Notice: On April 23, 2014, Statalist moved from an email list to a forum, based at statalist.org.
From | Nick Cox <njcoxstata@gmail.com> |
To | statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu |
Subject | Re: st: Claims of urgency |
Date | Tue, 4 Oct 2011 18:48:21 +0100 |
Specifically, http://www.stata.com/statalist/archive/2010-04/msg00022.html explains the addition of this advice, and echoes exactly what I said here about the way it was done. Nick On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 6:37 PM, Nick Cox <njcoxstata@gmail.com> wrote: > Douglas (and others) can clearly express opinions on this or any other > matter -- and if a strong > consensus emerges we will consider changing advice in the FAQ. > > For the moment, I will just comment on two factual matters. > > 1. Strictly speaking, Statalist is the property of Marcello Pagano and > we are all his guests. Also, the Statalist FAQ is maintained by me. It > is not clear why Douglas appears to be in any doubt on this point as > it is explained elsewhere in the FAQ to which there is reference here. > Responsibility in a general sense is Marcello's and in a particular > sense for the FAQ is mine. Non-trivial changes to the FAQ typically > entail consultation between Marcello and myself, but there is no > polling of the list. > > 2. This advice on urgency was included a few years ago in response to > several emails claiming urgency and a search of the archives will show > the policy arising occasionally and there being strong support for it. > Of course, we never know until they speak who dissents but has so far > kept quiet. > > Nick > > On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 6:09 PM, Doug Hess <douglasrhess@gmail.com> wrote: >> I'm not sure who decides policies and "principles" on Statalist, but I >> would suggest that the "warning" quoted below be rewritten in a tone >> that is less belittling and less presumptuous. It should be less >> belittling because it currently reads like somebody using what little >> power they have over those in need of assistance to make derogatory >> statements about their affairs. It should be less presumptuous because >> it assumes what others think about people in urgent need. (I would >> also point out that this brings up several interesting questions from >> cognitive psychology, like attribution bias, etc., but that's for >> another day or list.) >> >> -Doug >> >> Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 08:04:46 +0100 >> From: Nick Cox <njcoxstata@gmail.com> >> Subject: st: Claims of urgency >> >> Statalist has an explicit warning about claims of urgency in its FAQ at >> <http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/statalist.html#others> >> >> "Urgency is your concern only Pleas of urgency, desperation, and the >> like are deprecated on Statalist. Your urgency, however compelling, is >> a private matter and does not translate into urgency for other members >> of the list. In fact, labeling your question as urgent is more likely >> to lead to your question being ignored by list members, who know that >> in most cases urgency arises from disorganization. On Statalist, the >> principle of charity is that you answer questions because you are able >> and willing to say something about the question, not because you have >> pity on the questioner." >> >> It is a mystery why you are not aware of that as new members are asked >> to read the FAQ before posting. >> >> It is a fact that most answers to questions are sent very quickly; >> those questions that members do not wish to answer -- usually because >> they are too obscure or too general or because members do not know an >> answer -- do not become easier to answer because it is claimed that >> they are urgent. No amount of apologies will establish that you are a >> special case entitled to subvert or overturn our existing policy. >> > * * For searches and help try: * http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/