Commenting on this modification is closed; the modification is not accepted.
Enable comment auto-refresher
This is the other modification that I am uncomfortable with, and my reasons here are quite similar to those I cited for rejecting 2019-0007. Let me raise another problem here, though: say we have a modification that gets accepted after rigorous debate, and everyone thinks that it is excellent. Now, after a few months, a new paper suggests a modification that proposes to replace the former. Assume that at this time the members of the scientonomic community are exceptionally busy and no one bothers to comment/ object to the second modification. This scenario is not as radical as it may seem, since we already have some issues with participation in the comments. If this scenario obtains, then the prior modification would get rejected due to a lack of objections to the latter modification.
Consent by silence/ lack of objection is in my view not an appropriate way for determining what should be accepted. As the imagined case above shows, we are not just dealing with the acceptance of something. We are also dealing with a potential rejection of an already accepted scientonomic claim! All of this could happen because no one said anything. I think this gives undue power to the mechanism of what gets accepted.
I am also uncomfortable with this modification.
Firstly, I fail to see how it meaningfully addresses one issue referenced in the preamble: “Specifically, people may not want to accept the modification, but may not want to object to it explicitly for a variety of reasons. For instance, some people may not wish to be seen as impeding the modification's acceptance.” This concept that the lack of explicit objection not being the same as a total lack of objection/disagreement does not then square well with a procedure to accept by default within a set time limit. I am not sure if having time limits, even if they are apparent and made known within our community, will incentivize explicit objection. The fact that much objection, especially among younger researchers, is implicit (from a Wiki viewer’s standpoint: it was perhaps verbalized in their Research Opportunity Program meetings or a seminar and not recorded on the Wiki), still must be addressed. Further, since acceptance would now be automatic after ~3 months, researchers may be even more reluctant to “impede the modification’s acceptance” now that it would be an automatic process.
As can be seen when looking through Scientowiki, and is addressed in Ameer’s comment, there are times of the year when discussion is more active. This could allow some modifications to garner more discussion than others depending on when they are published and lead to an incorrect understanding of the Scientonomic community’s evaluation of a particular modification.
I think that the amount of ”accept” verdicts on a modification should also be taken into consideration before discussions are closed. We have a clearer record of the community’s rationale to accept a modification that has many comments, all or mostly voting for acceptance, than a modification that has seen no comments at all.
A mechanism for closure is sorely needed, but I think that it needs to be determined based on the actual behaviour of the community itself, not on inaction. Better ways to track opinions that have been made explicit in other forums for Scientonomic discussion, as well as a metric for evaluating the amount and types of comments made on proposed modifications, would help furnish a more suitable and satisfying mechanism for discussion closure.
I agree with both of the previous commentators: this doesn't seem to be the best solution, at least at this stage. In addition to the reasons mentioned by previous commentators, I think the implementation of this modification may result in yet another unwanted consequence: some researchers may end up submitting a negative comment simply for the sake of preventing the automatic acceptance of the modification and stopping the countdown.
You are not allowed to post comments.