When should we refer to specific cases on meta?

Question

In mathematics, as many of us already know, generality is a good thing. We aim to prove a result as general as possible.

However sometimes generality is ambiguous and gives us no help in trying to solve a particular case - whereas there are particular approaches which are applicable and useful. One good example which comes to mind is Ramsey's theorem. In its finite case the proof is combinatorial and a bit difficult to obtain, whereas in the infinite case the proof is quite simple and one can deduce the finite case by a compactness argument. But the infinite proof gives us no intuition on how to solve the finite case on its own.

Similarly on meta we try to be broad and general, we try to ask questions which apply to a particular case at hand - but that will be useful later on in an obvious way. What is not obvious sometimes is how the particular case is different than the general case, and how to apply it.

As a result there has been several cases when the community spirit pointed that a certain action is appropriate, whereas many have also agreed that a particular case is inappropriate.

This leads to a [reasonable] question, how to find the proper amount of generality for meta posts? And when should we draw the line and post particular problems, instead of general ones?

Answer 1

I'm Grace Note, a Community Coordinator at Stack Exchange. I'm dropping by here right now not in an official capacity, but just to give a viewpoint as a simple user of the network. Basically, I'm just giving another viewpoint on the subject.

---

I like to look at two basic things when thinking about how to scope a meta discussion - how it helps the community and how it helps resolve the issue. I actually apply these concepts to a lot of different spectra, so let's see how it relates to the general cause versus specific issue gradient.

• Is discussing the problem on a general scope beneficial to the community? Identifying everything as part of some general scope certainly makes judgments easier, but sometimes, it really is more helpful to look at the problem on a case-by-case basis. This may be because a draconian guideline must be developed just to address the specific instance, or it could just be taking extra time to solve a problem that won't resurface. Basically, how does working on the general scope differ from working on the specific, and is it a good idea.

  On our fresh new Anime & Manga site, we recently had a question from a user asking "Are we making too many rules?" It came up because three or four questions in a row all spurred discussion about major guidelines, all of which were pretty isolated and users were unsure that they would ever run into it again. In their case, they were still in private beta, so it helps to discuss nearly everything that comes up. A point was made nonetheless, though, that it's important to take a step back and confirm whether or not every point and essence needs to be regulated when it comes up.

  End line of this is, if discussing the general scope would be detrimental to the community, such as by being a waste of time over a very minor occurrence or by being too complex of a problem for the application of a general rule to be healthy, the specific issue is a lot more helpful to look at. Sometimes, the general scope at all is distracting from productive discussion - this is what can often happen when buzzwords like "list question" or "meta tag" come into play.

• Is discussing on a general scope beneficial to resolving the problem at hand? A broadly applicable rule helps create structure for users to be able to enforce. Without hard rules, it makes the task a burden. But it is important for users to be open to the fact that there can always be exceptions. Coming to a general conclusion is not helpful if there are unique identifiers or exceptional circumstances to the issue that render the ruling ineffective.

  Look at what prompted you to bring up the discussion, then look at what you chose to discuss. Would a solution to the general problem resolve this situation properly? Is the general problem even relevant to what inspired you to come to meta? If either of these is a no, then it means that asking about the general issue is avoiding the real problem. It's always important when analyzing anything, to look at the core of the issue. In the same vein that one should look at what someone is truly looking to solve versus what they wrote in the question body, one should look at what truly is the cause for concern versus what it can be grouped into as a set unit.

  Sometimes this kind of analysis, by the way, helps identify means to divorce the specific instance from the general problem. That is, the question that is being talked about can be revised in ways that the general isn't even applicable at all.