[seqfan] Re: R: Ombudsman needed for OEIS?
berselli.bruno at yahoo.it
Thu Jan 27 15:51:08 CET 2011
I said that the editors are anyhow doing a good job (good and difficult) and I really appreciate it. But sometimes I had doubts or perplexity, I admit it, and I did not understand the choices made.
Thanks for all ;)
--- Gio 27/1/11, Klaus Brockhaus <klaus-brockhaus at t-online.de> ha scritto:
Da: Klaus Brockhaus <klaus-brockhaus at t-online.de>
Oggetto: Re: [seqfan] R: Ombudsman needed for OEIS?
A: "Sequence Fanatics Discussion list" <seqfan at list.seqfan.eu>
Cc: "Bruno Berselli" <berselli.bruno at yahoo.it>, "Klaus Brockhaus" <klaus-brockhaus at t-online.de>
Data: Giovedì 27 gennaio 2011, 13:01
Let's treat complete entries and proposed additions separately.
In each single case rejection or deletion of an entry was supported by at least three editors, there was a discussion (pink comments) where everyone could have stepped in, and possible later doubts were invalidated. Counterexamples are welcome.
With proposed additions at least two (mostly more) editors are concerned and there is always a discussion where everyone can take part. In doubtful cases the editors presumably often spend more time on the proposal than the author. It can happen that the editors become impatient, e.g. if the author does not respond to questions or obviously does not care about what is going on in the discussion. Human reactions on the part of the editors have to be conceded. The final decision can be wrong. If in a specific case you come to the conclusion - after careful scrutiny of the proposal and the discussion - that a rejection was in fact wrong, you can encourage the author to re-submit a well-devised and well-founded version of the proposal. That's no problem at all.
My resumé: an ombudsman is not necessary; I even surmise that the institution of an ombudsman would be rather harmful than helpful.
All the best,
PS: I suggest to think about the needle in the haystack in connection with information.
Am 26.01.2011 17:47, schrieb Bruno Berselli:
> Neil ;) I too believe that this is a good idea! The role of the ombudsman that you suggest is surely necessary and important. I personally am quite satisfied with your editors, but I do propose few sequences while I mainly integrate existing ones. However, I must admit that sometimes I have seen contributions submitted by other authors deleted without any objective reason, at least in my humble opinion, and deletions were (and this also is my feeling) conditioned by the personal taste of those who check and approve the contributions. Of course the material sent to Oeis is quantitatively high and certainly it isn’t easy to follow it all properly, therefore I had sometimes the feeling that a certain sequence or relation had been hurriedly 'branded' as contrived, trivial etc.
> To me it’s extremely important to bear in mind that Oeis is also an encyclopaedia and it is therefore enriched by information, and I believe that every entry should contain all those available and known.
> Your editors are anyhow doing a good job, but I’d like to welcome here the ombudsman!
More information about the SeqFan