The recent question on the precise meaning of "clockwise" has received a ton of close-votes and downvotes (partly, I think, because of the original tone of the question). As @babou and I have argued, this is a valid, nontrivial, on-topic, valuable question, and it should really be pulled out of the administrative hole it's in. So: c'mon, upvote it and unclosevote it!
For Manishearth's benefit, I quote my comment to the question:
"Clockwise" is an important, ubiquitous technical term in the physical literature, and it is perfectly fine to have questions about their specific meaning and the conventions that surround such technical terms. Conventions are not physical insight but they are a crucial part of transmitting and understanding it.
As for the "ubiquitous", babou did the numbers to find that
The word "clockwise" is used more than 800 times on physics.stackexchange.com according to the very approximative figures of google (I used: clockwise site:physics.stackexchange.com). This adverb must have some relevance to physics.
Yes, the question is about conventions. But asking what the common conventions in physics are, and how to use them, is what we have a conventions tag to begin with.