A proposal to finalize the "are real world questions on-topic" debate

Question

If you would like to discuss this or explain disagreements, or want clarification please feel free to join this chatroom.

The moderators have discussed the recent re-invigoration of the on or off topic debate regarding real world phenomenon. We have looked at a large number of questions that appeared on meta (list at the bottom of this post) over the last couple years and reviewed questions on main that have driven the conversation to crop up again and again.

To baseline: The Worldbuilding site description:

Worldbuilding Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for writers, artists and others using science, geography and culture to construct imaginary worlds and settings. It's built and run by you as part of the Stack Exchange network of Q&A sites. With your help, we're working together to build a library of detailed answers to every question about worldbuilding.

If the community is in agreement with the following post, we will mark it on meta and update the tour/help pages with the relevant information...good reading to you all.

Our conclusion, and we would like the community’s feedback, is that questions regarding real world stuff are on-topic.

---

Reasoning:

• Understanding how the real world works is the best and frankly only option we have for comparison to what we are trying to create.
• Understanding the real world allows us to make alterations to reality in creating an imaginary world

We have many questions about history, culture, physics, chemistry and other topics that are asking for a comparison or background information from reality for aid in developing our imaginary worlds. This is acceptable and has always been on topic even if it has been often debated.

"But wait! Shouldn’t we tell people to post orbital mechanics questions on Physics, or Astronomy?!"

Well... Maybe, but it should be noted in most cases the author chooses the site where they would like to post the question, this means they intentionally chose Worldbuilding over another site and that should be respected.

Caveat: Members are certainly welcome to suggest via comment that a post may get better answers on one of the other sites in the network. There is nothing wrong with the suggestion and its always possible someone didn't know. That said, being on-topic on another site does not make a question off-topic for Worldbuilding.

Worldbuilding as a whole is very very (etc) broad. In an old meta post a network user commented that:

To a zeroth-order approximation, everything goes on World Building.

And this makes sense. The universe is big ^{(citation needed)} and discussing it requires a bit of everything which is what makes Worldbuilding so unique.

---

With all that said we still have to have expectations and standards, it can't just be a free for all.

Considerations when asking a question relating to the real world:

• Provide context. Giving other users context around why you are asking the question allows them to better understand why you are asking and what kind of answer you want.
• Attempt to do your own research. If a quick google search will answer your question it may not be worth posting a question on the site. Generally, querents are expected to demonstrate what has been tried and why it was not sufficient or did not work. This too helps people answering understand what you are trying to accomplish as well as your level of knowledge on the topic.
• Define your requirements and by what you will judge answers.

Questions that fail to adequately meet these requirements may be placed on hold even if they are not, "off-topic."

Considerations when answering questions related to the real world:

• Don't pre-judge a user's knowledge base. Not everyone on World Building has the same level of knowledge on every topic we discuss. Just because you may consider a particular question simple does not mean that another user will understand. As an example James once asked this question. Prior to comments being deleted several users were annoyed that a high rep user asked such a basic question, it assumed a level of knowledge that James did not have.
• Don't answer questions that are not fully formed/adequately explained. We often see users, even experienced/high reputation users answering questions that are not fully formed. Take the time to comment and don't feel bad about putting questions on hold/or flagging to be put on hold. This helps discourage bad questions and teaches users how to ask better questions. Mods are not immune either, we make mistakes like anyone else and we are not exempt from being flagged.
• Don't use close-votes as super down-votes. Closures and down votes don't always go together.

---

References:

Resolving the "real world" problem?

Is a "real world" question off topic?

How do we feel about questions where the answer is "it exists in the real world?"

Is WorldbuildingSE suitable for writers whose works are, more or less, realistic?

Is the "international waters" question on-topic?

Should the help center be updated to specifically list real world history questions as off topic?

How do we feel about questions where the answer is "it exists in the real world?"

More reading if you're into that

Answer 1

I am in total agreement with this. One minor point is that there needs to be room for differences of opinion and subjective view, even with the "bad questions".

Regarding

Don’t answer questions that are not fully formed/adequately explained. We often see users, even experienced/high reputation users answering questions that are not fully formed.

I've seen a couple questions where a user has asked a question, and gotten feedback like "Not sure what you're asking", when the question was crystal clear as I understood it.

I've also seen a few where I just didn't get it until I read someone elses answer, and then the question suddenly made sense. It can go both ways, but we shouldn't just let our own ignorance lead us to jump to the conclusion that a question is bad.
Maybe try to seek clarification before jumping on the close button, even if it's just asking in chat if anyone else can explain it better.
We have to remember that there are people here from all over the world, and who's primary language is not english. Getting the wording right might be hard for someone with a high concept question and limited vocabulary.

Answer 2

For the record I'm against this change (let's call it a liberalization of policy). However if this is to be adopted I strongly feel we need formal rules and "reasons to close" which at least try and prevent opening the floodgates. So ...

We're going to need a "No Prior Research" reason to close.

Welcome to the homework dumping website.

I'm afraid that this change would open us up to every single "homework-type" question that most of the sites (like Physics, Mathematics ) would reject as not having enough prior research.

Note that Physics has an explicit rule about a requirement for basic research to be done by the OP and to be demonstrated in the question. You can't just say "I tried everything" - that's not enough.

Here's what the Physics SE rule says :

"Homework-like questions should ask about a specific physics concept and show some effort to work through the problem. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See our meta site for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better"

We would need to modify that to something like :

"What-If ... ?" style questions should show some effort to research the problem before asking on Worldbuilding SE. We're happy to help users with specific issues beyond their ability, but a basic effort to seek a solution using common resources (like Wikipedia) is expected. Users need to ask questions which can provide answers of reasonable length and not simply try to offload their own research to Wordlbuilding."

We probably needs to add an explicit statement about homework.

"Homework questions are explicitly off topic. Like other SE sites we do not do homework or check answers on Woirldbuilding SE."

A more difficult question is whether we should allow questions asking about personal theories. I feel this is would be opening the floodgates to nonsense. Again Physics SE explicitly makes personal theory questions off-topic.

Answer 3

I am in agreement with this, and am thrilled with worldbuilding accepting this stance. It also makes the site mesh better with other sites. Regarding:

Caveat: Members are certainly welcome to suggest via comment that a post may get better answers on one of the other sites in the network. There is nothing wrong with the suggestion and its always possible someone didn't know. That said, being on-topic on another site does not make a question off-topic for Worldbuilding.

For a small site such as engineering.stackexchange.com, about one-fourth of the questions on the site come from someone attempting to design a device for a story using real-world engineering principles. These questions have been ruled off-topic for various reasons, even when they have really interesting applications. Unfortunately, before worldbuilding we had no place to send those users. This made for a terrible user interaction for new visitors.

The typical route I take when seeing a good "what-if...?" question on engineering these days has been to route directly to worldbuilding. Since there is no practical application, or testing, and the initial conditions are wild, this site lends itself well to resolve real-world designs without getting into excessively complex models. Overall it is more interesting when we can use unobtanium as a potential material of construction, something which is never allowed in engineering - but perfectly reasonable in worldbuilding.

Worldbuilding solving real-world problems helps the science sites stay a reasonable resource for minds seeking real solutions to real problems. Simultaneously, this allows users access to engineering, astrophysics, physics, and other scientific models to solve unique, fun puzzles and inquiries.

Answer 4

I agree.

Questions about the real world need a worldbuilding context or they will get closed as off-topic.

and

Questions that can be answered with a quick search on a search engine will get closed as (insert new close reason here).

These needs to be mentioned in the help center somewhere, to get rid of the current ambiguity of the rules.

This is nothing new except we change the down-vote to a close-vote for the trivial questions. This is already more or less what we have been doing for a while. By including this in the help center, we would be enforcing the unwritten opinion of a majority of members that has emerged over a certain period of time on the site. It will reduce the confusion we create when referring new members to the help center.

Answer 5

The best WB questions have some or all of these attributes

There isn't one single qualifier or disqualifier for a good, on-topic WB question. It's a constellation of factors. This is why I believe it's been so hard to figure out what is on-topic and what isn't. As I've thought about this problem, I keep running into criteria where I think "Yes, good WB questions have that attribute...yeah, but..."

Combinatorial - Combine systems or elements of systems into new systems or new properties of those systems.

Speculative - The question must include some kind of speculation about things that we don't know about how the system works.

About a System (very broad definition of a system) - The operation of single elements, much like the actions of a single person, don't belong here.

Novel - Please make it new.

Abstract - The nitty gritty details of the answer don't matter, or they can be handwaved.

Not advocating doing dangerous things - Knowing how to do a dangerous/evil thing is different than doing it or advocating that it be done. We have tons of genocide questions on WB but no one advocates that genocide be done. If we have reasonable cause to believe that someone would take dangerous actions based on what we provide, that should be off-topic.

Not homework

Not trivial - Google can't give you the answer to this question.

Always with the Exceptions

Except for the trivial and the homework questions, anyone of us can find fantastic WB questions that offer magnificent exceptions. For example, every single hard-science question cares a lot about the details and often in great specificity. But, note that these hard-science questions are often combinatorial, novel, and about a system. It is all the other attributes that make them good WB questions instead of off-topic.

The relationship between all these criteria are fuzzy. Some are weighted heavier than others. Some are necessary but insufficient (I'm not sure any of them are necessary and sufficient to be a good WB question.) However, the more of these criteria a question has, the stronger its position as a good, on-topic WB question.

What do we want WB to be?

We shouldn't be someone's homework service. I will not be someone's homework service. I want us to be the place that people come for fantastic answers to questions that require novel reasoning about known systems. I want us to be the place where people come to get help with imaginary worlds. Being a repository for useful information about the real world is tertiary to helping people reason about their imaginary worlds. If answering questions about how the real world works and this function impares people's ability to propose and reason about their worlds, then I would vote that real world questions are off-topic.

We aren't an encyclopedia and I don't want to become one.

I don't want us to become the dumping ground of bad questions for all of Stack Exchange either.

Answer 6

I agree that being real world does not make question automatically off-topic. At the same time, it does not make automatically it on-topic.

Answer to Should we finally allow reality checks of other plot elements? was -7 score and I believe that's the way it should stay - NO.

Adding "because I want this to happen in my world", or "This C# problem is common in my little setting of an IT corporation" should not allow to count such questions as on-topic.

Answer 7

After 4.5 years of experiencing this polity, my beliefs are no longer reflected by this answer. Please see this answer for details. Thank you. -JBH

---

Hallelujah!

I applaud and approve the effort as stated. I'm not as concerned about whether or not any particular rule meets my personal standard of happiness as I am concerned that rules are clear and consistent.

For the reader's edification as all may not understand all the ins-and-outs of this issue...

Up/Down Voting: Up/Down voting is intended to reflect a question's quality. This includes lack of research. Inevitably this will be used to reflect question popularity, which means a badly formed or researched question may have an enormously positive score. This is unfortunate, because SE has automation in place that detects when OPs submit too many negatively-received questions that leads to warnings and finally banning. When not used properly, this system is effectively circumvented. In an ideal-but-I'll-never-see-it world, you never up-vote a question simply because you're interested in the subject of the question.

Favorite: This is, IMO, the most underused and misunderstood link in the entire SE system. THIS is what you're supposed to click if the subject matter of the question is of interest to you.

Close Voting: Close voting reflects the potential for a question to result in answers that are out of control. Insofar as I'm concenred, if a person cannot point to a specific bullet in the Help Center that explains the VTC, it should not be cast. No VTC should be cast because the voter believes the question violates the spirit or intent of the site. That is far too subjective! It even suggests VTCs that are themselves POB.

Put on Hold: If there were a way to brand into people's heads the difference between VTH (vote to hold) and VTC (vote to close) I would do it. Unfortunately, the two issues use the same mechanism and are universally referred to as "VTC." Questions put on hold are meant to motivate the OP to improve the question and are, therefore, meant to be reopened (always assuming the OP is improving). There are three VTH reasons:

1. Unclear What You're Asking

• Resulting answers will be all over the map, basically addressing every perspective but the OP's because nobody really understood what the OP wanted.

2. Too Broad

• Resulting answers must be massive to address the entire question, making the result nearly useless for posterity. Stack Exchange is not a discussion forum and is best used using its one-specific-question-one-best-answer model.

3. Primarily Opinion-Based (POB).

• No answer can be deemed any better than another because there is insufficient restricting, limiting, or defining criteria. By the way (and just because someone did it recently) you cannot VTH a question as POB when that question has been tagged with the hard-science tag. A hard-science question is not POB by definition.

There are two general VTC reasons and four in total. Questions are closed because their nature is adverse to the intent of the site or do not add to the database of information in a way that's useful. One of them is (IMO) the reason for James' post:

1. Duplicate Question
2. Off-Topic: Does not appear to be about WB per the Help Center
3. Off-Topic: Story-based
4. Off-Topic: Belongs on another SE site

Off-Topic: Belongs on another SE site

This VTC reason doesn't make sense to many people because they don't understand how SE works. It's ONLY purpose is to identify a question that should be moved to Worldbuilding Meta — and not to any other site on the network. Therefore, it should really read, "Off-Topic: Belongs on Meta."

It helps to understand that you can't simply force a question onto another SE site. Each site can reject incoming migration requests and has their own rules about what they will and won't accept. That makes using the existing Off-Topic condition very confusing because it suggests pretty much the opposite. Because you cannot guarantee the migration, you cannot simply close for that purpose. (Flagging for moderator attention and identifiying the migration target is much more valuable, if migration really is warranted.)

It is my understanding that other sites could be listed under this VTC reason, but rarely are due to the problems mentioned. I'd rather see it renamed to focus on migrating to Meta.

Off-Topic: Too Story-Based

This exists because our purpose is NOT to write the OP's story for them. Our goal is to help the OP develop a consistently usable world in which any story could be placed. The moment it becomes a question of how one story can be placed, it's too story-based. This is why questions about one character (regardless the nature of that character) are off-topic as too story-based. The moment you ask how Herman would solve a problem in your world, you're asking us to write your book, not help develop your world (even if the answer could be used to develop your world).

TL;DR... Off-Topic: Does not appear to be about WB...

This is the VTC reason that desperately needs clarification because it is subject to too many opinions — especially opinions about what "worldbuilding" is.

I consider James' question and the moderators' efforts to be a valuable first-step to improving this overly abused VTC reason. There are existing rules on this page (the bullets following "...not about:") that are the only rules we have for closing a question for this reason. I do not mind (and even look forward to) the improvement of these rules — but until they are improved, they are the only non-subjective reasons for VTC:Off-Topic:NA/WB that we have.

My thanks to the moderators for discussing and tackling this issue.

Answer 8

I have had a number of questions that I have had to fight to have remain open because they were real-world questions, "Not about Worldbuilding", and I had to explain in the question at some length that yes, they were about this world, but the answer provided details of the way that the world could change afterwards.

One example is: How long can New York City sustain the Snakebot of Doom's hunger for Iron and steel?. I had to edit this question extensively to show why I was asking it before the tide of close votes on the grounds of not being about Worldbuilding would stop... but if it had been considered on-topic, it might have been answered much sooner, and with less effort on my part.

While it may be interesting to know why a question is asked, sometimes knowing why doesn't help answer the question, and it could just as easily be answered regardless. This question received questions in comments about Jormungandr recycling its own ammunition. I already knew that it was not possible, and had accounted for that fact in my original question, and had I not had to mention why I was asking the question, that counter-question would never have come up.

So... while mentioning the Worldbuilding rationale behind a question can be educational for other worldbuilders, there should be no requirement that a question educate its readers about its author's Worldbuilding process. Sometimes a question's author needs a question answered quickly, and explaining himself just so the question will remain open is otherwise a waste of time.

Answers, on the other hand, should demonstrate something that contributes to the Worldbuilding process.

So... TL/DR: I vote that Yes, real-world questions should be on topic.

Answer 9

I'm in favour of this.

I personally see no problem with 'real world' questions. Just because this site is about world building doesn't mean that everyone is building a completely fantasy or sci-fi world.

The way I see it practically no work of fiction is set in the real world, they are just set in a world that is almost identical to it. So as long as you are asking questions about the setting and not the story (which can be a tricky line to draw) then they should be on topic here.

I think the idea that we will get a flood of users coming here to ask how to change a light bulb or open a bank account is overly pessimistic. The kind of people who are likely to ask those questions are the ones who won't have read the rules or meta discussions anyway, so changing them won't encourage or discourage them.

Prior research is important, and I like the idea that there should maybe be a close reason based on that, as well as context. Explaining why you want / need to know something in the context of your wider setting can make it clearer that the question is on topic and relevant (and guide people to make more relevant answers).

Answer 10

Still a NO

It's been about four years since I first answered this question in the negative. I deleted it (for reasons I no longer remember), so am going to try again. I've reviewed the query (totally not coincidental to JBH's recent review of his own perspectives!) and all the responses and some of the related questions. I'm still not in favour of opening WB up to purely real world questions. I also think the "considerations" are a little weakly worded and will not actually help.

Why we're here.
First, foremost, and always, this forum is focused on the making of fictional worlds. That's our foundational raison d'etre. It's the one concept we should keep in mind whenever considering any kind of rule, policy, or custom. If a rule or policy change does not promote worldbuilding as an art, an activity, a concept within our community of querents and respondents --- let alone in wider SE community and beyond --- then it should be considered a bad change. All questions here should thus share this focus on the querent's world as it is in progress. Real world queries as such shift the focus from the fictional to the real and thus away from the world being created.

I agree with the principles (under Reasoning) that we have to understand the real world in order create the unreal world. However, Worldbuilding is not the place to learn that. Querents should come here with questions that deal with the application of real world knowledge --- how knowledge can be wrought into something new --- rather than questions seeking real world knowledge. The only exception to this, I'd argue, is a really good question looking for resources. This is because we do have resources here in Meta that I think we can do better to showcase.

Basically, if the question is typologically "I have a fictional world; please tell me how the real world works", it ought to be off topic here. We need to be focusing on why we're here, and it's all about the other world.

If the question is "I have a fictional world and I'm trying to fit this piece of real world knowledge into the fictional setting, but I can't quite figure out how the pieces go together", then that's a question we can help with, and is on topic.

Dumping Grounds
It's an old concern that is as valid now as it ever was. We've always complained that WB.SE is a place where the science forums dump their difficult queries, where everyone dumps the questions they don't want to deal with, and where people feel free to ask us to do their homework and basic research for them.

Literally, one of this question's answers (Mark's) gleefully shoves this whole dumping ground issue in our faces by outright and joyously crooning that he considers WB to be his usual forum's dumping ground:

I am in agreement with this, and am thrilled with worldbuilding accepting this stance. It also makes the site mesh better with other sites. Regarding:

Caveat: Members are certainly welcome to suggest via comment that a post may get better answers on one of the other sites in the network. There is nothing wrong with the suggestion and its always possible someone didn't know. That said, being on-topic on another site does not make a question off-topic for Worldbuilding.

For a small site such as engineering.stackexchange.com, about one-fourth of the questions on the site come from someone attempting to design a device for a story using real-world engineering principles. These questions have been ruled off-topic for various reasons, even when they have really interesting applications. Unfortunately, before worldbuilding we had no place to send those users. This made for a terrible user interaction for new visitors.

The typical route I take when seeing a good "what-if...?" question on engineering these days has been to route directly to worldbuilding. Since there is no practical application, or testing, and the initial conditions are wild, this site lends itself well to resolve real-world designs without getting into excessively complex models. Overall it is more interesting when we can use unobtanium as a potential material of construction, something which is never allowed in engineering - but perfectly reasonable in worldbuilding.

Worldbuilding solving real-world problems helps the science sites stay a reasonable resource for minds seeking real solutions to real problems. Simultaneously, this allows users access to engineering, astrophysics, physics, and other scientific models to solve unique, fun puzzles and inquiries.

With all due respect, no, it's actually not our purpose to solve unique fun puzzles that actual engineers don't want to deal with. I'm so sorry that new members over on Engineering had a terrible time in your forum, but it's actually not our purpose to entertain those questions either!

Possible Solutions
I'd argue that, if anything, the situation Mark cites is indication of a clear need for a 'FunScience' or 'Science-lite' forum here on SE. A place where folks can ask the purely theoretical & hypothetical queries that fit neither WB nor Engineering. Such a forum would remove the burden of "real world questions" from Worldbuilding, and would remove the burden of "hypothetical questions" from Engineering & Physics.

In the mean time, the only viable solution that solves both of these issues AND maintains our uniqueness of perspective is to make "real world questions" off topic, unless there is clearly a worldbuilding connexion.

The only viable way to get the two camps to mingle successfully is to allow only the minimum amount of real world questions in this forum. This could be done by providing for very clear expectations for what's allowed. Under "Considerations when asking a question relating to the real world", there has to be more than just simple context. The question really has to be than an elaborate set-up without any connection to the fictional world itself.

Answer 11

December 26, 2022

After 4.5 years of experience with this policy, my opinion is no longer completely reflected by either of my answers to this post. It can be better stated as this:

• A Real World question is on-topic for Worldbuilding.SE when a worldbuilding condition is provided that separates the question from the Real World.

In other words, a question that asks, "A 1,000 tonne comet is accelerated to 90% the speed of light. It passes within 1,000 km of Earth. How does that affect Earth's orbit?" would, IMO, pass the expectations for a Real World question on this Stack because while the answer reflects 100% Real World science, it's a situation we humans simply don't experience (and haven't experienced, that we know of). In short, the "Real World" includes the experience of humanity, and asking for something outside that experience would constitute worldbuilding.

On the other hand, asking "What would happen if a 10 tonne meteor hits Tunguska, Russia?" should be, IMO, off-topic because simple research into similar meteor impacts that have happened within human experience (aka, it really is a 100% Real Life question) answers the question or there are other Stacks dedicated to specifically this kind of question that should be receiving it.

---

Original Answer

In relation to this question.

L.Dutch said in a comment, "I am missing the worldbuilding element in your question, it sounds like a hobby bob question, and as such better suited for the dedicated SE. Can you clarify the worldbuilding problem you are asking us to solve?"

The question was subsequently closed as off-topic:not about worldbuilding.

When I asked why and pointed to this post, Secepitus directed me to the following bullet point from the above post:

• Provide context. Giving other users context around why you are asking the question allows them to better understand why you are asking and what kind of answer you want.

From my perspective, the problem is solved by including the phrase, "I'm writing a story..." in the question. What does it matter if context is provided? It's a superficial restriction that adds nothing to the question. It's only purpose is to give people a reason to close the question.

We should either be all-in or all-out. Inviting OPs to rationalize why they should be allowed to ask the question here is simply petty on our part.

Do we really expect OPs to rationalize asking real-world questions here?

If you believe this should have been posted as a new question, let me know. I'm just trying to keep all the dust in one corner.

Answer 12

If we consider that the so–called “real world” is simply an example of worldbuilding which has already been done, and is being done every day, then it works.
To put it another way: if the question concerns the worldbuilding of a world which happens to resemble the “real world”, then it is certainly topical.

My caveat:
It does require that a question be formed with such or similar an attitude; if the question tends to veer more towards Social Change or Social Engineering Stack Exchanges, then it is probably time for an Area 51 proposal.

Ergo:

This is for fictional worlds. Their resemblance to the “real world” is irrelevant.

• If the questions asks how to do something in the confines of a certain system, then it is not worldbuilding — even if that system is a fictional world.
• If the question asks how to change the confines of a system, or how to project the state of a system expanded through time or space or any other dimension, then it possibly is worldbuilding.
  Even if it is requesting for a future state of a system which is indistinguishable from the “real world”, it should be accepted here — so long as it meets the other criteria. E.g. asking predictions for the outcome of an election for the succeeding year could be topical here: such a thing could, conceivably, be used for building a fictional world.