[seqfan] Re: R: Ombudsman needed for OEIS?

[Charles Greathouse]

I still support the idea of an ombudsman, but I would like to point
out that Klaus is right when he says

> In doubtful cases the editors presumably often spend more time
> on the proposal than the author.

which is a real concern, considering how outnumbered the editors are
by the contributors!

Charles Greathouse
Analyst/Programmer
Case Western Reserve University

On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 8:01 AM, Klaus Brockhaus
<klaus-brockhaus at t-online.de> wrote:
>  Bruno,
>
> I disagree.
> 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,
>                    Klaus
>
> 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!
>> Ciao,
>>  Bruno
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/
>