Not so frequently asked questions

[Nick O]

Why would we ever need to choose between social skills and expertise? This forum is big enough that it's easy to find people with both.

Final communication from me in this thread: just wait. If you see a real problem, and not just the perceived potential for a problem, then say something in private to the staff. Public speculation that there *might* be a problem, but Heaven knows what it may be, is pointless. How do we correct problems that can't be identified or even observed?

 

[Intrastellar]

indeed? Not to say Ī prefer “experts with extremely poor social skills”, but one history where PF resolved a problem in favour of expertise (instead of social skills, Wikipedia’s determined outcome) would convince me better than eloquence.

Incnis Mrsi, if you point out a problem that we did not know it existed, and then PF recognises it and solves it, then we would be really thankful to you.

Exactly as Nick O said, please stick around a bit longer, and if you notice a situation where social skills was favoured rather than expertise, please point it out as soon as possible, we would really appreciate it.

Final communication from me in this thread: just wait. If you see a real problem, and not just the perceived potential for a problem, then say something in private to the staff. Public speculation that there *might* be a problem, but Heaven knows what it may be, is pointless. How do we correct problems that can't be identified or even observed?

 

[AlephZero]

People might like to do a Google search on "Incnis Mrsi". Unless it's a very common name, I think the results were interesting in the context of this this thread.

 

[davenn]

People might like to do a Google search on "Incnis Mrsi". Unless it's a very common name, I think the results were interesting in the context of this this thread.

haha so he comes trolling here instead

 

[Dale]

DaleSpam, as was clear from the context, Ī asked about “science advisors”.

Sure, and I feel that your question about science advisors was well answered by others. I am not attempting to add to their answers.

In the process of asking your question you also made a statement about how scientific communities function. I am addressing that statement, which I believe is incorrect. I know of no study supporting your statement and it is contradicted by all of the anecdotal evidence I have from about 15 years as a member of various scientific communities.

I think that the standard by which you are judging PF is based on a misconception about how scientific communities work.

 

[Incnis Mrsi]

So, if the problem really doesn’t exist here, then PF experts are happy people.

I know of no study supporting your statement and it is contradicted by all of the anecdotal evidence I have from about 15 years as a member of various scientific communities.

I think that the standard by which you are judging PF is based on a misconception about how scientific communities work.

Which statement: about imminent degradation of closed circles? About usefulness of academic supervision? About social beings in Wikipedia who throw the expertise to recycle bin along their own rules? Ī’m sure for each of three points there are peer-reviewed publications (but not in physical journals).

 

[ShayanJ]

the problem

Grammatically you shouldn't use «the» there, because it means all people involved in the conversation know what problem you're referring to, which isn't the case here!

 

[Incnis Mrsi]

Grammatically you shouldn't use «the» there…

Typographically you shouldn’t use guillemets of East European (or Greek?) fashion there because this conversation occurs in English. If DaleSpam, Fredrik, Greg Bernhardt, Evo, Nick O, and montadhar roughly understand what am Ī speaking about and unanimously debunk its existence, then my grammar is successful enough to discard this quibble.

 

[Borg]

Typographically you shouldn’t use guillemets of East European (or Greek?) fashion there because this conversation occurs in English. If DaleSpam, Fredrik, Greg Bernhardt, Evo, Nick O, and montadhar roughly understand what am Ī speaking about and unanimously debunk its existence, then my grammar is successful enough to discard this quibble.

Since your original questions have been answered and everyone has unanimously debunked the existence of what you are speaking of (whatever that means), what is the goal of continuing the thread?

 

[Borek]

what is the goal of continuing the thread?

Good point, no point.