8

So my first question was put on-hold because it didn't fit site guidelines about there needing to be a published study making the claim I'm asking about.

The mod is right--there aren't a lot of studies published about homeschooling. But do I really need a published study to tell me that some people believe this viewpoint even when I know that we've literally all heard this before?

Can there be a "question's claim is obvious" exception to this site rule? Or am I misunderstanding this site?


Update: It seems that ChrisW's addition of a study on my question has gotten in reopened. Though I still wonder if it would have remained closed without his edit.

| |
6

Wow. I am normally in a distant timezone to the bulk of our users. This affords me the luxury of editing slowly. In this case, I was awake at an unusual hour. I didn't realise there would be so much activity!

I was browsing on my phone, on the way to my desktop, when I first saw the question. I put the first version of the question on hold, and planned to do more research, post a welcome message, and either fix the question or give clear reasons for the closure, just a few minutes later, on my desktop, where there is a much better keyboard and larger screen(s).

By the time I got to it, there was an edit to make it notable, a flag to re-open and a meta-question.

I happily re-opened it.

I'll be more careful when I edit at 5 am on a weekday!

| |
  • 5
    Oh, and for the record: Notability references do NOT need to be published articles. People posting on forums, popular tweets, Facebook posts, memes, adverts, etc. are all sufficient. – Oddthinking Apr 7 '15 at 7:52
  • 4
    It speaks well of a site when a moderator admits an oversight ☺ – LCIII Apr 9 '15 at 12:58
  • It speaks poorly of a site when a mod offloads this verbiage onto us :-( – Martin F Apr 12 '15 at 5:59
  • 4
    @MartinF: I am unclear what your concern is. Would you care to elaborate? – Oddthinking Apr 12 '15 at 8:23
4

The question has already been reopened.

We already have a rule not to put on hold questions which are obviously about notable topics, and to tell you more, "obviously notable" is defined as: "a quick Google search finds many results asserting the claim".

Clearly the mod in question must have not found much. It happens. In these cases a couple of more users chiming in and confirming will get the question quickly reopened.

Sorry if the rules are weird, but we get a lot of random questions we can't answer, and generally closing sooner is better than closing after answers or upvotes have been dished out.

| |
4

In this topic I asked whether it's necessary to post a reference with every question:

Must every questioned 'notable claim' include a referenced citation with a quote?

The accepted answer to that was "no": that a reference is often useful, but that sometimes there can be a (well-known) "notable claim" without any specific reference.

I thought your topic was notable and that your question should have been accepted without a reference; and the moderator agrees that in this case a reference wasn't strictly necessary (saying that a 'rollback' to the original version of the question would be OK).

| |

You must log in to answer this question.

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