9
$\begingroup$

I'm finding very often that I have the relevant experience to answer a question on math stackexchange, but the poster does not define hardly any of the variables they use in their question. Instead, they refer to some text which usually costs significant amount of money to attain access to. I strongly prefer when they do define the variables used in their question when appropriate, but is that a requirement?

For example, here: Are there maps not homotopic in dga? I need and example because I think it isn´t exist.

I have enough background to answer this question, but it is difficult to understand exactly what is being asked when they just refer to paywalled material and refuse to elaborate. I'm seeing more and more questions in a similar fashion. Should their questions be closed due to lack of information, or is it alright if they say the information is here you simply have to pay for it? I'm sure that people at elite institutions can access any of the material, but that doesn't mean the average internet citizen can. And certainly I won't pay $80 USD simply to answer this person's question..

$\endgroup$
5
  • 10
    $\begingroup$ You could vote to close them as lacking detail. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 31, 2024 at 16:40
  • $\begingroup$ But is it justification that the detail exists somewhere? That they are 'using the definitions from so and so reference', where that reference costs money to access? I understand if the reference is free, but what if the reference is not free but a paid textbook? I've seen this as a growing trend on the site $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 31, 2024 at 16:44
  • 12
    $\begingroup$ I don't understand your question. If it lacks a definition, it lacks details; it needs to be closed as such. In short: such questions are not welcome. That said, if the definitions are standard, then that's permissible. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 31, 2024 at 16:59
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Understood - so essentially a question needs to be reasonably well-defined, and those definitions requiring it to be well-defined cannot come from a single paywalled resource. It must be specific enough so that one generally familiar with the area should understand what is being asked, and potentially by linking to various free resources or the 'general accepted understanding' of a particular topic at the very least. It wouldn't be acceptable to use a specific set of definitions and refer to them by a resource which cannot be accessed freely. Thank you. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 31, 2024 at 17:02
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Voting to close due to lack of context fits this scenario well, Snared, as lack of, or ambiguous definitions are essential to understanding the context of the question. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 31, 2024 at 20:26

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
21
$\begingroup$

Questions need to be self-contained (up to standard definitions). If a question lacks a definition, it lacks details; it need to be closed as such.

You're right: such questions should not be (and are not) welcome here.

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

A link to pay-walled publications might be useful in providing context (e.g. for where the OP encountered a problem), but a reasonably self-contained problem statement (setup and goal) is required quite apart from providing context.

Even so the post should state the author(s) and title of such a publication, so that Readers can make a decision about whether to follow the link.

As @Shaun says closing for lack of details/clarify would be appropriate if the problem statement is not reasonably self-contained. Possibly the OP's need for help in understanding the definition lies at the heart of their real difficulty.

In this specific Question the OP edited to provide clarification requested in the Comments, and the result seems to be content that doesn't depend on any pay-walled content and was answered. I think restoring a mention of the motivating publication would be an improvement.

$\endgroup$
-2
$\begingroup$

I think that an average internet citizen can not, and, moreover, should not answer a question which they could not understand. All the terminology in the question under scrutiny is standard, and known to anyone who can give a reasonable answer to it.

If you don't even know the meaning of the words comprising the question, why are you feeling competent enough to attempt giving an answer to this question?

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Because the variables mean different things in different contexts? Because... variables? $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 14, 2024 at 1:48

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.