-3
$\begingroup$

I have a question about my Cross Validated post: Can a human be intellectual property? Why is it still closed?

$\endgroup$

closed as off-topic by Martijn Weterings, gung Aug 8 at 11:19

  • This question does not appear to be about Cross Validated Stack Exchange or the software that powers the Stack Exchange network within the scope defined in the help center.
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The question was deleted by the OP, so (although it remains visible to at least some -- depending on reputation) it's hard to see that this Meta thread has value into the future. $\endgroup$ – Nick Cox Aug 8 at 8:58
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because the OP has not been on this forum since weeks and this question has zero value to others. $\endgroup$ – Martijn Weterings Aug 8 at 9:32
13
$\begingroup$

The reason given by the majority of the close voters was that it was unclear; I will let them explain that reasoning if they choose to.

Speaking for myself, I don't think the central problem is lack of clarity - the question is clear enough that one could close it for a better reason.

I would vote to close it - without hesitation - because it's not remotely on topic on CrossValidated. If the question were made perfectly clear it would still be off topic, so clearly it should close for that reason rather than any lack of clarity.

One reason people might close it as unclear is if they felt it would (once clarified) be a good candidate for migration to a specific other site, but in that case it would be necessary for them to address the criteria of that destination site in a comment (i.e. to explain how to modify the question so that it could migrate).

It's also possible that some felt that perhaps it might appear nearer to being on topic if it were clarified. I see no hint of that in the question, but perhaps I am missing something the close voters were able to discern.

$\endgroup$
10
$\begingroup$

I voted to close as unclear when the original question was, in its entirety

Can be a human be intellectual property ? I think and i am obtain in data MEta thought or is it Meta learning?

Think about it one person thoughts being shared in as an open book, real-time feed.

which is difficult to understand. It is ungrammatical, and the parts which I understand individually do not add up to a coherent question.

You've asked this question on a statistics forum, and use words like "data" and "real-time feed" and "meta learning". These are topics which are sometimes discussed on this website, so maybe you had an on-topic idea at the time that you wrote that question but articulated it poorly.


In the intervening time, you've added additional text to the question. It is not clear how the question is on-topic. I also don't understand what you're asking about in the most-recent version of the question.

If the core question you're asking is truly "what is intellectual property?" then you're better off asking a lawyer, not a statistician.

$\endgroup$

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