-1
$\begingroup$

I am new to Meta, so this question might have been asked before. It seems to me that Math Stack Exchange has become too eager to down-vote or close questions that are seemingly homework questions and which do not give some sort of motivation or prior attempt.

Questions that can survive without motivation or prior attempt are those that are simple or standard. By simple, I mean, for example, my question on $\mathbb{F}_2$ survives (ok... admittedly, I gave some prior attempt in that question), but my analogous question on $\mathbb{F}_3$ gets down-voted. In a sense, $2$ is a "simpler" prime than $3$. My question about whether a named graph is a core survives, but my question about an unnamed graph is a core gets its motivation questioned. In a sense, a graph with a name is more "standard" than a graph without a name.

As a mathematician, it is very easy to just write down some of my doodles about my question or give where my question came from, but sometimes, having motivation does not help the answerer answer the question. For example, for this question of mine, the motivation is more advanced than the question itself. I can repost the same question on Math Overflow without giving motivation, and my question is answered there. If you look at the answers given in MO, really, having the answer know the motivation does not really help them answer my question.

So the point is: What's the point of trying to insist that every question must have motivation or prior attempt attached? Why are homework questions disallowed on MSE? How does motivation or prior attempt help the answerer answer the question at all?

Remark. By the way, I just rewrote my question on $\mathbb{F}_3$ by deleting redundant hypotheses, and then writing an "attempt" that proves that these hypotheses are redunant. And I moved my examples that helps to explain what the questions mean into my "attempt". Then I got one down-vote reversed.

The thing is that this eager down-voting and closure of questions can discourage honest questioners from posting on Math Stack Exchange.

$\endgroup$
5
  • 11
    $\begingroup$ "Why are homework questions disallowed on MSE?" They aren't. But for reasons that shouldn't need explication, some of us shudder at the thought of users copying our answers to their homework questions and pasting them into their solutions and handing them in as their work, without even bothering to try to understand them. It's not just homework questions, either. Many have attempted to get answers to competition questions, course exams, and entrance exams. A pox upon them! $\endgroup$
    – Gerry Myerson
    Commented Nov 8 at 11:43
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions Go to that post to write each complaint, with justification. $\endgroup$
    – amWhy
    Commented Nov 8 at 19:21
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ 100% in agreement with the OP. It’s all due to some mods’ draconian policies which make the website less about math and more about nonsense. $\endgroup$
    – Cranium Clamp
    Commented Nov 8 at 19:42
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ @CraniumClamp If you want draconian policies, I, personally, would be more than happy to enforce a "no homework" policy. Until then, we have a compromise which makes no one happy. That's a sign of a good compromise, right? $\endgroup$
    – Xander Henderson Mod
    Commented Nov 8 at 20:51
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Gerry, thank you for your rebuke when I was unkind to xxxxxxxxx. It reminded me that they were just trying to help. $\endgroup$
    – Colin Tan
    Commented Nov 9 at 6:38

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
18
$\begingroup$

This meta question is almost certainly a duplicate, but perhaps we have just gotten to the point where we need to have this conversation again every couple of months...

There is no requirement that questions contain "motivation". There is no requirement that questions contain "work shown", or "attempts", or "relevant theorems and definitions". There is a requirement that questions contain context. This is the unsatisfactory compromise reached between two very vocal factions on the site, who I think, at their core, are "homework inclusionists" and "homework exclusionists".

The homework exclusionists are concerned that the value of SE as a repository is reduced when it is possible for people to post questions from their homework assignments (or tests, or competitions, or entrance exams), and then unthinkingly copy those answers and present them as their own work. Moreover, many in this faction likely believe that standard exercises are not useful as part of a repository—how many versions of "How do I evaluate $\int_{a}^{b} f(x)\,\mathrm{d}x$?" (with different $a$, $b$, and standard introductory calculus examples of $f$) do we really need on this site?

The homework inclusionists are less concerned with the repository aspect of the site, and more concerned with the idea of helping users to find answers to their questions. They reasonably argue that it isn't really possible to police cheating, and that the benefits of helping someone acting in good faith outweigh the harms caused by inadvertently helping someone to cheat. Moreover, people unfamiliar with the mathematical topics that they are learning are often ill-equipped to present their questions well, and we should lend a hand to help them up.

These two factions see the site and its goals in fundamentally different ways, and there has been a lot of ink, sweat, and tears shed in bitter arguments between them. The current requirement for CONTEXT (not motivation, not work, not references, but context) is a compromise. Homework questions are not banned, but everyone needs to explain where their questions come from and why anyone should care. As with most compromises, no one is really satisfied.

$\endgroup$
3
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thank you Xander. I have improved my question, adding more context. I hope to write better questions on the site. $\endgroup$
    – Colin Tan
    Commented Nov 9 at 7:12
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ May be this answer should be pinned and/or permafeatured? A balanced overview of the history of the problem. $\endgroup$
    – Jyrki Lahtonen
    Commented Nov 10 at 5:05
  • $\begingroup$ There is also the fact that context is useful to deyermine the level at which answers will be helpful/useful to the person asking. $\endgroup$
    – Arturo Magidin
    Commented Nov 11 at 2:34
7
$\begingroup$

The point is that, as a site, this is not a place to just ask a question and get it answered for your own personal benefit. The goal is to build a catalog of knowledge that can be useful to people that visit the site. I'm not here to do work for you. If you aren't willing to put work in to describing why you are interested in something, what approach you are trying to take, and your current state of knowledge, then

  1. Why should I be interested in solving your problem for you?
  2. How is this interesting for anyone else visiting the site?
  3. In terms of helping me answer it, there are lots of different approaches I can take that may or may not help you understand. It's not very interesting if I just give the answer without explaining where it comes from (maybe it helps you personally, but why should I care about that?).
$\endgroup$
1
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ xxxxxxxx, I apologise for being rude when you replied to my question on MSE. I should have a grateful heart that you showed me the idea to use projective space as a way to simplify the question. I am sorry. $\endgroup$
    – Colin Tan
    Commented Nov 9 at 6:35

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