13
$\begingroup$

The question "What is the math behind Qubrix Brain Twister" has had a single edit reverted and reapplied multiple times now. This thread will be for discussion of what to do with this question.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ After reading the comments in the linked question and looking at the edit history, I don't really understand quanta's action, as Isaac pointed out in the comments, basically quanta's edit's only made the question incomprehensible. I don't think that such actions should be encouraged , it is the community who should decide if a question is good or not. Maybe some of the downvotes it received are because of the edit, which does not correspond to the original question. $\endgroup$ – Adrián Barquero May 18 '11 at 0:26
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @Adrián: That was actually one of my primary concerns—that someone who might possibly be a new user was getting downvoted into oblivion because someone edited any semblance of meaning out of their question. $\endgroup$ – Isaac May 18 '11 at 0:31
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @quanta: That's completely irrelevant and you know it. This thread is still for everyone else to discuss how to handle the question. $\endgroup$ – Zev Chonoles May 18 '11 at 3:34
  • $\begingroup$ Dori, I don't see any reason to think Simeon has ulterior motives in linking to this site. On the other hand, not all search engines obey nofollow. $\endgroup$ – Dan Brumleve May 18 '11 at 4:06
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Who voted to close this question? Whether or not you agree with any particular opinion anyone's expressing here, I don't see how you could disagree that this is a conversation we should be having. $\endgroup$ – Qiaochu Yuan May 18 '11 at 7:07
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Qiaochu: It was quanta. He claimed that since the OP wasn't interested in discussing their own question, we didn't need to have this meta thread (hence my comment above). $\endgroup$ – Zev Chonoles May 18 '11 at 7:11
4
$\begingroup$

The question has been locked and deleted. I agree with Dan (with the caveat that users of the SE network are required to be at least 13, so not quite all ages). quanta's edit was out of line: substantially changing the meaning of a question is defacement, whether it was for a good reason or not.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ How many reopen votes did it have? At least 2 or 3 iirc. Why was it deleted and locked? $\endgroup$ – Bill Dubuque May 18 '11 at 6:12
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Bill: I saw 2. The link is inappropriate content and is an essential part of the question. It doesn't belong here. If someone can find an equivalent game that doesn't involve inappropriate content, that would be an acceptable substitute. $\endgroup$ – Qiaochu Yuan May 18 '11 at 7:05
10
$\begingroup$

Isaac is certainly correct that the question would not mean anything without a reference to what problem game was being asked about. Thus, in nearly all situations, his position would be the right one, and indeed before clicking on the link I agreed entirely with him.

However, after clicking on the link in the question, I think there is certainly an argument that the link should be removed, since the game evidently involves pictures of quite scantily-clad women. IMO, links to NSFW content should be removed regardless of whether it is relevant to the question. The fact that the question requires the reader to engage this NSFW content (since there does not appear to be any way to ascertain how the game works without playing it) only underscores the need for the question to be closed. In fact I am also of the opinion that the link is spam, in the sense that this question was posted for the sole purpose of driving traffic to this site.

So, I think Isaac is right in general, but given the content of the link, I would support removing it (and, of course, closing the question, but I don't think anyone is disputing that). However, I will add that I also disagree with quanta's actions, because as Isaac has correctly pointed out, at the very least, comments need to be made to the OP and to viewers of the question explaining what is going on and what each person's reasoning is, and certainly leaving behind the nonsense question "What is the math behind" is not correct.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 9
    $\begingroup$ I think adding a comment about the NSFW-ness of a link would be completely appropriate; I could even see editing something like "[NSFW]" into the question as being appropriate. However, I cannot see editing a question from a state in which it makes sense as a question to a state where it is nonsense as ever being appropriate. There are appropriate tools for handling the situation and editing the question into nonsense is not such a tool. (n.b. I didn't downvote this answer, since I don't exactly disagree with it.) $\endgroup$ – Isaac May 18 '11 at 0:36
  • $\begingroup$ @Isaac: I do indeed agree with the way you've put it in the above comment. $\endgroup$ – Zev Chonoles May 18 '11 at 0:38
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I don't think "NSFW" belongs in the math.SE lexicon. Not every user works, not every user is an adult, and there may be users who do not know what "NSFW" means and would be offended by NSFW content. $\endgroup$ – Dan Brumleve May 18 '11 at 3:03
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Dan: I didn't know what NSFW means, but a quick search enlightened me. I had clicked through, but it took so long to load I gave up before any NSFW content came up. I would accept it as a new "word" that people will learn one way or another. $\endgroup$ – Ross Millikan May 18 '11 at 3:25
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Ross, I'm no prude myself but I think SE has an awesome potential for pedagogy. Although children will certainly learn that word eventually, SE should not be the site that teaches it. $\endgroup$ – Dan Brumleve May 18 '11 at 3:36
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @quanta: Really? You're going to continue to edit other people's posts? Please don't. It's not your decision whether or not this link should be a part of this post. $\endgroup$ – Isaac May 18 '11 at 3:41
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Isaac and quanta, the presence of NSFW links on meta is a different (and less significant) issue. $\endgroup$ – Dan Brumleve May 18 '11 at 3:57
7
$\begingroup$

The question should be restored to its original, un-defaced state. If it is spam, it should be flagged as spam and dealt with as such, but defacing the question (editing it in a way that is clearly against the original poster's intent and in a way that makes the question into nonsense) is an inappropriate use of editing privileges.

edit: I'd suggest that people please upvote my comment there about reading the edit history. The question is now likely to get closed as not a real question—the defaced version is certainly not a real question, but the original was at least interpretable.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Who's downvoting this question and this answer? I can only think of someone... $\endgroup$ – Adrián Barquero May 18 '11 at 0:29
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ For what it's worth, I voted to close as not a real question with knowledge of the old version. $\endgroup$ – Jonas Meyer May 18 '11 at 1:13
  • $\begingroup$ @Jonas: Me too. $\endgroup$ – Zev Chonoles May 18 '11 at 1:48
  • $\begingroup$ @Jonas: That's completely fair and I might well have done so, too. $\endgroup$ – Isaac May 18 '11 at 3:42
2
$\begingroup$

The link contains sexually suggestive images. There is nothing wrong with how the question was phrased nor is there any reason to assume it is spam. I think math.SE should be open and respectful to people of all ages and cultures. This is why I downvoted and flagged it as inappropriate for the community.

| |
$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

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