[seqfan] Re: Ombudsman needed for OEIS?

Alonso Del Arte alonso.delarte at gmail.com
Thu Jan 27 15:32:58 CET 2011

I just want to emphasize what Klaus said: deletion is carefully considered.

When we can't figure out what the point of a sequence is, we contact the
submitter, by e-mail if necessary. We hope to get an answer like "I was
pondering such and such conjecture and I modified it to see what happens,"
but more likely the answer is "I thought it was cool" or no answer at all.
We can't read someone's mind.

And when we think it's a duplicate, the first editor who first suggests it's
a duplicate doesn't delete it. Nor even the second editor who looks at it
and confirms it's a duplicate.


On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 8:49 AM, peter.luschny <peter.luschny at googlemail.com
> wrote:

> The short answer is: 'No, this is not a good idea.'
> In my eyes it is method to resolve existing conflicts
> which is not adequate to a web based community project.
> My proposal is: Install a list for 'meta'-questions separated
> from this list on which complains can be put forward and
> discussed by all. The 'pink boxes', although public, are too
> hidden and not well suited for that.
> Make the questions open and let the public be the ombudsman.
> The more different views are discussed the more a resolution
> of conflicts becomes likely; at least in the long run and for
> those who are ready to learn from one another.
> Here is a link to an excellent example of what I think is
> the right way to handle things: http://meta.mathoverflow.net/
> It is associated to the perhaps most impressive and successful
> community driven and science related web project ever.
> Peter
> _______________________________________________
> Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/

More information about the SeqFan mailing list