[seqfan] Re: Please be polite and courteous

[Charles Greathouse]

As far as I can tell, all that's being discussed is renaming sequences,
which I don't find objectionable. We're not talking about removing all
sequences from X from the encyclopedia, just about renaming (some of) the
sequences from X to better match our sequence naming policy.

I wouldn't be opposed to a page tracking this sort of thing -- sunlight is
the best of disinfectants, as Brandeis famously said -- but we shouldn't
make more out of this than what it is, essentially an editorial function.

Charles Greathouse
Case Western Reserve University

On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 4:14 PM, <bradklee at gmail.com> wrote:

> Is there a policy for purging ?
>
> I'm worried about precedents and slippery slope. Example:
>
> Kid A contributes a range of sequences with some relation to Elliptic
> functions. Then, someone in a higher class says: "These sequences are done
> better by Jacobi, Weierstrass, Bell, etc. The contributions of Kid A are
> _clear as mud_. We can use the same purge algorithm as we used for
> Smarandache, to erase all contributions from Kid A."
>
> A purge is sometimes sold on the basis of "hygiene" or returning property
> and real estate to the "rightful" owner. Buyer beware!
>
> In the case of Smarandache-integers 1,2,3,4,5... I don't think we are
> talking about fascist-style victimization when suggesting deletions. The
> argument against Kid A needs more scrutiny than one, possibly biased,
> opinion.
>
> If OEIS starts purging, one idea is to produce a reasonable document, in
> legal-language, with explicit citations, explaining the justification for a
> purge to the public via the wiki. This document should not be considered an
> authoritative proclamation, rather an entreat to oversight.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Brad
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 3, 2017, at 1:54 PM, David Wilson <davidwwilson at comcast.net>
> wrote:
> >
> > I'm guessing NJAS's request was at least in part directed toward me
> concerning my recent post about Smarandache, toward whom I was not
> particularly kind or PG-13, which post it appears you may happily never get
> to read.
> >
> > At any rate, to summarize the meat of the post in less offensive terms,
> I am all for wiping the OEIS of any reference to Smarandache. This would at
> once raise the overall quality of the OEIS and assist the general
> readership by not pointing them toward questionable source materials.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/
>
> --
> Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/
>