25
$\begingroup$

(Note: This is a copy of Brian Rushton's post on Math Overflow meta.)

The new site http://matheducators.stackexchange.com is now up and running! This site is for questions about mathematics learning and education, including course-design, exam-writing, teaching methods, intuition and examples, etc.

Check out our top questions list:

https://matheducators.stackexchange.com/questions?sort=votes

Please consider contributing! This site is still in its infancy, and would benefit greatly from your help.

$\endgroup$
12
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Please consider editing the "this site is about...." to avoid representing the site as something totally different from the purpose advertised on meta.MSE (and other places): a site for mathematics learning and education. The hopefully temporary site title and subtitle ("elevator pitch" as SE calls it) already hijacked that, and drawing in new users based on further and further departures from the stated intent would worsen that. Note that your first three examples out of 4 of what the site is about, appear to presuppose an institutional/administrative context for learning and teaching. $\endgroup$
    – zyx
    Mar 25, 2014 at 1:49
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @zyx The site title "Math Educators Stack Exchange" is permanent. The old "mathematics learning and education" title has been dropped, and the focus is now on questions and answers related to math teaching. These changes were made during the usual Area 51 "definition" and "commitment" processes that took place before the site entered beta. $\endgroup$
    – Jim Belk
    Mar 25, 2014 at 1:54
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The public beta title is permanent for the graduated site?? I'm one of the private beta users and am familiar with what happened there: SE admins cut short the vote despite tiny counts and differentials on the "winning" proposal (and false arguments made for it) by an SE employee. $\endgroup$
    – zyx
    Mar 25, 2014 at 1:56
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @zyx First, I should have said that the name is "intended to be permanent". I have no idea whether it might be possible to revisit the name issue in the future. The vote margin you mention was 27 to 17 for the two highest-voted proposals, with negative 6 votes for the original name. Frankly, I wasn't aware that there was anyone who was dissatisfied with the process that took place -- certainly no one raised an objection at the time. $\endgroup$
    – Jim Belk
    Mar 25, 2014 at 2:05
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Several people -- myself, and the more than 40 users who registered after the decision was a fait accompli -- did not have a chance to raise any objection because SE very quickly finalized a rough-and-ready title, without any runoff between competing titles, that might have exposed the fact that the new title suffers from the exact same problem it was supposed to cure, while creating new problems. Rob Cartaino "solved" the title problem with a subtitle, but this advantage was not allowed to the other proposals, nor enough time allowed for that to happen. $\endgroup$
    – zyx
    Mar 25, 2014 at 2:09
  • 9
    $\begingroup$ @zyx I'm not sure this is the right place to get into a lengthy discussion about this. If you'd like to discuss this further, I recommend starting a thread on the meta for the new site. $\endgroup$
    – Jim Belk
    Mar 25, 2014 at 2:10
  • $\begingroup$ We all know about that possibility. But are you planning to edit this question or otherwise respond to the point in the first comment? There is a matter about the current meta.MSE thread that goes beyond the title of the new group. $\endgroup$
    – zyx
    Mar 25, 2014 at 2:15
  • $\begingroup$ Jim, I'm not sure a new tag is needed. Not here and not on meta.MO (although you had nothing to do with the latter). $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila Mod
    Mar 25, 2014 at 2:16
  • $\begingroup$ @AsafKaragila I don't have strong feelings about the tag one way or the other. I have removed it per your request. $\endgroup$
    – Jim Belk
    Mar 25, 2014 at 2:20
  • $\begingroup$ @zyx I have created a post on the meta site about this disagreement. I personally think the text is fine as it is, but I'm willing to change it if that seems to be the consensus of the community. $\endgroup$
    – Jim Belk
    Mar 25, 2014 at 3:02
  • $\begingroup$ It seems to me that several distinct meta threads are in order there, and that asking at this stage about the title alone (before new users come in, for example, preferably as a result of more neutral advertising, which is the issue specific to this thread) is tantamount to asking for ratification of the status quo. I can and will post at the new site, but I do not think this method of data-gathering will produce much valid result in either direction. $\endgroup$
    – zyx
    Mar 25, 2014 at 3:08
  • $\begingroup$ The exact vote counts one day (3/2) before the site name was finalized: "M T&P 24 - 6; M Educators 20 - 3; M education 11 - 3; Didactics 5 - 2; Communicating 6 - 4; Teaching 0 - 3; Instruction 0 - 3; M LSE 1 - 6. ". The "winner" was behind on both upvotes and total votes. There seems to have been a sudden one-day surge for M Educators which of course could be a matter of where new or renewed advertisements were posted close to that date. That such a swing can happen in a short time based on a tiny number of users shows the power of restricting the time to vote and the number of voters. $\endgroup$
    – zyx
    Mar 25, 2014 at 3:30

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
9
$\begingroup$

Congratulations to all the people who have put so much time and hard work into making this site.

Great job and thank you!

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

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