popularity is the basis for the exception, when applied. – gung Jul 25 at 4:11
  • I'd be happy for alternative descriptions that better capture the intended exception. My suggestion is just a starting point. – Ben Jul 25 at 4:13
  • 3
    If we're going to tag it anything, I think it it should be "grandfathered-in". – Glen_b Jul 26 at 2:10

The tag already exists:

  • True. But fun is a wider concept than humor. I could see [the "quotations" thread] having a fun tag, but not the humor tag (which it rightfully doesn't have right now). Then again, I don't think this difference warrants a new tag... After all, CV is neither about fun nor about humor, is it now? – Stephan Kolassa Jul 25 at 15:11
  • It's true that I've never had any fun here, and we are always entirely humorless. I don't see any reason to change our (unusual, for SE) indulgence of "funny" questions -- yes, it's atypical for a SE to have an open humor thread, but I think this is exactly the correct limit to set. – Sycorax Jul 25 at 15:15

You must log in to answer this question.

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