12

One important property of a good answer is that people have reason to be confident in its correctness. We need a reason to believe that the answerer's premises and reasoning are valid, and references are a good way of validating the premises and reasoning in an answer. Most people here seem to agree that references should be required for an answer, but I ...


11

I respectfully disagree. There are plenty of places on the Internet to get "chatty" about politics. We're trying to do something different. Many folks felt that Politics could not work within the Stack Exchange format. We saw it as a wonderful opportunity to create a unique resource that hasn't already been done thousands of times by every other site on the ...


8

If you make a genuine attempt to steelman an opposing side's argument in the premise of your question, it may make it seem less biased. It may also help you to dis-invest your ego from your political position and open your mind to learn from the perspectives you haven't considered.


7

References help avoid needless disputes, and are appropriate whenever users are relaying facts, findings, and ideas which did not originate with them. References are very useful, since a user might be misquoting something, or have misunderstood what it means; or it might be an authoritative reference that leaves little in doubt, or at least less doubt than ...


6

Promoting Balance I think a major potential issue for this site is going to be bias - in fact, quickly after opening in private beta form somewhat ranting questions pushing towards a bias were posted. As such, I think we need to make it clear that as well as discouraging opinionated questions and answers, we try to keep them fairly balanced and discourage ...


5

I think that this designation is being used when the question is framed in a more rhetorical than inquisitive manner, not just for being partisan. If a question is framed with a host of not-necessarily-so assumptions that only lead to a single conclusion (sometimes followed by the OP posting their desired answer and then selecting it as best answer). We've ...


5

Remove Unnecessary Information Questions closed as partisan often contain unnecessary background information. While this information is at time useful, including too much of it can focus away from your question and place it on the quality of your background info. Try editing out this information to focus attention where it should be - on the question. ...


4

My main issue with questions that are easily answered by Wikipedia - or any other equally easily discoverable reference site - is that they are absolutely boring. On all other Stack Exchange sites I participate, requiring people to do at least some minimal research before they ask is an essential part of the culture. We sugar coat it, we tell people that ...


3

Thanks for joining us on Meta! Why we reference All stacks have an on-going concern with providing high-quality answers to users. Accordingly, every Stack I've seen uses the back-it up principle. Each site tailors this principle to its own environment. Here, one of the chief concerns is that there is a very low entry to barrier. Most people don't believe ...


3

It think the problem is the questions that are being allowed. The boilerplate FAQ states: You should only ask practical, answerable questions based on actual problems that you face. Chatty, open-ended questions diminish the usefulness of our site and push other questions off the front page. We are getting quite a few questions that seem designed to ...


1

You are referring the English wikipedia only. But in such matters as history or politics, just make the effort of visiting the same page in other languages, and you could be surprised how different they can be. Wikipedia shouldn't be trusted when it comes to such themes as history and politics. And it's not the Wikipedia, but Wikipedias. Just take such ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible