Should we be adding [science-based] to questions?

Question

I noticed that in the question Dermott's Law and Major Moons, revision 4 (edit made by diamond moderator JDługosz) adds science-based to the question. Originally the question was tagged only moons.

While the question is pretty clearly based in science, the science-based tag places restrictions on the answers that can be given (my emphasis):

For questions that require answers based on hard science, not magic or pseudo-science, but do not require scientific citations.

Adding the science-based tag to a question also doesn't really help categorize it; IMO, the original tag moons categorizes this particular question far better. The question is about moons; it's not about science-based.

Unless the OP expressed consent with such an edit, in which case I feel that should have been mentioned in the edit summary (rather than just the boilerplate "edited tags") -- no material to that effect appears visible on the site at present -- should we really be making edits that restrict the type of answers that are acceptable to a question, by adding such tags?

My feeling is no, we shouldn't be making such edits, because they risk changing the intent of the question.

How does the community feel?

Answer 1

On the whole? I'd say we shouldn't.

Edits to questions should respect authorial intent, when possible. It's the golden rule of editing someone else's work: You may have typed the words or made the changes yourself, but you're doing it on the author's behalf. Yes, there are exceptions, and at the end of the day, posts belong to the community, not just the person who wrote them. But eliminating or discouraging (or allowing!) a large number of possible answers that the OP does not want, without any apparent benefit, should not happen. By adding or removing such a tag - really, if it's a meta tag - someone's doing just that.

Incorrect meta tagging has been discussed time and time again on Worldbuilding meta, and the consensus does seem to be that if the question clearly incorrectly uses a meta tag, it should be removed. However, we haven't talked quite as much about when such tags should be added; I don't think there really is such a consensus. However, if we go back to the golden rule of editing, then it's clear that we really shouldn't be adding the tags if the author doesn't want them. When it doubt, ask in a comment, in case the OP simply wasn't aware of the tag's existence. Dialogue with the author never hurts. If they decide that they do want the tag, encourage them to add the tag themselves. Especially if they're a new user, this is a small step towards increasing literacy in the tagging system.

In this case, there's an interesting issue. On the one hand, answers to the question almost certainly need to be based in science. Answers that don't are highly likely to be deleted as Not An Answer, because they just wouldn't address the scientific concerns of the question. From a certain perspective you could argue that answerers wouldn't need the tag; it should be very clear what sort of answers the OP is looking for (and, as Michael pointed out, science is our default). On the other hand, one could argue that the science-based tag is appropriate for classification, which is one thing tags are very useful for.

I'll add a third distinct opinion to the two already here and say that in this specific case, asking the OP is probably the way to go. If they don't want the tag to be used, I'd say respect their opinion. If they acquiesce, tag away. But on the whole, I'll advocate a policy of commenting first, edit later. That's the best way to avoid an edit war.

Answer 2

I would say that in this questions case it is ok. This is because the question is asking about a specific scientific type formula and clearly requires scientific answers. That said I wouldn't have added science-based as the question doesn't really need knowledge of science but knowledge of Dermott's Law. This leads me to thinking that someone looking for questions involving the science of moons probably wouldn't be looking for this type if question.

In general I would not add tags like science-based or hard-science as they can restrict the type of answer given. I would recommend leaving a comment to suggest the addition of the tag and wait for consent to do so. If the question is obviously requiring a science based answer the community will give these answers regardless of the tags so their is no desperate rush to get them in.

Answer 3

As a question it's leaning towards hard-science rather than science-based, but that's a bit restrictive if not wanted by the asker, I have no problem with the science-based tag being added in this case. Any answer that wasn't at least science based would not be an answer so it's more administrative than when asking about, for example, dragons.

Answer 4

Let me try again.

The meta post implies an ongoing issue with people adding tags against the wishes of the OP.

The example is a first-time poster whole-network newbie, who can be assumed to not know the nuances of all our tags; the question already had answers and an accepted answer. The question was unusual in being more of a straightforward “real answer” like we find on more conventional SE sites, as opposed to the kind of creative showcase we have here typically.

The specific question is properly tagged as science-based, and might, depending on the OP's wishes, actually be hard-science.

Why does this action on this question inspire this meta query? That's just not right, and I found the implication (explained above) to be offensive.

Now, on to the question in general. There have been cases where tags are changed, changed back, changed again, while ongoing discussion in comments with the poster and others. Fine. What’s wrong with that?

I submit that anyone with a silver (or gold) badge in that tag should proactively apply or remove it as needed, considering the text of the post and the author’s presumed experience level in knowing the tags. Change it presumptively; it can always be changed again.

Answer 5

This particular question and quickly-accepted answer is actually hard-science! It refers to mathematics and is clearly about help with computations, not just something to do with moons of which there is great variety here.

I don't think there is any ongoing issue with experienced users classifying posts better. This question is unusual, and asking your meta question using this post as the motivating example might give the wrong idea.

It's not about science-based: that tag never works that way. Your criticism makes no sense.

<sarcasm>Have you read the question?!</sarcasm> <noscarcasm>I don’t understand how you can suggest that this was wrong in this case.</noscarcasm> Is there any doubt that it doesn't fit the implication of the tag you quoted at the very least?