Why was the mind maps question reopened, and should it remain so?

Question

This question about mind maps was posted. I cast a close vote, then when I signed off, it had accrued three more. Today, I see a comment from FumbleFingers indicating a fifth vote was cast, and there are no pending close votes. But the question is open, and the revision history shows it was indeed closed, but then JR reopened it unilaterally. Why?

Below are the questions asked in the post. Ignoring the fact that so many disparate queries makes a question too broad, let's examine each individually.

My question is where do they get the mind map from? Who does produce/publish the map?

These questions are clearly unanswerable by us, because we have no source for the images posted. Additionally, such questions are outside the scope of ELL because they're about publishing or the location of outside resources, not learning English.

How do I get my maps and how do I map foreign language map to my language or otherwise combine maps of two different languages?

This is too broad, and creeps towards off topic (being about software rather than linguistics). How to correctly source, form and mutate mind maps is an intricate and complex topic and far too much for a single question.

I guess there is no one-to-one correspondence between english, estonian and russian word map. Does the concept of mind map suggest that translation is evil?

This is clearly opinion based, and I have trouble even deciding what it would mean for a translation to be evil.

Should I learn new language as if it is my first language because and leave any attempt to find correspondence between two?

Also obviously opinion based. We've closed other "what's the best way to learn" questions as such in the past.

Maybe there's a salvageable question in this post, but as it stands, it should be closed. I presume the community agrees with me, given the down votes, comments and swift closure (but perhaps I do so unjustifiedly). Reopening it without any changes sends the message that this is a well formed, on topic question, which it is not. The question even asks us to say something if it tries to cover too much with its first words, and a couple of us did.

An unexplained reopening and subsequent answering looks... strange. The answer posted doesn't substantially address the bulk of the actual question, as the OP seems to have a decent grasp on what a mind map is and how it diagrams synonyms (which is what the first half of JR's answer explains).

I'm certainly not insinuating anything about JR, but on the face of it, these actions are inscrutable to me. Why reopen?

And, more importantly, what does the rest of the community think about this question? Should it be open? If so, does it need substantial editing?

Answer 1

As one of the original close voters, I'd like to know what the rationale behind the reopening was. From what I can see, this is clearly off-topic, and far too broad for the SE format.

In particular, from off-topic:

Your questions should be reasonably scoped. If you can imagine an entire book that answers your question, you’re asking too much.

Not only can I imagine an entire book that answers the question, there are multiple, entire books that have attempted to answer each of the questions and failed, perhaps with the exception of Does the concept of mind map suggest that translation is evil?, which is definitely primarily opinion-based. I don't think millenia of philosophy have determined criteria for evil.

---

It's been pointed out that evil may be a poor translation from another language - in this case, (I'm having trouble thinking of languages that would conflate evil with anything that isn't related to a moral judgement of some sort,) it's still opinion-based: because it's something that is necessary, it's like asking whether multilateral trade agreements are a good thing, and even that's easier to answer.

Additionally, even if the entire book thing is a maxim, the fact that this post as about five questions in it, each of which would warrant its own book, is one of the things that prompted me to flag it for closure.

Apart from all of this, the OP asks in the first sentence of their post:

Please tell me if I must separate my question

And yet, he was resistant to suggestions that he should, and made no effort to do so - no edit, and, as has been pointed out, no new questions.

This question seems formulated to incite unproductive, primarily-opinion based discussion with each of its questions.

Finally, if a moderator believes that a question should not have been closed, it is their prerogative to reopen it. I don't know what considerations one makes when doing so, but at the very least, I think the fact in reopening a question, five other opinions of the community are annulled should not be a matter that is met with "it'll be closed again anyway". That's not the point - were I a moderator, I would say that if it'll be closed again anyway, it should be kept closed.

Having said all that, I appreciate the need to attract and retain enthusiastic users who ask interesting and thought-provoking questions, and we recently may have been eager to close.

With that in mind, perhaps we could instead instruct them on our preferred modus operandi. In this case, the user seemed to understand that the question should have been separated. A moderator may have been able to persuade him to do so. Or, maybe we can split the question and answer it ourselves.

Answer 2

I'll answer your "unilaterally" part....

I was one sentence away from completing my answer when the fifth close vote came in. That put me in an odd spot. Were I a "normal" ELL contributor, I would've cast a reopen vote, and hoped for four more, but I'm unable to do that. As a moderator, my vote to reopen reopens the question.

I wrestled with what to do next. Leave it alone? Start a new meta post? Try to cram my post into a comment or two? Reopen the question and post my answer?

I considered all of those options. In trying to figure out what to do next, I considered these factors:

1) It was only the user's second question on ELL, and the question got trounced and closed in a matter of a couple hours. That seemed a bit harsh.

2) I may be able to reopen a question unilaterally, but that's not a permanent action. Questions can be reclosed with five more close votes. Given that the question had only been alive for three hours, and most of the United States was probably still sleeping, there would be plenty of time for more close votes to be accrued, should that be the community's will.

3) I started my reply when the question already had four close votes. I could have gamed the system – and I even had this thought at the time: Hurry! Click the Post Your Answer button after just one sentence, just to get your answer in there, and then finish it with an edit later. But I didn't want to play that game.

4) Some may deem the question "too broad" or "opinion-based", or maybe a little of both, and I think those are fair assessments. But I also thought the question was a refreshing reprise from the some of the more run-of-the-mill questions we get here. It made me think.

5) More than once on ELL, I've seen where an O.P. asked a question that was being viewed negatively, until someone posted an answer that cast the question in a new light (I've observed this same behavior on ELU as well; it prompted me to weigh in on the MSE debate for the ability to rescind close votes – twice).

In short:

• Had my answer been more amenable to a comment, I would have put it in a comment, and let the community garner support for reopening the question.

• Had the O.P. already had a long history of asking off-topic questions, I probably would have left the question closed.

• Had close votes continued to accumulate even after one or two users had a chance at providing an answer, I probably would have let the closure stand.

• If there was no way to override my decision, I would have been more cautious about acting unilaterally.

I found myself in a damned-if-I-do, damned-if-I-don't gray area. I'm sorry if anyone was offended that I overrode a successful campaign to close the question initially.

Incidentally, as I finish this answer, the question is a mere 24 hours old, and is already back to 4 close votes. It won't be long before the question is closed again, but at least two ELL members had a chance to try to make the O.P. feel a bit more welcome, with the same end state for the question. I don't think that's a terrible thing.