Skip to main content
Quantum Computing

Return to Answer

added 15 characters in body
Source Link
Sanchayan Dutta
Sanchayan Dutta
  • 17.8k
  • 7
  • 24

This is a good idea. Questions and answers here need to be about quantum computing, which I suggest should be understood to refer to the mainstream understanding of quantum physics and computing. Questions that ask us to answer based on some personal, non-mainstream, unpublished theory that contradicts existing literature or existing science are off-topic, as they're not really about quantum computing as it is normally understood; they're about something else.

To provide some context, it might be helpful to compare to the policies on related sites. Physics.SE requires that questions and answers be based on mainstream science, and I think their FAQ provides an excellent summary of what that means and why it is important to the functioning of the site.

I can see value in establishing principles for dealing with the situation in advance. CS Theory Stack Exchange lost an excellent moderator partly because of frustrations dealing with a related issue. Establishing a clear policy and clear expectations might help avoid driving away experts and professionals. So it seems reasonable to set expectations and establish community norms about this.

I can also mention a few supplementary principles that other sites have developed that I've found helpful and that may be relevant and applicable here as well. If nothing else, it may be helpful to be aware of how they've grappled with these issues.

  • It is not our goal here to make broad advances to science in a single post. (1)

  • Reviewing manuscripts or new theories is out of scope and not the purpose of this site. We're not a substitute for peer review. (1, 2)

  • Self-promotion or advertising of new theories, papers, or ideas is also not what this site is for. (1)

  • We judge questions and answers by their content, not by judging the user. We have certain guidelines to ensure quality and expect all questions and answers to follow these guidelines. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)

This is a good idea. Questions and answers here need to be about quantum computing, which I suggest should be understood to refer to the mainstream understanding of quantum physics and computing. Questions that ask us to answer based on some personal, non-mainstream, unpublished theory that contradicts existing literature or existing science are off-topic, as they're not really about quantum computing as it is normally understood; they're about something else.

To provide some context, it might be helpful to compare to the policies on related sites. Physics.SE requires that questions and answers be based on mainstream science, and I think their FAQ provides an excellent summary of what that means and why it is important to the functioning of the site.

I can see value in establishing principles for dealing with the situation in advance. CS Theory lost an excellent moderator partly because of frustrations dealing with a related issue. Establishing a clear policy and clear expectations might help avoid driving away experts and professionals. So it seems reasonable to set expectations and establish community norms about this.

I can also mention a few supplementary principles that other sites have developed that I've found helpful and that may be relevant and applicable here as well. If nothing else, it may be helpful to be aware of how they've grappled with these issues.

  • It is not our goal here to make broad advances to science in a single post. (1)

  • Reviewing manuscripts or new theories is out of scope and not the purpose of this site. We're not a substitute for peer review. (1, 2)

  • Self-promotion or advertising of new theories, papers, or ideas is also not what this site is for. (1)

  • We judge questions and answers by their content, not by judging the user. We have certain guidelines to ensure quality and expect all questions and answers to follow these guidelines. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)

This is a good idea. Questions and answers here need to be about quantum computing, which I suggest should be understood to refer to the mainstream understanding of quantum physics and computing. Questions that ask us to answer based on some personal, non-mainstream, unpublished theory that contradicts existing literature or existing science are off-topic, as they're not really about quantum computing as it is normally understood; they're about something else.

To provide some context, it might be helpful to compare to the policies on related sites. Physics.SE requires that questions and answers be based on mainstream science, and I think their FAQ provides an excellent summary of what that means and why it is important to the functioning of the site.

I can see value in establishing principles for dealing with the situation in advance. CS Theory Stack Exchange lost an excellent moderator partly because of frustrations dealing with a related issue. Establishing a clear policy and clear expectations might help avoid driving away experts and professionals. So it seems reasonable to set expectations and establish community norms about this.

I can also mention a few supplementary principles that other sites have developed that I've found helpful and that may be relevant and applicable here as well. If nothing else, it may be helpful to be aware of how they've grappled with these issues.

  • It is not our goal here to make broad advances to science in a single post. (1)

  • Reviewing manuscripts or new theories is out of scope and not the purpose of this site. We're not a substitute for peer review. (1, 2)

  • Self-promotion or advertising of new theories, papers, or ideas is also not what this site is for. (1)

  • We judge questions and answers by their content, not by judging the user. We have certain guidelines to ensure quality and expect all questions and answers to follow these guidelines. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)

Source Link
D.W.
D.W.
  • 101
  • 5

This is a good idea. Questions and answers here need to be about quantum computing, which I suggest should be understood to refer to the mainstream understanding of quantum physics and computing. Questions that ask us to answer based on some personal, non-mainstream, unpublished theory that contradicts existing literature or existing science are off-topic, as they're not really about quantum computing as it is normally understood; they're about something else.

To provide some context, it might be helpful to compare to the policies on related sites. Physics.SE requires that questions and answers be based on mainstream science, and I think their FAQ provides an excellent summary of what that means and why it is important to the functioning of the site.

I can see value in establishing principles for dealing with the situation in advance. CS Theory lost an excellent moderator partly because of frustrations dealing with a related issue. Establishing a clear policy and clear expectations might help avoid driving away experts and professionals. So it seems reasonable to set expectations and establish community norms about this.

I can also mention a few supplementary principles that other sites have developed that I've found helpful and that may be relevant and applicable here as well. If nothing else, it may be helpful to be aware of how they've grappled with these issues.

  • It is not our goal here to make broad advances to science in a single post. (1)

  • Reviewing manuscripts or new theories is out of scope and not the purpose of this site. We're not a substitute for peer review. (1, 2)

  • Self-promotion or advertising of new theories, papers, or ideas is also not what this site is for. (1)

  • We judge questions and answers by their content, not by judging the user. We have certain guidelines to ensure quality and expect all questions and answers to follow these guidelines. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)