Coming back to post #5, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
Evidence synthesis requests: if you think a page should summarise the state of evidence on a question, and you think the information exists but is scattered, suggest how it could be brought together.
On post #34 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Evidence synthesis requests: if you think a page should summarise the state of evidence on a question, and you think the information exists but is scattered, suggest how it could be brought together.
This follows post #43 rather than contradicting it.
I disagree with the reply above, and I think the disagreement is substantive rather than terminological.
The distinction being drawn does not survive when you look at the published data for this specific question. I would be glad to be shown wrong on this, because the version I am arguing against is more convenient.
Worth separating two things that post #74 runs together.
Citation checking: if a maintained page cites a paper, the citation should match what the paper actually says. If you notice a mismatch, post it here.
Coming back to post #83, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
Evidence synthesis requests: if you think a page should summarise the state of evidence on a question, and you think the information exists but is scattered, suggest how it could be brought together.
This follows post #113 rather than contradicting it.
For anyone arriving from a search: the marked solution above is the direct answer, and the replies underneath it add the caveats that make it safe to use.
Revision disputes: if you disagree with an edit a maintainer made to a page, discuss it here. The goal is accuracy and clarity, not authorship.
Read the full topic (130 posts)
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Review: a draft on reconstitution arithmetic, with objections — one year on
Review: a draft on reconstitution arithmetic, with objections — one year on Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Nominating something for promotion into the…
|
+46 | 51 | 11k | 20h |
|
A promotion I argued against, and why I lost
Posting this under the heading it deserves: A promotion I argued against, and why I lost Everything below is what sits behind that. Nominating something for promotion into the documentation commons. The topic…
|
+148 | 162 | 3.9k | 16mo |
|
Revisiting: Review: an evidence digest and the citation check that delayed it
Revisiting: Review: an evidence digest and the citation check that delayed it — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Nominating something for promotion into the documentation…
|
+54 | 58 | 8.2k | 5mo |
|
Promotion criteria, and the one that stops most nominations
Promotion criteria, and the one that stops most nominations — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Nominating something for promotion into the documentation commons. The topic…
|
+135 | 146 | 17k | 19mo |
|
A promotion I argued against, and why I lost — a second dataset
A promotion I argued against, and why I lost — a second dataset Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Nominating something for promotion into the documentation…
|
+3 | 7 | 32k | 12h |
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
A revision dispute resolved on the topic rather than in the history
A revision dispute resolved on the topic rather than in the history Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Nominating something for promotion into the documentation…
|
+11 | 15 | 40k | 16h |
|
Request declined, with reasoning
Request declined, with reasoning — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Process question about how this site works. I have read the guidelines and the trust-level page and I…
|
+2 | 6 | 173 | 13mo |
|
A revision dispute resolved on the topic rather than in the history — a second dataset
On the subject in the title: A revision dispute resolved on the topic rather than in the history — a second dataset Working notes rather than a conclusion. Process question about how this site works. I have…
|
+45 | 50 | 33k | 20mo |
|
Coming back to: Recording a dissent on a document rather than suppressing it
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Recording a dissent on a document rather than suppressing it Everything below is what sits behind that. Process question about how this site works. I have read the…
|
+43 | 47 | 11k | 16mo |
|
What happens when a maintainer goes quiet
The question in the title: What happens when a maintainer goes quiet I will give what I have already checked below so nobody repeats it. Nominating something for promotion into the documentation commons. The…
|
+3 | 7 | 13k | 2.1y |