I'd say there is only one statalist commandment:
Put yourself in the position of someone who is trying to answer your
question and ask yourself: Is there enough information in your question
so that someone from an entirely different discipline can answer it?
This automatically includes many common mistakes:
o incomplete references
o not telling where a non-official Stata command came from
o not telling the exact command typed
o not telling the error message
o not telling how the result you got deviated from what you expected
maarten
--- roy wada <[email protected]> wrote:
> There have been many repeat postings chastising alleged violators
> of some standards for Statalist and asking them to read FAQ prior
> to posting to Statalist. I have to say I haven't completely read FAQ,
> either.
>
> The author of FAQ took pains writing it, and we are better off
> for having it. Having said that, it is too long to be paid attention
> to.
>
> A frequently cited passage about the need for complete citation,
> "Please do not assume that the literature familiar to you is familiar
> to
> all..." is buried somewhere in FAQ. I knew I would find it there,
> but I don't think I have ever seen it before.
>
> The most pertinent advice about the standards and protocols for
> posting to Statalist are buried in the middle of FAQ, where it will
> not be found by the newest members of Statalist.
>
> Yes, it would be nice if everyone actually read FAQ, but it would be
> an entrapment to think that they actually would. Think footnotes in
> a legal document. Some people are getting caught by them.
>
> If there are such things as Seven Deadly Sins that should be avoided
> when posting to Statalist, then perhaps they could be made available
> at the top of FAQ. They might be specified in the confirmation email
> from the majordomo upon subscribing to Statalist.
>
> By making a short list available, think of it as moving away from
> Hammurabi's
> Code, which was publicized in its time but too complicated to be
> easily
> understood, to something more manageable like Ten Commandments.
>
> Ten is good. Seven is better. 282 is too many. A checklist should be
> short.
>
> Any potential list of seven deadly sins PROBABLY should include
> something
> about incomplete literature citation. I would also include something
> about
> incomplete descritions of a Stata command, but that would be my
> personal
> perference.
>
> Roy
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?source=hmtextlinkjuly07
>
> *
> * For searches and help try:
> * http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html
> * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
> * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
>
-----------------------------------------
Maarten L. Buis
Department of Social Research Methodology
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Boelelaan 1081
1081 HV Amsterdam
The Netherlands
visiting address:
Buitenveldertselaan 3 (Metropolitan), room Z434
+31 20 5986715
http://home.fsw.vu.nl/m.buis/
-----------------------------------------
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Mail is the world's favourite email. Don't settle for less, sign up for
your free account today http://uk.rd.yahoo.com/evt=44106/*http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/mail/winter07.html
*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html
* http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
