-5
$\begingroup$

The idea is simple:

Have a "Quality" or "Approved" tag for questions complete with full, quality answers.

A user (a beginner in physics, maybe) a basic question and get answers that (as a whole) would make for a good starting point on the concept. The mod-only tag would designate these questions as complete, high quality and accurate.

Maybe also a public tag to put a question into the attention of mods if the user has asked what s/he believes a question fitting the criteria.

Example: A question about velocity (maybe) and how it differs in Vacuum from on Earth. Why velocity captures the direction beside the speed. And why a force on Earth's surface wouldn't always translate to a tangible acceleration because other factors speed-down the body; so force does actually increase the velocity of a body but not necessarily sustain its current one in all cases akin to what's visible to the layman on Earth.

^That's a pretty basic question and would as an excellent introduction to velocity. Furthermore, since it's so basic, it's unlikely that a similarly phrased question might need different answers than one already asked. A tag to designate these questions would make a very good index (of all questions tagged as such) for basic concepts as explained above.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

If I understand correctly, this is not a bad idea for a resource to have on the internet, but it has already been done elsewhere. Yes, Stack Exchange does have the goal of creating a body of reference information that will be easily usable by others, but it is always question-driven. If we go beyond answering questions to trying to provide general reference information, then we are going beyond the scope of the Stack Exchange network and running up against other resources which are already established in that area, and there's no need for that.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ It won't be like that. Wikipedia still have some articles about physics that are pretty badly written or simply don't help as a scientific introduction... Here, with most long-time members being professional to some degree, the level of questions/answers and the diversity of how the questions might be phrased and who might read and answer them would make for many good QA pairs. And then, it only takes 2 tags to make it work! I don't mean we should create an index for it but a special tag would do this indirectly... $\endgroup$ – Noein May 1 '12 at 7:28
  • $\begingroup$ I'm afraid I don't see your point. I mean, if I understood the question correctly, you're proposing using certain questions and answers as canonical references on their subjects, right? But Wikipedia already produces canonical references on many subjects within physics. I just don't see why a Q&A site is better suited for this task than a wiki. $\endgroup$ – David Z May 1 '12 at 7:46
  • $\begingroup$ Alright... So, spontaneously, some questions fit the criteria and are good enough as starting points for some concepts. I noticed these are usually favored (ie. have "Favourite-Question" stars) so a tag to index (collect/etc...) these questions together sounds like a good idea to me. $\endgroup$ – Noein May 2 '12 at 17:55
  • $\begingroup$ I'm deleting the question if you don't mind. I have a better 'version' to tell what I meant but I'll wait till you see it; in chat or wherever works... $\endgroup$ – Noein May 4 '12 at 11:11
0
$\begingroup$

I joined the site just to answer you. :) If I got it correctly, you're willing to have an index for Wiki questions?

If so, there is no need for a tag. Simply type wiki:1 in the search bar, et voilà! Same applies to closed questions, closed:1, and if you can see them, deleted questions, deleted:1.

About the "request"... You can flag your question for moderator attention, then choose other and type your request; something like "This should be a Community Wiki".

Note that the CW tool is not for questions that otherwise would be Off Topic, Not Constructive, etc... But only for questions that deserve a special treatment.

Hope that helped!

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I'm sorry but it doesn't look like what I meant... I'll check it out anyway... $\endgroup$ – Noein Apr 30 '12 at 19:40
  • $\begingroup$ @M.Na'el What did you mean then? $\endgroup$ – Alenanno Apr 30 '12 at 23:08
  • $\begingroup$ Did you see the edit? I suppose you meant the community wiki so but I edited it to avoid that confusion. $\endgroup$ – Noein May 1 '12 at 7:29

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .