I'm currently having a dispute with JDługosz whether my answer to a question tagged hard-science actually meets the hard-science tag requirements.
I'd be interested in what others here think about it.
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
5
-
$\begingroup$ This is a perfectly valid discussion, but I think this discussion needs to be answered first: meta.worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/3899/… $\endgroup$– RangerAug 23, 2016 at 16:22
-
$\begingroup$ I would take that answer, but then again I usually place less strict requirements in regard to citing (eg "just point me to where you got your information, i do not care about formatting correctly"). $\endgroup$– JaxAug 23, 2016 at 16:59
-
$\begingroup$ In my mind yes your answer fits. It has references and evidence to back it up. $\endgroup$– BellerophonAug 24, 2016 at 14:10
-
$\begingroup$ I would disagree that it meets the requirements of the tag; the couple "hard science"-ish references aren't for major points of the answer, and Wikipedia is used a lot. I think it's certainly a good answer (I know nothing about much of the subject, and I liked it), but I don't think that it fits the tag. That said, references need to be more than just incidental, and I don't think Wikipedia counts (though I may be in the small minority there). $\endgroup$– HDE 226868 ModAug 24, 2016 at 20:41
-
$\begingroup$ Other matter is - does the question itself is OK for hard science tag? Given we are pretty sure no pathogen like described really exists? And isn't it too broad to put all aspects into one hard science question? Iffy questions tends to produce iffy answers. $\endgroup$– MołotSep 3, 2016 at 14:21
Add a comment
|