text:
How to ask this question, which quotes "one word is too many"?
This question was asked on the main site: Is it a good idea to spend time on this website?
The OP edited it and it's now considered a valid question, but Andrei wrote in a comment,

I'm not in love with how it's phrased but I agree it's a valid question.

and the OP replied,

I'm not in love with the phrasing either :) but I don't know how to set it better, I'm open to edits

So, this meta-topic is an experiment, it's a way to be "open to edits".

Post your suggestions here (below), to suggest how you would understand/rephrase the question
The OP (@bbozo) can read these suggestions and pick one that's asking what he wants to ask.

The question on the main site is on hold until then.

I love this topic :D Thank you all very much for helping on this ^^ What Samana Johann is suggesting rings more "true", what is Andrei suggesting seems more "clear" ^^ Maybe leave them both?

Thank you Samana for voicing my thoughts :) "The Original has many nuances while your thought is limited to one aspect, one which can actually not be described." <3

@bbozo You're welcome. The Samana (Johann) pointed out in an earlier meta-topic that there are (four) different kinds of question (which are introduced e.g. in the Pañha Sutta). Andrei's answer to that was that it's better to use this site for types of question which can be answered (and fwiw he's previously said he doesn't want to see this site used for koan answers).

I wrote a suggestion, I hope it helps ^_^

I think Samana Johann is suggesting that the original version was the best, i.e.,
Title: Is it a good idea to spend time on this website?
To say the word is to miss the mark, said a monk, one would assume same is implied in writing it?

Well edit it (and/or edit its title) until it shows your best suggestion; or post multiple suggestions.

Thank you for your advice! The OP came with a question, though. You could just tell him to "Let it go", but I think a purpose of this site is to provide answers which specifically address the OP's question.

Title: Is talking about Dharma beneficial or harmful?
Discussing Dharma at length and analyzing it, is this always beneficial or could it be counterproductive? - different traditions seem to have different opinions about this. Especially in the Far-Eastern tradition (Chan / Zen), there seems to exist a definite suspicion towards these activities, in comparison with "practice".
Several quotes come to mind, e.g. this one from Lao-tzu:

Those who know do not say. Those who say do not know.

Also, Wumen Huikai:

The instant you speak about a thing, you miss the mark.

and of course, Fen Yang:

When you are deluded and full of doubt, even a thousand books of scripture are not enough. When you have realized understanding, even one word is too much.

What are the dangers of discussing/analyzing Dharma? (This includes, but not limited to, spending time on this site, asking and answering questions). Where should one draw the line? - are there canonical teachings about this in any school, or some practical wisdom passed down the line?

As a potential edit, I suggest,
Title: Is this Q&A worthwhile?
I'm thinking of these two quotes -- from Wumen Huikai:

The instant you speak about a thing, you miss the mark.

and of course, Fen Yang:

When you are deluded and full of doubt, even a thousand books of scripture are not enough. When you have realized understanding, even one word is too much.

From this, and other sources, one might conclude that spending time on an online forum looking for, or giving wisdom, is one possible path to illusion for the subtle "enlightened" ego,
On the other hand, here I am writing enlightening things on an online forum but yet I feel it is worthwhile ^_^

So given this problem -- this context and these concerns -- my question is: Is it a good idea to spend time on this website? How could it be worthwhile, if "speaking about a thing misses the mark" and "even one word is too much"?

@SamanaJohann If you're suggesting keeping nothing but first quote, then instead what about keeping the two quotes, but (as you suggest) remove the next two paragraphs about the "so-called-enlightened ego"? The OP thought the second quote is strongly related (he wrote, "and of course"); and I thought that in the original version with only the first quote and not the second, I wasn't confident about why the OP was asking or how I might want to answer.

So I posted The Original as another proposal, is that the version you're suggesting?

I can see that Sahassavagga might be related (because it's a description of experience) e.g. it might do as an answer to a [tag:reference-request] if the question were, "Given this quote, is there any sutta similar to this sentiment in the Pali canon?" ... but I didn't think that was the OP's question -- I thought the question was about Q&A, and people's experience of whether, how, and for what they use this site. I thought it also worthwhile to keep the paragraph about "ego", so that the topic would include a description of a "problem" to be addressed.

Title: Is it a good idea to spend time on this website?
To say the word is to miss the mark, said a monk, one would assume same is implied in writing it?
Background
First, self-note the irony of explaining in many words the question of whether it is fruitful to use any words to explain ^_^ Then read the explanation if you wish knowing it doesn't deepen but constrict the initial question.
I'm thinking of these two quotes -- from Wumen Huikai:

The instant you speak about a thing, you miss the mark.

and of course, Fen Yang:

When you are deluded and full of doubt, even a thousand books of scripture are not enough. When you have realized understanding, even one word is too much.

From this, and other sources, one might conclude that spending time on an online forum looking for, or giving wisdom, is one possible path to illusion for the subtle "enlightened" ego,
On the other hand, here I am writing enlightening things on an online forum but yet I feel it is worthwhile ^_^
So given this problem -- this context and these concerns -- my question is: Is it a good idea to spend time on this website? How could it be worthwhile, if "speaking about a thing misses the mark" and "even one word is too much"?


text:
Can this question (about Shoko Asahara) be reopened?
The OP has edited this question and wants it reopened:
About Shoko Asahara: must a Buddhist censor his words in order to avoid people to rebel?
Is it on-topic now? Should it be reopened? Does it need to be improved in some way before it's reopened?
As well as (or instead of) answering this meta-question you, you can cast a "reopen" vote on the question.

I think the OP is (still) trying to argue that Shoko Asahara isn't guilty of the crimes he was convicted of.

That's not really on-topic for this site (but might be for Skeptics.SE; or, I don't know, maybe for History.SE or Law.SE or somewhere).
This site does have policy against using a question as an opportunity to rant, using it to make an argument instead of to ask a question.

It's difficult to police objectively but my personal opinion is that this one seems outside the line, so I'm not voting to reopen it as-is.

So far as I can tell from BBC: Shoko Asahara and Wikipedia: Aum Shinrikyo it might be reasonable to view them as not Buddhist.

Aum Shinrikyo/Aleph is a syncretic belief system that drew upon Asahara's idiosyncratic interpretations of elements of early Indian Buddhism and Tibetan Buddhism along with Hinduism, taking Shiva as main image of worship and incorporating millennialist ideas from the Christian Book of Revelation, Yoga and the writings of Nostradamus.[8][9] Its founder, Chizuo Matsumoto, claimed that he sought to restore "original Buddhism".[10] In 1992 Matsumoto, who changed his name to Shoko Asahara, published a foundational book, and declared himself "Christ",[11] Japan's only fully enlightened master and identified with the "Lamb of God".[12] His purported mission was to take upon himself the sins of the world, and he claimed he could transfer to his followers spiritual power and ultimately take away their sins and bad deeds.[13] While many discount Aum Shinrikyo's Buddhist characteristics and affiliation to Buddhism, scholars often refer to it as an offshoot of Japanese Buddhism,[14] and this was how the movement generally defined and saw itself.

I don't like to exclude forms of Buddhism from this site but maybe this one is beyond the pale?
It might possibly be allowable as a question about Buddhist culture; but in general maybe we don't want to (and don't have enough expertise to) answer questions about idiosyncratic cults.

The questions asks about "Buddhism", i.e. "should a Buddhist censor his words?"
Maybe it should be more specific about which school of Buddhism?
Is a beginner's-level answer about right speech, harmlessness, being apolitical appropriate?
In general, good answers are based on references or personal experience. I don't see which of these (what kind of personal experience nor what kind of reference the OP might be looking for in an answer.

In theory the vajrayana tag means that the question should be answered from a Vajrayana perspective (and that answers from other schools would be off-topic).
I don't know whether the OP understands that (policy implicit in the use of that tag), nor whether this is a question which a Vajrayana student or teacher would be willing and able to answer (which is another reason why I'm not myself voting to reopen it, and am instead asking for another opinion on Meta).

The question seems unrelated to the content, tacked on. The question is, "should a Buddhist censor his words in order to avoid people rebelling against governments" but most of the question is arguing about the USA and Freemasons etc.
Would it be a better question is most of the references to Shoko Asahara were removed, leaving only the question? Something like,

Shoko Asahara was the leader of a neo-Buddhist cult, convicted of the Sarin attack on the Tokyo subway. Assuming that his followers carried out the attack, should a Buddhist censor his words in order to avoid people rebelling against governments?

The current question starts with,

I read Shoko Asahara's book "Supreme Initiation" and (for me) I found there is nothing wrong in this book. It is just a clear and peaceful opposition to the materialistic and consumerist society based in Buddhist philosophy and teachings.

Should the question be open to (answers by) only people who have read Shoko Asahara's book, "Supreme Initiation"? Is the question abut the book?
The OP seems to assume that it's because of the Shoko Asahara's book and/or "words" that they attacked.

It seems to me that the question has a trivial answer, i.e.,

Yes, Buddhist leaders should self-censor, for example they shouldn't get their followers to mess around with Sarin.

An answer might possibly find articles like this one which says,

The interview puts the meetings of Shoko Asahara with the Dalai Lama into context. However, the whole interview is worth to be read and to be reflected upon – not just only the passage that deals with the meetings of Shoko Asahara and the Dalai Lama – because it shows the dangers of gradually growing fundamentalism / dogmatism / totalitarism in a group; especially when there is a guru who abuses the guru-teacher relationship in order to gain total control over his devotees.

... and explain why such a practice falls into the "should not do that" category.
I'm not sure it's valuable to have such trivial/obvious topics on the site, i.e. I'm not sure that's even a question. And, again, I don't know whether that kind of answer would satisfy the OP, nor what kind of answer (or what information) the OP is looking for.

I agree. I think it is trivial. I will withdraw my vote for re-opening it and vote for closing it. Regards

Very well put. Nothing to be added from my side...

The question basically seems to be:

"Should Buddhist literature exclude/be censored for political commentary?"

I think there are arguments for & against reopening the question.
My original impression was the question is valid, however it would warrant an answer such as:

There is nothing explicitly "Buddhist" in Asahara's philosophy since, although Buddhism preaches peace & non-harming, Buddhism does not engage in public political opinions.

Or, it may warrant an answer such as:

"It is OK that Buddhist books mention injustices in the world so Buddhists can be better informed about life when making both personal & political (voting) choices".

Do you think the question should be reopened, or left closed? If reopened, should it (and/or must it) be edited somehow first? What further edits, if any, are desirable or necessary?

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
Is this question unanswerable, and why?
Two comments under this question include:

This might be a rhetorical question and unanswerable in its current form. It might be better to ask "why is this understood to mean 'seven lifetimes'?" or to ask "Since when has it been understood this way?" or "Are there other ways to interpret this phrase?" or something like that.

Why might it be unanswerable? Peoples comfort level and actual Dhamma truth are two different things.

Why might it be unanswerable??

I guess the purpose of that comment is to quote an example of "rhetoric"? Or of how to answer apparently-unanswerable theory. A good equivalent Zen story is here: Nothing Exists

I thought it  unanswerable, because I thought that the OP intended it as a rhetorical question:

A rhetorical question is a figure of speech in the form of a question that is asked to make a point rather than to elicit an answer.

It's actually a statement (e.g. "This sutta does not contain the word 'life' or 'lifetimes'.") which is masquerading as a question (i.e. "Where is the word 'lives' or 'lifetimes' found here?").
I suggested various ways to alter the question.
I remember (from an earlier post some months ago) that the OP already has their own opinion/theory about what this sutta means ... given the current version of the question, I guess that the OP doesn't expect to learn anything new, from any answer to this question ... and that's more-or-less what I mean by "unanswerable".

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
Please suggest how to improve this question
If someone posts a problematic question on the main site, to handle that some other SE sites:

Put the question (on the main site) on hold
Open a corresponding topic on meta, with the specific-question tag, to discuss how to improve the question
Edit the question on the main site (after the discussion on meta), and reopen for answers.

Anyway I was thinking of posting the following question on the main site. But I think it's not very good question.

Is it perhaps too subjective (i.e. "primarily opinion-based")?
Alternatively is it too restrictive (i.e. perhaps I should welcome answers which are justified by "In my experience")?
Is it too theoretical (i.e. does it identify an "actual problem that I face", given that the Help says, "You should only ask practical, answerable questions based on actual problems that you face. Chatty, open-ended questions diminish the usefulness of our site and push other questions off the front page.")?
Does it have too many topics (should I split it into multiple questions)?

So I'm not sure about it. Would you like to suggest any improvements/edits you think I could or must make to this question before I post it on the main site? Thank you for your time!
---
Keeping a daily time schedule?
Assuming that you don't have external constraints (i.e. needing to fit it with other people's schedules at work or home) is it nevertheless important to have a daily timed schedule of activity? Is that a human need? A skillful practice for everyone even when they're alone? Or is it just some kind of social or cultural constraint, usually needed for coordination when people are living and working together?
I listed below a few striking/famous examples.
By the way, in reply to this question I think that an answer like "Well in my experience..." might be too subjective. Also I'm aware that having a schedule is the norm in society among people who work in conventional jobs. So I guess I'm asking:

What's the experience of Buddhist monks who aren't living communally: for example do forest monks keep a routine? What advice are they given on this topic? If they do regulate their day into distinct activities then how long is each activity (I'm thinking back to school, for example, where the day is divided into 'lessons' or 'classes' or 'periods' each about 45 minutes long).
Is it known that people (e.g. lay people) go a bit crazy if they don't stick to a schedule? Is this more-or-less universal or do some people cope without much sense/keeping of time-of-day?
Does meditation potentially interfere with (i.e. harm) routine lay life? A different explanation of "eat when hungry, sleep when tired" (this time attributed to Rinzai rather than Bankei) is that it's about doing one thing at a time. Is it necessary to have a schedule to tell you what to do when? Is making such a schedule planning the future too much, or is it a matter of basic hygiene and self-discipline and common-sense?

From an interview with Robert Pirsig,

What followed was the point where he either found enlightenment, or
  went insane, depending on how you look at it (really the root of all
  the questions in his first book).
'I could not sleep and I could not stay awake,' he recalls. 'I just
  sat there cross-legged in the room for three days. All sorts of
  volitions started to go away. My wife started getting upset at me
  sitting there, got a little insulting. Pain disappeared, cigarettes
  burned down in my fingers ...'
It was like a monastic experience?
'Yes, but then a kind of chaos set in. Suddenly I realised that the
  person who had come this far was about to expire. I was terrified, and
  curious as to what was coming. I felt so sorry for this guy I was
  leaving behind. It was a separation. This is described in the
  psychiatric canon as catatonic schizophrenia. It is cited in the Zen
  Buddhist canon as hard enlightenment. I have never insisted on either
  - in fact I switch back and forth depending on who I am talking to.'

I wonder if, instead of sitting for three days, he got for breakfast, went to work when scheduled by the alarm clock, to "chop wood and carry water".

The Dalai Lama seems to have a carefully-timed and well known Routine Day (or 'daily routine'),

When His Holiness is at home in Dharamsala, he wakes up at 3 am. After his morning shower, His Holiness begins the day with prayers, meditations and prostrations until 5 am. From 5 am His Holiness takes a short morning walk around the residential premises. [etc.]

There's an alleged Zen story (famous but I don't know how authentic it is),

Bankei opened a Zen school not far away from another Buddhist school. Over a few weeks, many students from the other school began to attend Bankei's lectures. Eventually the other school's Master called on Bankei, who was in the middle of a lecture. The other Master scolded his students for abandoning his school, and yelled at Bankei, saying that his teacher could perform miracles such as walking on water and signing his name from the other side of a river. Bankei replied, "My miracle is that when I'm hungry, I eat, and when I am tired, I sleep."

The 'eat when hungry and sleep when tired' sounds like it might be (though not necessarily) devoid of external time-keeping: I probably misinterpret the point of it, but it doesn't say "eat at breakfast time and sleep at 10 o'clock in the evening." Is it pointing towards being 'natural', or more towards being single-mindedly disciplined (perhaps while wearing blinkers)?
(tagged with modern-world and personal-practice)


text:
May people criticize other schools of Buddhism?
Are users allowed to criticize other schools of Buddhism, and/or other views? When they do, are there rules or guidelines? What does it take to make 'right speech': what's OK and what's not OK?
For example:

In this answer, Robin111 said she was uncomfortable with some (unspecified) criticisms:

This is an important issue. Lack of any timely moderator action back in January, when I was struggling with a particular highly opinionated user who was leaving comments criticizing certain schools of Buddhism around the site, was troubling enough to me that I pulled way back on participating in the site at all. I believe some of the comments I flagged were eventually removed; but it was clear that, at that time, no one was actively moderating on a regular basis and the site was beginning to feel like the "wild west" where anything goes.

I flagged one of the comments to this answer as "rude or offensive": and my flag was declined (by a moderator) i.e. the comment allowed to stay. Perhaps I have a lower tolerance for conflict. As things turned out, I think that Methexis replied to the comments well; and the net result, of allowing the comment to remain and be replied to, was that his description of Shin Buddhism was even clearer than before.

In this answer, MatthewMartin said "no one is helped by being reminded that one branch of Buddhism disagrees with the very premise of your question" and that therefore a specialist forum might be preferable to a "general Buddhist forum" like this one:

After you pick a form of Buddhism you like, (or not), you'd want to pick a specialist forum (e.g. specifically Zen or Dzochen or what have you). I often felt like I got into unproductive discussions on general Buddhist forums because they were giving an answer from, say a Vajrayana viewpoint, when I was looking for an answer from the Chinese or Secular viewpoint. Learning about all the branches is great, but no one is helped by being reminded that one branch of Buddhism thinks the very premise of your question is, oh I don't know, either superstition or contemptible scientism.

In summary:

Argument or hostility might be perceived as unpleasant and drive away other users
But, discussions may be helpful (i.e. help to clarify a view or an explanation)

Currently, people's expectations/tolerance presumably varies, from person to person; and maybe even from country to country (for example, the USA has a unusually robust "free speech" ethos).
Are there specific 'lines' or rules that the phrasing of a discussion mustn't cross? When should a moderator delete a critical comment, for example? Is it even possible to have defined 'rules', or must it be subjective/arbitrary (decided by the moderator's discretion on a case-by-case basis)?
Are people allowed to express strong opposition to a view or practice which they disagree with?

I have three suggestions.
'I' messages
Some people (relationship counsellors) recommend using so-called "I-messages" for conflict resolution: when there's potential conflict, talk about "I" instead of about "You".
For example, "I don't understand what you're saying" is less hostile than "You are not talking sense" or "You are stupid".
Offer your experience
This essay is long and a bit dreamy (and written in 1986) but I like it. It claims there's a language (or dialect) of science and objectivity, politics ... and another of feeling, caring sharing, interpersonal relationships.
Educated people might state their opinion as if it's fact:

Buddhism is this! Buddhism is that! Nothing else makes sense! Other people are wrong!

There's this paragraph from that essay,

Early this spring I met a musician, the composer Pauline Oliveros, a beautiful woman like a grey rock in a streambed; and to a group of us, women, who were beginning to quarrel over theories in abstract, objective language - and I with my splendid Eastern-women's-college training in the father tongue was in the thick of the fight and going for the kill - to us, Pauline, who is sparing with words, said after clearing her throat, "Offer your experience as your truth." There was a short silence. When we started talking again, we didn't talk objectively, and we didn't fight. We went back to feeling our way into ideas, using the whole intellect not half of it, talking with one another, which involves listening. We tried to offer our experience to one another. Not claiming something: offering something.

That more-or-less fits in with this answer which says that subjective answers require evidence.
Also there's a difference between "offering" someone something and requiring/expecting them to accept it.
And "your truth" and "my truth", "your experience" and "my experience": maybe we can share them.
Ask questions
I think it sounds less aggressive to assume that disagreement is because of some temporary/fixable ignorance or misunderstanding, and to phrase that misunderstanding of yours as a question. Phrases like "I don't understand X." or "What about Y? How does Y work, assuming that Z is true?" are more likely to be constructive.
Also this is a Q+A site. Right speech is about being timely. People who post on this site might expect Q+A: Q+A (asking questions) is timely and appropriate and expected.

Thank you for bringing up this issue. The thread you linked is similar to the one that I found troubling; though as you noted, Methexis quite skillfully navigated the criticisms to his practices in that thread. But should he have had to?
This was the thread I found troubling here. Here's an excerpt:

@Ahmed, you are welcome to study and practice the tradition of Buddhism that appeals to you; but it's divisive and not proper on this site to proclaim someone else's tradition as a scam or religious hijacks. Requesting moderator to remove your comment. –  Robin111 Jan 12 at 12:59
@Robin111 The religion the we all practice, Shakyamuni's Buddhism has as its basic tenet self-experiment and the Four Noble Truths. Any sect, which goes against those foundational rules saying they are not necessary, is no longer defineable as Buddhism. Similarly, there are extremist sects within Islam and Christianity, which have veered far off the basic agenda that the founders established. Thus, the original religion gets blamed for the sect's idiosyncrosies, ignorance, and even pathological actions (e.g. terrorist actions). Do you see the principle? Do you see the parallel? –  Ahmed Jan 12 at 17:57
That's quite a leap. You are entitled to your opinion. However this site has not defined particular schools of Buddhism as valid and others as invalid. This is a Q & A site. Not an opinion based forum. –  Robin111 Jan 12 at 18:01

This was during a time when our moderators were not active and only two of us regular members seemed to be concerned about the tone these comments (which were being left on multiple posts) were setting.
My view is that we need to treat all members of our community with dignity and respect and that includes not attacking their schools as scams or their practices and beliefs as invalid.
It's fine to ask a question as long as it's done respectfully. It's not fine to opine negatively about other peoples practices and beliefs. That's a slippery slope. Buddhism has a wide variety of traditions. As strongly as we all may privately feel about our own traditions being the best; publicly putting others traditions down is rude.

Yes, "It's fine to ask a question" matches Thiago's answer.

@ChrisW, yes there is some good stuff in Thiago's answer and in yours. The main thing is that people treat one another respectfully. In an atmosphere of respect even disagreement needn't be disagreeable. :) The problem arises when people feel comfortable being demeaning and rude to others. That's rare on this site, but it can't be tolerated when it does occur.

My tuppence:
One principle of Buddhism that is difficult to convey is that there is no superiority of any one thing over another, except in situational circumstances. We each want the best, but the truth is that everything is situational at best.
We can't simply accept that there are differences and delight in the differences because of competition. This principle of competition is actually encouraged in some branches of Christianity (notably, Catholicism, Mormonism, and most Protestant faiths) who all want to demonstrate that they have "more truth" than the others. But really, "more truth" is a matter of perspective and personal experience.
In Buddhism, even among learned monks, I have observed that there is a competition of "I have more truth than you," or "I'm more enlightened than you are" if we want to be more direct. We all have the same truth; yet we all are bound by our own experiences to interpret that truth. Such competition is merely a means of furthering egocentrism, and is the hidden self (which we now call 'ego'), seeking to further our individual survival in a situation where survival is not at stake.
Competition is specifically one of the first things I learned about in my Buddhist studies. I observe it everywhere, because it's built into human nature. When we haven't overcome it, we look down on other perspectives and points of view. When we have overcome it, we embrace and take positive joy in the different way of looking at things.
So it's okay that these people look down on other viewpoints. It simply means that they themselves have not overcome their need to compete, and does not really fairly reflect on the whole of any particular path. All paths are good, but each must apply situationally to the needs of the practitioner, or it's not the right one for them.
Hope this gives a new perspective. :)


text:
Whether and how to moderate low-quality questions?
This is a difficult question (maybe a bad question), and maybe especially difficult:

Because I'm asking about questions-in-general, instead of asking about one specific question.
Because I feel vaguely dissatisfied but don't even know what question to ask

I'll try and ask anyway, though.
I get the impression that some of the questions on this site aren't very good, or could be better:

It's badly phrased
It doesn't give much detail
It's theoretical (e.g. some speculation about Buddhism and physics)
It's similar to other existing questions
And there are other ways in which a question might be not very good

On some other sites one of the ways in which a moderator is active is filtering incoming questions:

If a question isn't good then the answer is 'put on hold'
If the question is improved by editing then it's reopened, otherwise it stays closed.

The disadvantage is that someone asks a question and their question is closed. If they don't improve their question then it doesn't get answered. Sometimes they get emotional. Someone needs to explain (or at least post to reference a FAQ to explain) what's wrong with the question and how to improve it.
The advantages are:

The site has only good questions
Good questions are easier to answer well
Almost any/every question on the site is worth reading
With fewer, higher-quality questions people might concentrate on fewer, higher-quality answers.

The requirements are:

Someone needs to decide whether a question is good enough to answer, or whether it should be closed
That "someone" should preferably include moderators and regular/experienced users
To do that we might need well-defined rules, and/or examples ("case law") of questions which are good and bad.

FYI allowed-questions is a list of all the meta-topics which discuss what types of question are allowed/not allowed on this site.
Help for newcomers: allowed questions says there should be a list of rules, which doesn't yet exist
Do we have a clear idea what is on or off topic? has answers which begin to discuss that

Here are my questions:

Should it be easy/permitted to ask question even if they're bad?
Should moderators decide that some questions ought to be closed? Even if we (users) haven't defined a clear set of rules yet?
Can you identify specific types of question that you think are bad, or specific types of badness, which you think should be closed or for which we need to improve the rules? Or instead of posting that here, revisit/renew the answers to Do we have a clear idea what is on or off topic?
As a user (not a moderator), if I see a question which I don't understand (which may be too often), then I think, "Maybe someone else will understand or answer or comment or close this" and I do nothing. Is that good behaviour on my part, or should I do something different/better?

In theory there are five reasons why we ought to be closing questions.

primarily opinion-based
Is “opinion based” a reason for closing a question? says that all answers need evidence.
too broad
Maybe we get too many questions that are too broad? A very broad question requires a lengthy answer (impossible on this site) or a very shallow / high-level answer.
unclear what you're asking
I often find questions unclear:

Because I'm not an expert
Because we don't have helpful rules for writing clear questions
Because Buddhism is a complicated/subjective subject
Because some users who ask questions here are inexperienced

duplicate of...
Perhaps many of our question might be duplicates and we ought to be using this close reason more often. But it's difficult to say that one question is a duplicate of another, when questions are:

unclear
too broad
not very well tagged

There's another SE site (Skeptics.SE) where I read every question; sometimes I read a question and think, "I remember, an answer to a question like this one was posted here two years ago", I find that other question and I vote to close the new question as a duplicate.

i'm sorry i couldn't define "Hatred" for you.Honestly don't make people feel like they need a Phd to ask questions.We all come from different educational,language and cultural backgrounds.it's unfair to just deem someone's question as low quality because it didn't come out exactly as we wanted it too.Honestly what were you expecting??People are different.There should be a balance between asking questions within guidelines and "over-complicating things".I asked a specific question in PLAIN ENGLISH.and this guy pops out of nowhere like a parole officer and starts giving me grief about it.

Hi @Orion. I really like reading your answers and questions. You bring a fresh and interesting perspective to the site. So thanks for that. :) I think when people are asking for more information to clarify what someone is asking, or even when people are diving right in to edit grammar, etc. it's more because each question serves a double purpose of generating answers for the OP but also for all the people who will peruse the site for years to come (or spot the question/answer in search engine results). So maybe things get de-personalized a bit to make them more clear for everyone?

The words "low quality" sound really terrible and critical sometimes. But it's not a criticism of the person asking. Just a label applied to questions which aren't well suited to a "best answer" Q & A format or when it's not clear what's being asked. Kind of impersonal; but maybe that actually is a good fit with a community interested in Buddhist teachings. ;-)

@Robin111 I agree with Orion's comment though: i.e. it's not always nice to have some guy popping up. And her comment is a good answer (i.e. a personal opinion, input, or vote) to this question: i.e. "don't make people feel like they need a Phd to ask questions" and "there should be a balance".

"Low quality" sounds like an objective, impersonal label applied to the question, but I don't think it is: I think if I call something "low quality" that's a statement of how I feel, of my reaction, i.e. it's a description of the relationship between the question and me. For example it might be a good question but I'd call it low quality if I don't understand it. If I know that other people understand the question then my opinion of it doesn't matter. But editing it slightly until it's clearer to me, i.e. until even I understand it, might help other people understand it better too.

The site also flags questions as low quality http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/help/quality-standards-error. So while you may feel that you are not being objective sometimes when you label questions low quality, there is an objective process in place to identify questions that need some work. :)

My point being that users shouldn't become upset if their question is flagged for quality issues. It's not personal.

@ChrisW i'm sorry i said bad stuff about you.To the moderators.I didn't mean it.I don't really think your a snob.I also flagged your question because i was being mean.sorry.

@ThiagoSilva i'm not going to say anything.But i will include you in metta practice that i absolutely hate doing.Right after I'm done with beings in the  asuras.Grr.

@Robin111 Thank you Robin your really nice.I really mean it.I did take it personally because when i asked that question i really tried to make it as short and direct as possible for the purpose of not getting flagged as too broad.So when Chris asked me to add more details it really made me feel like omg.. seriously.Now people are going to flag it as too broad....

@Robin111 it kind of left me feeling like i couldn't ask any questions.i feel like i would get flagged either ways which bothered me because i don't know what's too short and what's too broad? Honestly i couldn't tell the difference if it was flagged to be helpful or to be over complicating things that's what annoyed me.I couldn't tell the difference.And i needed answers.

@Orion, thank you. I've also been very unsure about questions I was submitting at times. It's hard to ask a good question here. In fact, I just added a Response below about that. :)

@Orion thank you. I'm writing because I don't want to just be silent and let you to think I have a grudge. I apologize for upsetting you and grief. It's true, your question was plain English. And shorter is better if that's just what you want to say. I'll remember that about you (i.e. "i really tried to make it as short and direct as possible"), and not comment on your questions like that again; although, sadly, in future I might still sound like a snob sometimes. :-)

@ChrisW your not the snob Chris I am.who gets this worked up over a question ahaha.No please continue doing what your doing I understand now your intention is to improve.I didn't understand before.please also comment on my question also but yes it is my style to keep it short.But if there's any unclarity in my shortness  please let me know!: -)

Per Area 51, we are receiving only 2.9 questions per day while 10 per day is considered healthy. It's the only area we are showing "in the red".
Seeing as we are short of good questions, it might make sense to try to improve weak questions we receive rather than close them or put them on hold. Many times poor questions are really more a matter of poor grammar or poor English language skills. There is still a person out there with a question and if we have the ability to reasonably construe what is being asked and make the question fit our site's model better and allow for more activity, content and usefulness of the site, why not do it?
I've edited questions on behalf of others quite a few times; mostly when there was no response to the question at all even after a couple of days. Leaving a comment explaining that the question had been edited for clarity and inviting the OP to roll it back to the original if the meaning had been changed too much is the right thing to do of course.
I don't think anyone has yelled at me yet for editing their question. But if someone is unhappy, they can always roll it back or open a new question. Free. No charge. :)
Edit April 25, 2015
While checking out our Buddhism.SE Facebook Page, I came across this comment from an unhappy user:

I am so sorry, but I think I have to express my opinion for good. What I've seen on this Q&A forum is "Soviet Union" system with a lot of bossy people there! You write something and a million people edit your post as they want... What if i do not like their help?! Besides, I cannot delete my questions. This is unfair! They are my questions, there is mentioned my name and therefore, I want my posts to be deleted!.. I have a feeling that it is not a meditators society at all, honestly!.. That bossy people have been trying to control everything! Sirimangalo.org was a far, far better forum!

This person brings up an important point which gets lost sometimes. Not giving someone a fair chance to edit their own question, when needed, can appear rude, bossy, controlling.
Proposed:
Duplicate question received: Close it with a reference to the original question.
Any other type of unsuitable question received: Place on Hold with an invitation to the OP to edit their question to make it suitable. For example: "Your question does not appear to be about Buddhism. Please edit your question to include how it relates to Buddhist theory or practice."
If there is no response from the OP in a reasonable period of time (7 days?) we can either edit it ourselves if feasible or close it if not.
I realize this is flip flop from my "jump in there and improve the question ourselves" position earlier. But the comment above really drove home the point that you can save a question but lose a participant. And that's not good for anyone.

I think putting questions on hold is still the proper move, even if it seems a bit heavy handed... what is probably not handled as well as it should is moderator follow-up to help get on-hold questions fixed and reopened. I'll try to be better at doing that.

@yuttadhammo That's a good point that putting the question on hold gives the OP a chance to fix their own question which is preferable. I think we can help you with the ones that don't get fixed by the OP though, Bhante. Seems to work for regular users to just edit and submit for review to re-open.

@yuttadhammo I'm more-or-less in two minds about whether unclear questions should be put on hold. In comments and in their answers, everyone else (i.e. Robin, Orion, and Thiago) each said in various ways that they're reluctant to close questions, and so I've posted a new answer in which I argue our policy is that most such questions shouldn't be closed (but may be edited without having been closed). Is that proposal workable and sensible? Less closing means less work for you as moderator, if that's any consolation.

"save a question but lose a participant" is important. You now suggest "put it on hold and let the OP edit" instead of "edit and therefore annoy the OP". I fear that "put it on hold" might be annoying too. Two other possibilities: 1) "don't put it on hold and let the OP edit" i.e. don't be too quick to edit yourself. 2) "edit yourself without being bossy enough to annoy the OP". A third possibility is to open with a comment which says something like, "Welcome to the Buddhism.SE site" which could be a hyperlink to a new introductory FAQ page on meta, which introduces the site's conventions etc.

Another possibility could be to have a designated welcoming person (you perhaps), who writes well, who is received well; and we could agree that you (and not for example, I) should be responsible for writing to address the OP (e.g. to ask for clarification), because you're better at it. And/or maybe other people can learn (it just occurred to me that maybe ending a comment with , please. might often make a comment seem more harmless).

@ChrisW,  The hyperlink is a very good idea since many people coming in for Buddhism.SE might have no prior experience with SE culture and convention. I know I didn't. :) The only problem with leaving unsuitable questions open is that you might start getting equally unsuitable answers/discussion of the sort that's exactly what we're trying to avoid. "Me too" and discussions of things outside Buddhism. There's lots of potential for eager, uninitiated users to continue the thread on the wrong track.

I noticed that Facebook comment too -- @yuttadhammo I saw your comment in reply to it: in case you didn't know, though you presumably do, I get "403 forbidden" if I try to get http://ask.sirimangalo.org/

Perhaps ideal is - welcoming the OP, politely pointing out what makes the question unsuitable, asking them to edit it and providing the hyperlink to the FAQ page, then putting it on hold for a reasonable amount of time to give them a chance to fix their own work. Which is not much different than what we do. The difference being putting more questions on Hold instead of Closing and having us follow up with any that linger for more than X days. 7 days sound reasonable?

Re. a hyperlink to a 'Welcome' page, feel free to write/propose/draft one? I fear it's beyond my skill/scope. I was thinking of this Welcome to new users as an example. I don't know whether new users like it, but it's often used for example like this or this ...

... or used like this for a question which he then put on hold or closed.

leaving unsuitable questions open ... uninitiated users to continue the thread on the wrong track -- I do agree with 'closing' a question (aka 'putting it on hold') if it's actually/blatantly off-topic, or "not a question" (i.e. if it's poll instead). In fact when you close a question then it's labelled automatically as "on hold" for the first 7 days and its status changes to "closed" but (apart from that label) there's no difference in status, i.e. either can be edited and/or reopened.

Perhaps what we're not sure about (i.e. what we're still questioning/discussing now) is how to handle (i.e. whether/how/when to close and/or edit) any questions which seem "unclear".

Ah, I did not realize that On Hold and Closed were the same process, one further into the process than the other. Again, SE terminology can be confusing to newbies; of which I'm still one. :) So anything "Closed" will have a 7 day "On Hold" status first to give a chance for editing. Good to know! Regarding unclear questions, you gave good reasons for asking for clarification (via comment) but leaving them open in case they were clear  to others. That along with giving the OP a reasonable chance to make their own edits before we jump in makes sense to me. :)

@ChrisW, this is very helpful. http://meta.skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/1505/welcome-to-new-users I'd be willing to write something similar for our site if you and our moderators would like. Would I just put it as a Q and A here on Meta?

A variation on this proposal of yours could be: a) welcome the OP and politely point out b) not put the question on hold c) discourage regular users from jumping in to edit the question for some reasonable time (maybe a week). Closing the question does little to prevent regular users. Something a moderator could do is rollback users' hasty/untimely edits, and/or delete (or rewrite) any comments that are too brusque.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

Here's an attempt at a suggested policy. Please upvote if you agree with it, or comment (or post another answer) if you disagree.
Not closing questions
On this site we will try to not  close a question, or put it on hold, for the following reasons:

"Too broad": we are allowed to ask a broad question, even a question which could theoretically take a whole book to answer. The site allows (welcomes) beginner questions. You can't expect hugely long answers though, so if a question is very "broad" then an answer might be quite 'shallow': a superficial summary of the topic, and/or a reference to further reading on the topic.
"Unclear what you're asking": if possible we prefer to avoid closing 'unclear' questions:

Because someone else might understand the question even if we don't
Because we don't have too many questions, and we want to allow as many as possible
Because asking a totally clear question might be, sometimes, too difficult
Because closing questions causes grief, anger, hurt, etc.

Instead the options are:

Politely leave a comment asking for clarification. Be very polite. Maybe start with a "Welcome to the site" or a "Hello". Emphasize your misunderstanding, not the question, by saying something which implies, "I'm sorry: I don't understand 'X'." Spend enough time on your comment, not too rushed (which might seem rude), try to make a good first impression (on the person asking the question and on other who read the question and who wonder how their question might be received). Don't assume the poster has the same experience as you have with the norms of other Stack Exchange sites.
Politely edit the question. Leave a comment explaining why and inviting a reply, clarification, and/or rollback. Don't lose sight of what the OP wanted to ask (so that any answers might still satisfy the OP).

Some people (e.g. Robin111) seem to have an especially good track record of doing this without people taking offence.
On a high-volume site with too many questions, 'bad' questions are put on hold until/unless they're improved. At the moment, here there are not quite enough questions, and so we'll leave questions open and allow them to be answered, even if the question might be altered or improved after people have answered (which might be a waste of those early answers).
"Too theoretical": unlike some other SE sites which are only for solving specific practical problems, this site is for (among other things) Buddhist "philosophy". This site has a generic help page which says,

You should only ask practical, answerable questions based on actual problems that you face.

That should be understand as,

You may ask practical, answerable questions based on actual problems that you face, but that's not the only kind of question you can ask.

"Too practical": some sites are only for theory. For example the Christianity.SE will refuse what it calls Pastoral Advice Questions. However this site is also for Buddhist "practice" so practical questions (about Buddhism) are on-topic.
Advice when asking practical questions might be to include:

Any background research you've tried but wasn't enough to solve your problem.

Questions about ethics (e.g. about the 'precepts') are also allowed.
"Too controversial": this site allows some controversial or seemingly 'heretical' questions, including for example "Is rebirth a delusional belief?", especially if it's asked politely/respectfully, and with the intention of learning.
"Too obscure": this site is fortunate in having some experts who are willing and may be able to answer. If a question is too difficult then the worst that will happen is that it won't be answered.
You can try not to ask too many unanswered questions (you'll learn what types of question people can and can't answer).
Also kindly avoid asking question just for the sake of asking questions, of trying to 'improve the site' (by asking question), of increasing the number of questions asked, because,

Personally, I find seeded questions irksome; it's generally easy to see that the asker isn't really looking for an answer, so there is no sense of accomplishment in answering. It feels more like a chore, like editing Wikipedia or something.

"Too easy": some experts might not like questions which can be answered using Google or Wikipedia; but some other users on this site don't mind trying to answer those 'beginner' questions as well. You might not get an expert answer to an easy question; but if the answer is written by a regular user, and if that answer is reviewed and voted on and/or commented on by the other users and/or by the experts on this site, at least you'll be getting peer-reviewed answer (fairly reliable or hopefully not completely wrong).

Closing questions
A moderator and/or the community should (and does) close the following types of question:

"Off-topic" (insufficiently related to "Buddhist philosophy, teaching, and practice")
"Polling questions" which only ask "What's your experience?"
For example, this question was closed by yuttadhammo and it's a type of question which he regularly closes. The question asked this, after describing an experience,

Has anyone ever experienced anyone like this off or even on (!) the mat? It was most striking...

I gave the following comment as an explanation for closing this question:

I think a problem with a question that is phrased like, "Has anyone ever experienced anyone like this?" is that it could attract an unlimited number of people each answering "Yes, me!". Each new answer would be a bit new (different from previous answers) and as valid as any previous answer. There's no obvious way to select any best answer to that question, no way for any answer to finish answering or to provide a complete answer to the question. And it doesn't seem to describe any practical problem you have, so there's no way for anyone to help to answer/fix that problem.
Crab bucket's question is modified (a sufficiently different, on-topic version of the same question): it's different/better because in particular it identifies a problem to be solved, and it asks for advice (on how to deal with this problem).

The site's format and strategy is not designed for long discussions. Its strategy is to serve for Q+A (answering questions) now, and for previously answered questions to remain in a clean format which works well for reference (so that future readers who find the topic using a search engine can read simple Q+A).
If people wanted long unfocused discussions, an option would be to use of a 'Chat' room.
Exact duplicates: if a question has already been asked and answered well, then it's better not to answer it again elsewhere (because it's better for the reader if all those answers can be found under the same question).
Hopefully the person whose question is closed will be happy to find that their question has already been answered!

And ... that's it: no other reason? The above are the only usual reasons for closing questions.

Apparently there are 71 closed questions at the moment: running this query will list them. I suspect these are closed-but-not-deleted questions. Questions which have negative votes and no answers are auto-deleted eventually, so this list is closed-and-new (with maybe negative votes) plus closed-and-old (but only with positive votes and/or existing answers). Most of these (undeleted) closed  questions have at least one answer (maybe that's why they're not auto-deleted).

You might like to review this list of closed question if you want to identify another type of question (e.g. "Too speculative") which has been closed in the past and ought to be closed in future.

Chris, a lot of this makes sense to me. Thanks for all the work you put into it. I've changed my position on jumping in to edit other people's work too soon. (anicca! ;-)  Please see edit marked April 25 on my original post for another point to consider. :)


text:
How do you vote?
One way to improve this site might be if people voted more; for example:

Last night, in a chat, Lanka wrote,

I remember when i just created this profile i could not find out whether a question/answer was correct or not. I remember reading a question or an answer thinking that it was a great one but the low votes made me think that the question/answer might be wrong so i didn't want to upvote. That might be a problem for other users too?

There are other reasons for voting, including those listed in Why is voting important?

And Crab Bucket wrote,

I think the lack of voting remains an issue, I think this is a good example Doubts about Karma and/or Rebirth - 5 people have found this question interesting enough to write an answer to (so presumably has merit) but none have them have as yet upvoted it. There is one upvote and that is mine. Maybe it doesn't deserve it but i think the lack of voting makes quality control harder. I think this issue is also worth a revisit at some point to be honest.

On some sites, some users vote a lot. I think we each have a limit of maybe 20 votes per day.

Anyway, the purpose of this topic is to ask, How do you vote? What is your strategy for voting, how do you decide whether or not to vote?
I hope that by reading each other's answer to this question, we will learn from each other some tips/ideas on how or when to vote.

This is a very good topic. It might sound overblown but I would like this to result in perhaps some guidelines on what is appropriate to vote

If I'm not mistaken, we have 40 votes per day including 10 for questions only and you get a bronze badge Vox Populi if you use it all

I think I'm one of the most prolific voters on the site so I might be on the outer boundaries of this but ...
I vote a question up when (one or more of these is true)

I've answered it. If I'm interested enough to answer then it has some merit in my opinion
It's original. It doesn't even need to be that original - a different angle on a well trodden subject is enough
It's well written and cogent

I vote a question down when (one or more of these is true)

It's spam
It's hostile or disrespectful in some way
It doesn't make any kind of sense
I know it's mistaken or not true in some significant way. This is rare - I'm more likely to comment or ask another question

I vote an answer up when (one or more of these is true)

I agree with it
I don't agree with it but it's well written and argued
It's an original point of view that I've not encountered before
It's an answer to a question that has remained unanswered for months. The answer doesn't need to be great here but I'm grateful someone is giving a go to what is a difficult or obscure topic

I vote an answer down when (one or more of these is true)

It makes no real attempted to answer the question
It's spam
It's a link or a cut and paste job. I dislike a answers with just a few original words then an enormous block quote stuck underneath

My general position is..
Up votes cost nothing and are motivating to contributors. Why not vote a lot
Down votes cost a little and can be really demotivating and aggravating. Downvote very sparingly
If any question is asked on the site - it is probably worth an upvote from me if it is halfway decent. Asking questions is hard and most people don't.
BUT
I think realistically I up vote too much and downvote too little. I think I over compensate on the upvotes because the site itself is quite miserly with votes. If we were generally higher voting I think I would discriminate more.

Glad to see this topic in Meta. I've seen people compliment each other on answers that had no votes. I've seen accepted answers that had no votes. Possibly downvotes are offsetting upvotes; but it seems more likely that people on our site sometimes simply forget to vote or don't realize how important that feedback is.
I'm sure not receiving votes is discouraging to new people who are unsure if their contributions are welcome and to people who put a lot of work into an answer and to people trying to build rep to earn privileges. So with all that in mind:
I vote up everything that's understandable to me, correct, potentially useful to someone, and sourced, (if it's the sort of thing that should be sourced).
I skip voting when I'm unsure of the meaning or accuracy of something or if the post is too long in proportion to my interest in the subject to read it.
I down vote if something is obviously incorrect, rude, or disparaging.
I've been trying to treat new comers gently and vote up first posts to give them confidence unless there is a problem with their post. I've noted we tend to have 1 - 3 new users each day and encouraging them seems worthwhile to balance out our community and help it grow.

As an established user, you can view vote counts.

I didn't know that. That's cool. Thanks @ChrisW. :)

I upvote a question if:

I answer it
OR I don't answer it but I do want to read someone else's answer to it (my upvoting the question is a signal to other users that in my opinion this question is worth answering)

Because this site has decided to be very permissive about what kinds of question are allowed, I am not in the habit of downvoting questions.
So I sympathise with Crab Bucket's comment quoted in the OP: it's surprising (and slightly sad) to see a question with more answers than votes. If you would answer it, why wouldn't you upvote it?

I upvote answers if:

I think they're on-topic (i.e. answer or at least address the question)
AND they contain nothing that I can see is untrue or even may be untrue

My upvoting an answer is meant as a signal to the OP and other people reading it, yes you can trust this answer, it contains no falsehood.
If an answer looks mostly good but there's part of it which I don't understand (or, even, disagree with) then I post a comment to ask for clarification. If the author addresses my concern (by editing the answer or by posting a comment in reply to mine) THEN I will upvote the answer.
If I post an answer to a question then I also read every other answer to that question (e.g. because I'm interested in the subject, want to read other views, and am looking for any evidence that my answer might be wrong). Because I review them I therefore also usually upvote the other answers to the questions which I answer (see the Sportsmanship badge).
I downvote answers which:

Aren't helpful (don't address the question)
Aren't true (are misleading)

I usually post a comment when I downvote (though I also post comments without voting or before upvoting as described above).
Voting statistics are shown on the bottom right of each user's Activity page; mine is currently:
all time        by type             month    week    day

928 up          282 question        112      2       2
80  down        726 answer

Many more upvotes than downvotes.
More answers than questions, but questions too

I don't vote at all on the following answers:

I don't read them
I don't understand them
I don't know whether they're true

If an answer includes a reference to an online source that helps me verify that the answer is true then I am therefore more likely (more able) to upvote it:

The answer is more useful with a reference (because I can, not just read the answer, but read more of the online reference if I'm interested)
The answer is more verifiable with a reference.

Part of the reason for voting (see Lanka's comment in the OP above) is to signal other users that an answer is reliable. For that reason I don't upvote an answer which I can't vouch for.
I thought this advice of Andrei's was good:

Re: voting, if you don't really understand an answer, do not vote.
Re: criticism, I only downvote and criticize an answer when I see the topic clearly enough that I can be certain that my understanding is complete and the answer is mistaken.
If you have only a vague understanding of the topic, and can't really follow the reasoning of the answer, but the answer seems to mismatch some postulates/axioms you have heard about, ask a new question!

The comments under that answer are interesting too.
Sometimes I've really tried to think about (or read about) an answer until I understand it better, and then I upvote it.
We've been discussing whether an answer needs to answer the question. My opinion is that it needs to at least 'address' the question. If in doubt I ask myself whether the answer is "useful". The one other condition I put on an answer (apart from its being useful or valuable) is that I want to be satisfied that it's true.


text:
Using the chat room to discuss tags and retagging
As mentioned here and here I suggest we use the chat room (instead of meta) to discuss retagging.
I invite you to read and participate there if you're interested.


text:
The 'beginner' tag
There's a beginner tag.
Should it exist? Is it being well used?
Asking fundamental “beginner” questions says that the site shouldn't be 'seeded' artificially with beginner questions; but what about 'beginner' questions which appear naturally, which are asked by beginners?
I suggest that tags are to help people find things. Interested and knowledgeable people could perhaps 'curate' the collection of 'beginner' questions:

Add the 'beginner' tag to questions that are especially interesting to beginners
Remove the 'beginner' tag from questions that are not especially interesting to beginners

Perhaps the beginner tag shouldn't exist at all (see The Death of Meta Tags) -- although for this subject (i.e. for Buddhism, although not for StackOverflow which deals with software development problems) the beginner tag is appropriate, IMHO.
The comments to this question suggest that collecting/tagging 'beginner' questions might be helpful.

I am (very) new to the site, but here is my opinion.  I believe the subject matter (existing tag) and summary of each question are adequate to allow the user to filter through what they want to read or don't.  As an analogy, if I went into a bookstore and walked to a section that interested me, I wouldn't normally find a sub-section called "Beginners".  I would browse the titles and pick out what struck me.
For beginner's knowledge I would think that users would do some historical or scriptural study to gain a basic level of knowledge.
Hope offering my opinion helps.  I'm sure others can make a good argument for the Beginner tags.  BTW, I am truly impressed by what I see on the site so far.

Yes it should. I have not used it but some people may like to use it.
If it helps people feel welcome then why not.

"Why not": because it's difficult to decide how to use it well. Should it be used for every topic? If not, which topics should and shouldn't it be used for? A potential problem is that, if the tag is misleading (by saying "This is a beginner topic; and, other topics which don't have this tag are not beginner topics") then it's harmful, or doing more harm than good.

Yes. Only for a short time to help people move into the site. It lasts a week on the profile then goes. Non newbie! lol

By the way, welcome to the site! The [tag:beginner] tag is currently one of the 'tags' which is used to tag topics (i.e. to tag questions) ... it's not used to tag user profiles. The tag is visible in the list of all tags. Each person chooses what tags they use when they create their questions, so the use of tags is haphazard and might be cleaned up sometimes. Currently 13 questions use the beginner tag.

I already tried to answer that question, here. I don't know what more I could say, to answer that question.

Sorry mate, I have done the work now and found the right answer if you go back. The most important Precepts are the Ten Precepts. The 227 and 311 are mostly an elaboration and further clarification of the Ten Precepts


text:
May I post an opinion posing a question?
In a comment to this question, How sacrosanct is the “source material” of Buddhism?, Yuttadhammo wrote,

This sounds a lot like opinion posing as a question... are you really looking for an answer, or are you just trying to promote your own ideas? I'm afraid the latter is more likely to lead to argumentation rather than conclusive answers, in which case this site is ill-suited for such activity.

Krishnaraj Rao (the OP) replied,

Guilty as charged. I do of course hold many opinions, and I am of course trying to promote my own ideas, and looking for intelligent and well-reasoned arguments. Presumably, I am not alone in such an activity. and presumably, such an activity is at least as legitimate on this forum as posing questions to which there are definitive answers. Am I wrong in so presuming?

Yuttadhammo posted similar comments about two other questions yesterday,

Scientific Reincarnation Research

Are you really looking for an answer, or are you just looking to express your own opinion? I'm seeing more and more "questions" like this, and they don't really sound like questions to me. Maybe we need some meta discussion on the appropriateness of bias in questions.

Is The Kālāma Sutta Really Libertarian?

Again, this sounds more like a preaching than an inquiry...

Let anyone asked any type of questions. We should try only we likes. Let others answer what they interest. D..s are everywhere, let them bark.
Why we can't answer this question(equanimity-in-the-aghatavinaya-sutta)  yet?


text:
I can't delete my own comments?
In this comment (which, may be deleted eventually) Jayarava wrote,

Nope. It appears I cannot delete my own comments.

I cross-posted this topic to http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/266030/139866

No I don't see the icon. I'm using Chrome on Vista. That a problem?

I don't think that should be a problem: I'm using Chrome on Vista too. Do you want to flag this as a bug? I've never heard of other people having this problem.

An alternative way to delete a comment might be as follows: click on the "mobile" link which is in the footer towards the bottom each page (to the left of "contact us" and above the list of all the sites) ... that shows a page layout that's optimized for mobile phones ... I think that layout has the delete link permanently visible (because there is no mouse and therefore there is no hover on a touchscreen). After using that to delete, you could then return to the non-mobile view.

Definitely seems to be a bug.

And yet you see the icons appear which let you upvote or flag someone else's comment, when you hover over someone else's comment, don't you?

yes I do see those icons.
BTW I just tried on Firefox and I still don't get the icons. Are the a popup? I have adblocker... hang on.

Nope adblocker is not the problem.

I posted a bug report. Someone is asking you to try something which should show whether the problem is in the interaction between your browser and the design of the site's display, alternatively whether it's in the server (which, for example, is what prevents you from deleting other people's comments). And I posted this to explain to you just how to do that test they're asking for?

Assuming you're using the non-mobile version of the site and using a mouse, then when you use the mouse to hover over one of your own comments then the following icon should appear towards the bottom-right of the comment:

Do you not see this icon? Is your comment not deleted when you press the icon?


text:
Let's reconsider the 'Moderation policies for Questions'
Based on the input from a discussion with several users on meta, we defined this Moderation policy for Questions.
It's a very liberal policy: i.e. almost all questions are permitted.
Is that policy working well, now? Would you like to revise it? Can you identify further types (or subtypes) of question which ought to be closed?
Identifying in general some types of question to be closed is a bit difficult, but it is useful:

It helps moderators and users to understand which questions ought to be closed
It helps us understand why they ought to be closed
It helps us understand how to edit them so that they can be reopened (or whether they can't be salvaged by an edit)

One recent example is that closed this question, and I appended "Broad comparisons" as a new close reason (at the bottom of the moderation policy for questions), only because Andrei had previously identified for me (in this post) something wrong with this kind of question and how to identify that.
In case it helps to be specific, for the sake of discussion, are there questions you would identify which weren't closed under the current policy, but where it would have been better if they had been closed?

Also subjective questions could result in the asker giving points to those answers that agree with his views. Others with opposing views might then ask questions with the opposite slant and reward those with similar ideas, leading to a schism. Groups of users supporting one another's views which seems to happen to all institutions. Broad comparisons would then be a battle ground.

There are 5 reasons listed under the vote to close option: duplicate, off topic, unclear, too broad, primarily opinion based.
During a period of time when we were receiving few questions, and trying to meet the criteria listed in Area 51 for graduation to a full site, we discussed and implemented a policy of allowing virtually any question outside of a few special exceptions such as an exact duplicate or a hostile question. Our "problem" at the time was we didn't have enough questions coming in to meet SE criteria and this was an attempt to solve that problem.
Live and learn. We now are struggling, at times, with questions which are off topic, unclear, too broad, and primarily opinion based. The primarily opinion based questions are in a special category of problematic because they can open the door to endless opining back and forth without any objective criteria for selecting a best answer. And not having this back and forth "forum style" interaction is what makes this site special and different than other forums for some users. We seem to appreciate the neatness of simply providing an answer and leaving it at that as compared to being drawn into arguments via endless comments.
Going back to closing questions which the community votes as duplicate, off topic, unclear, too broad, and primarily opinion based seems to be a reasonable response to our newer "problem" that the site is seen (by a number of members of the community) as taking a turn for the worse by going down the road of argumentative forums.

Well fair enough and I think that the community of trusted users is always welcome to vote: and needn't be bound by policy. So if five users together choose to close a question as "too broad" for example then it will be closed without moderator intervention.

Yes, I think though, that because of our newer policy, we've perhaps been reluctant to use the close vote in recent times.

As a moderator my vote is "binding", i.e. I'm unable to simply "vote", my vote would close the question unilaterally. So I personally feel I should refrain from casting close votes, unless that's clearly in the policy or unless  it's after several other users have voted to close. So I'm not setting an example and voting to close dubious questions, but perhaps other users should. I'd also like it if we could define policy, e.g. to help new users understand what questions are allowed, and which are not allowed and why.

You've identified "primarily opinion-based" as a candidate or special category of problematic.

Yes, primarily opinion based seems to be the category that is most connected with the argumentative forum style which SE and this site seek to avoid.

Should we close those questions? Or allow the questions, but then squelch any "argumentative forum style" noise that may spill into the answers and/or comments? Do all opinion-based questions need to be closed, or only some of them? Is there a guideline that even I could understand, to identify which questions are "opinion-based" and which aren't? Did you know there's this SE blog article which tries to identify how to answer "subjective" questions e.g. about how to be a parent?

I'm not sure that we'd want to go looking for problems. But when problems present themselves, i.e. the community is voting to close or down voting questions or comments are getting hot, we should remember to use the traditional categories for closing if applicable without any reluctance because of the newer policy. I think the newer policy was to give questions a chance, but we shouldn't be bound to keep questions open when they are creating a rift in the community.

Maybe this question for example is opinion-based, isn't it? Or perhaps too broad? Still people aren't voting to close it.

@ChrisW, maybe that's part of not "going looking for problems". The question is asked by a person seeking an answer. We're here to try to answer questions for such people. It's not creating a problem. Another type of question which is perhaps pitting one sect against another, one style of practice against another; is leading to arguments and flame wars, is being down voted and voted to close, that is were we can help to cool things off by voting to close; or put on hold really.


text:
Can this question be reopened?
The question "Loss of “faith” in buddhism" was closed.
Is there just one reason why it was closed (i.e. the word "bullshit" being used), or are there other good reasons too?
Could it be re-opened after suitable editing, if so then what edits are necessary and sufficient?

I thought it was a good question, so I don't know how to edit it.

Some observations:

We should not always assume a question will have the right assumptions as the users may not know completely about Buddhism. This gives the opportunity correct such view on Buddhism which might otherwise go unanswered. Best way to ask a question that may founded on incorrect assumptions, Should we have a tag for sceptical questions?
The question was marked as opinion based but @Lanka says it is ranting and hash words later in addition to this. This again is like pull the trigger 1st and find the justification later like some past incidents. When some moderation action is done, it should be proper clarification on why and with justification. It should list the all (not partial) reason for moderation and clear and comprehensive enough description to take corrective action by the OP and avoid such issues in the future. If the OP is wondering why is this happening or not clear at the time of moderation why something was done then it is not good moderation.
Also consistency and equitability moderation is important. I have seen @andrei-volkov and @ BlackFlam3 use the words before. (https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/search?q=bullshit, https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/search?q=BS, https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/search?q=Shit) So why was this not moderated and why @Lanka and why only this instance. (There was a discussion on comments also on this but no solid outcome. I cannot locate the discussion though.) Better would have been to open a topic on Meta on this instance and the past use and set a new precedence as treatment was different in the past. This comes to the question:
What level ranting and use of harsh language is acceptable on the site and what needs to be done on past content. Also note the user is expressing a disappointment hence the tendency is to slant towards hash language. Also this question has an element of doubt or validity of Buddhism, these would be a valuable way to correct these option either for the user or the world at large.
In instances where personal opinion on the reason may play a large role (moderation decision itself is opinion based) then perhaps meta consultation may be wise before moderation.

+1 because I agree that 'wrong assumptions' aren't a good reason for closing a question. However I'm not sure I agree about not 'pulling the trigger first' though ... because at worst the gun is firing tranquilizer darts, so putting a question on hold is fairly harmless (and may be less harmful than leaving a 'bad' question open). Putting the question on hold makes the Meta discussion happen ... I'd agree with your last paragraph if "consultation may be wise before moderation" meant "may be wise before deleting the question" but not "may be wise before putting the question on hold".

I think the OP and observers should be fully made aware why it is put on hold when it is done at the time of the action. "This is off topic. See: [metalink]", "This is unacceptable due to x, y, z", "This has x, y, z and can be corrected by doing a, b, c", "I think this might have p, q, r and further discussion in on [metalink] for community feedback and final decision", "This might need further discussion and input from the community [metalink] hence put on hold until final decision"

Yes. The software actually automatically raises a moderator flag if a question is closed without comment.

I mean when a moderator closes there should be adequate information as per the reason and corrective action.

Quoting from the "question",

I had to force my faith with those. I mean, how do they KNOW about other worlds and how are they like? How do they KNOW about karma, and how it works?

This is going backwards a bit. This needs calm thought and more reading/guidance.

Anyway, so I became VERY skeptical when I learned that those things come from Hinduism. It seems to be the religion that existed before buddhism, and it has karma, it has the samsara, the liberation* (which is a little different), the worlds, the gods... And it's just too much bullshit.

This is again an opinion ^ .
Apart from the usage of the word "bullshit", those concepts are far from bullshit to the trained spiritual mind. In the states of our ever-vacillating minds and our exposure to the external world and media, these concepts hardly make any sense. But, to be honest, understanding the energies and the consciousness and how we are all connected with Creator and creation, are enduring concepts. These take a while to sink in with meditative practice. It is of course easy to bullshit them all and continue with our numb lives or try other methods of inquiry and gain wisdom.

If buddhism was somehow influenced by other religions, then it cannot be original, and therefore it is not truthful - unless Hinduism* was partially true by itself.

This statement is quite baseless, because I can't quite get at what's being concluded. Therefore it is not truthful. The logic is appalling.

I just wanted something I can trust, and now I don't see much sense in trusting buddha over jesus or the stupid caste system in india.

If said person doesn't feel right about the path he is currently taking, he is at liberty to try something else. Not quite clear what he is getting at here. Does he want guidance or does he just want to state his impatient conclusion? Don't really know.

Is it harsh?
I looked for synonyms of 'bullshit', but decided that using a synonym wouldn't make the question less harsh
I thought the question was,

I discovered recently that Buddhist seems to me to be (too) similar to Hinduism.
I think Hinduism is bullshit untrue, nonsense, lacking evidence.
Therefore I now find it difficult to believe specific Buddhist doctrines.
Therefore I now find it difficult to believe Buddhism in general.

This site is meant to welcome practical question ("I'm having trouble with my meditation practice..."). I thought it might welcome questions about belief or faith as well ("I'm having trouble with my faith...").
Is it reasonable?
To some extent it depends on the motive of the OP, which we must guess. A question like ...

LOL! Buddhism is bullshit! Try to prove me wrong!

... is a question I'd find a reason to close (e.g. as "unclear" or "opinion-based" or "rude or abusive"); but this question (and/or this questioner) seemed to me a sincere question, and a fairly specific one.
Too many assumptions, too much misinformation?
I also think it's good of the OP to state their (false) assumptions. To a doctor you'd list the symptoms of your illness, if you were complaining about meditation you'd say what your complaint is, and similarly if you complain about belief I think it's helpful to say what your (false) belief is: it's necessary and helpful because it's those (false) beliefs which people can try to clarify in their answers.
I listed a lot of prior assumptions of my own when I asked, Is rebirth a delusional belief? and Suminda commented "+1 for research effort".
In summary I wouldn't have voted to close this question.
Is it clear?
Apart from being 'harsh' it was put on hold for being 'just a rant'.
I though that was reasonable: that the OP could make it clearer what their actual question is.
And in fact the question did change significantly when the OP edited it.

The original questions were literally (marked using question marks):

I mean, how do they KNOW about other worlds and how are they like? How do they KNOW about karma, and how it works? How do they know about the gods? If I kill an insect is it the same as killing a human - and I get a super bad karma? What about super small insects? Single cell life forms?

The new question is:

Why is buddhism any different? [instead of 'just another religion that it's followers think they are right and everyone else is wrong' and 'yet another trust-my-word religion']

So maybe it was correct to mark the original version as 'unclear what you're asking'.
Is it OK to close 'put on hold' a question?
Maybe the 'system' worked as it's meant to:

Lanka wasn't the only one who thought it worth closing

There were clear conditions for reopening it:

I'd like to see the author clean up the question, remove ranting and harsh language, add structure and add 1 or 2 clear cut questions.

The OP presumably read those conditions, edited to meet those conditions, and the question is now reopen.

That's part of the way in which SE is supposed to work: a recently-closed question is labeled as "on hold" rather than "closed", because the expectation is that it might be edited and reopened.
Moderators and users keep needing to make judgement calls about what's acceptable. When I consider questions maybe my judgment goes something like this,

Even 'harsh' is OK if it's necessary for the message
'Unecessarily harsh' is not so OK and could maybe be edited -- after editing it's OK
'Hostile' is probably not OK and maybe can't be fixed by editing either

Even without any moderator intervention it takes only 5 votes to close a question (and then 5 votes to reopen it). So if a question displeases even only 5 trusted users in a large community, it's put on hold.


text:
Should this question be reopened and/or edited?
I put this question, Is smoking tobacco acceptable in any school of Buddhism? on hold, because it may conflict two site policies:

One was the OP saying, "I will answer my own question" ... however posting questions in order to "preach" (i.e. because you want to give an answer, not because you want to receive an answer) is discouraged on this site
The other was the OP saying, "smoking is not a buddhist issue" ... which might make it off-topic.

If the OP only wants to ask the question (without the answer), then I guess that would be on-topic. I don't know.
I upvoted the question, only in order to give the OP enough reputation to participate here on Meta.

I reopened it after editing. The OP edited it to make it more on-topic.


text:
Should this old question be deleted?
Someone flagged this question as "rude or abusive".
It wasn't closed (but it was heavily downvoted) at the time. Should it be closed and/or deleted now?
If I am reluctant to delete it, it's mostly because it has an upvoted answer (i.e. people might think the answer is useful and should stay).
Another alternative would be to put a "historical lock" on the question, which would add this text:

This question exists because it has historical significance, but it is not considered a good, on-topic question for this site, so please do not use it as evidence that you can ask similar questions here. This question and its answers are frozen and cannot be changed.

A "historical lock" also makes it more difficult to find the question using searches.
So:

Leave it as-is?
Edit the question, to make the question milder (e.g. to remove most of the criticism), but keep the answers on-topic?
Leave as-is but add a historical lock?
Close and delete the question and all its answers?

I've never seen the "historical lock" before, but here in your question it sounds a much appropriate measure.

I do not mind it being locked but ...
I option is it can be left as it is. This way new answers can accumulate. Also this leaves the possibility to edit the question to improve it to be more acceptable. Other who might find it offensive as it is can also downvote.
I guess generally locking is when content gets updated too often and floods the review queue. With the limited user base we ming not get updates too of then.
I do not think it should be deleted though. Deletion should be for spam like say someone advertises a flashlight by posting.
Editing may be a better way to resolve it also.


text:
Answers which reference lucid24.org
Sometimes someone may flag the fact that @frankk includes references to lucid24.org -- for example in this answer.
I believe it's generally permitted for an author to reference their own work published on another site, if:

It's on-topic to the OP's question
They disclose that it's their own work
Their answer on this site isn't only a hyperlink

For further details, see How to not be a spammer -- which says, among other things,:

However, you must disclose your affiliation in your answers.

I believe that frankk has done this: the user profile says ...

http://lucid24.org/ Contains my pali + english translations of suttas, and notes on EBT (early buddhist texts).
http://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/ my analysis and commmentary on EBT sutta passages

... and this answer says ...

I've done a thorough study of the 16 steps here:

... so it's certainly "disclosing affiliation".
Therefore I suppose that the references in @frankk's answers generally comply with these guidelines and don't automatically need flagging.
If you disagree, and think that the reference shouldn't be included in a given answer, then please explain why?

An answer can't Just link to an external site, it must make an actual attempt to answer the question on SE, even if in short form.

IMO this one did not specifically answer the question on-site (and the hyperlink too was to a related topic but not to a direct answer). So that answer should be downvoted or deleted, not because it references the author's own site, but because it's a "hyperlink only" answer .

That is correct, agreed

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Should this question (about the historical Buddha living in Sri Lanka) be reopened?
Given all the latest edit[s], should this question be reopened: Why did Marco Polo say the Buddhist religion originated in Sielan?
Is it answerable?
Does it contradict the way on which this site should be used, i.e.:

Question and answer, not "discussion"
Question and answer, not "preaching"
Not for "criticising" the doctrines of other schools (this may invite criticism of the view that the Buddha lived in Sri Lanka)?

If the question isn't good as-is, can it be edited somehow to make it on-topic?
My guess is that the only way it could be posted might be as an answer not a question, e.g. ...

Q: Why does anyone say that the Buddha lived in Sri Lanka -- what are their historical arguments?
A: See [this post] on quora.com

... but that would contradict the "posting a question for the sake of self-answering it" guideline.

I think it shouldn't be, because it is not related to Buddhist teachings. They just trying promote their own view which is completely wrong and off topic in this community.

It seems to me this question has four problems:

It's not about Buddha's philosophy, teaching, ethics, meditation, practice, experience, or interpretation.
It looks like OP is trying to promote their own view, instead of being sincerely interested in learning something new - as it should be.
Also, the "why they did/said this"-type questions are hard to answer objectively. Who knows why, and how can we know? We can only speculate, while this site is about knowledge sharing.
So far it has not attracted, and it looks like it may never attract, an interesting answer informed either by studies or by experience.

The only argument I can see in support of this question, is that it is (remotely) related to Buddhism, specifically, to the history and origin of Buddhism. That's 4:1 against reopening.

I agree with you sir. If there's the path clearly preached what's the point of finding history? We have a very limited time. So one should practice the path during this limited time. One thing I strongly believe that, no truth can ever be a lie. Let archeologists find them. That's their job, not ours.

nothing else but  he trying to promote their own view.

If this topic is controversial, one of the answers to Questions asking for an answer to a controversy ...

Instead of changing question to be about controversy it is also possible to just outline controversy in the answer.
Or, answer could state that it presents just one point of view.

... suggests that a way to frame the topic on this site might be as answers to a question such as ...
Question: Some people say that (the historical Buddha lived in what is now Sri Lanka, and that Buddhism originated there -- this may be controversial -- what are the "historical reasons", the "historical arguments", both for and/or against this thesis?
... but (e.g. as a moderator) I'm worried that even this topic might lead to ...

"Extended discussion"
Criticism or hostility (maybe sectarianism)
Preaching (and posting question in order to answer them yourself, as a form of preaching)

I'm not even sure how this topic is meant to be beneficial, though I guess that's not my business (i.e. it's not up to me as a moderator to decide whether a topic is worthwhile) -- and even the meta-question of whether and why it's worthwhile might itself be controversial or debatable.
Still my personal view (i.e. as a user not a moderator) is that it doesn't seem to me a topic that I want to invest much effort into answering or asking.

So there is a mountain top in Ceylon that has a giant indentation that is supposed to be a foot-print of Buddha. This is the source of the legend.
"Mount Adam, which has a height of 2240 meters, refers to the highest mountain peaks of Sri Lanka. In the dry season thousands of pilgrims come here daily: Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims and Christians – and for some time tourists. Since climbing under the scorching rays of the sun is too difficult, excursions to Adam’s peak are made at night. The shortest way is to climb 1 km and overcome 5 thousand steps."
"Hindus believe that the imprint belongs to their god Shiva, who once stopped in these places, and called the mountain “Shiva-Nadi-Padan”. Buddhists also call it “Sri Pada” – “Sacred Footprint”. According to legend, Buddha visited this mountain in 500 BC. The first Buddhist temple was built here already around 300 BC.
Christians and Muslims associate this shrine with the fact that when the exiled Adam descended to earth, he stepped on the top of the mountain. So the people of Sri Lanka consider their homeland to be the closest to paradise land not only because of the magnificent nature.
For Christian Catholics – due to the Portuguese colonial rule in Ceylon in the middle of the 17th century – the imprint has a different meaning. In their opinion, the apostle Thomas, who ascended the mountain during his missionary activity in South Asia, left him."
http://earth-chronicles.com/histori/the-mystery-of-the-footprint-on-adams-peak.html

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Editing meta-tags
There are now over 100 meta-questions.
It might be useful if they were consistently tagged.
Left to my own devices there are some tags I might edit, to help me make sense of them:

Delete almost every 'unique' tag i.e. tags which are only used once, to tag one topic: because IMO tags are to mark groups of related topics, so a tag is only useful if it's applicable to more than one topic
Delete the quality tag: it says nothing, because isn't every topic about quality?
Merge the 'question' tags: currently we have allowed-questions, questions, and asking-questions ... perhaps they should all be  allowed-questions or asking-questions
Make an effort to tag topics as being either to do with questions or to do with answers: e.g. I guess that this topic is more about answers than about questions.
Read through all topics and add tags where necessary; many are probably just discussion and ought to be tagged as 'question', 'answer', or something else as well.

My ambition is to make it easier to discover everything that's been written on meta about a given topic, including for example, to start with:

Every topic related to asking questions
Every topic related to answering questions

So my questions:

Any comments on the specific tag-related/retagging proposals above?
Does anyone else want to do this kind of job (eventually editing tags of many/most meta questions)
If not can I start to do that 'at will'? Should I ask for permission/discussion of specific tag-edits (e.g. as listed above) before I do it? Or should I go ahead and do/start it without asking (because may be quicker to do it than to ask, and changes like the above are likely to be an improvement)?

Will mods have a chance to review and approve your edits, as we do with main site edits?

@AndreiVolkov With 1000+ reputation my edits are now applied immediately. And, creating a sock-puppet account to make edits using less than 1000 reputation wouldn't work: because my earlier experience was that my ability to edit on the main site was subject to approval, but my ability to edit on meta was not enabled at all.

@AndreiVolkov I edited the tag wiki (i.e. description) of various tags, mostly by copy-and-pasting the descriptions from http://meta.stackexchange.com/tags ... and, I made three new tags i.e. [meta-tag:spelling], [meta-tag:traditions], [meta-tag:beta] ... those tag wiki edits are queued to be reviewed.

Looks good! What are all those unused tags, like [meta-tag:meditation] where did they come from?

@AndreiVolkov Tags like 'meditation' are tags which had been applied to one or two questions: which I removed from the question (see "Delete almost every 'unique' tag" above). 'meditation' is a suitable tag, not a suitable meta-tag: for questions on the main site not the meta-site. Such'zombie' tags can now be deleted automatically. Other tags like 'users' were created when the meta-site was created but not used.

Thanks, thought so. Do you know if they will be garbage-collected automatically, or do we need to delete them?

@AndreiVolkov According to http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/240652/139866 the custom (site-specific) ones will be collected daily; the default ones will exist forever (unless, perhaps, "you were to briefly use them (add them to a post), then remove them again"). Re. the default ones, the "Make a Meta" process copied the most popular meta-tags from the main meta-site, but didn't copy the tag's descriptions nor synonyms. I suggest you delete the 'questions' tag since there are more specific tags (e.g. 'allowed-questions') to use instead.

I can't delete, but I can merge -- does that sound right?

@AndreiVolkov I don't know what to merge 'questions' with? My complaint about it is that it's too general. We have an 'answers' tag for all answer-related topics, but more-specific tags e.g. 'allowed-questions' for question-related topics. So now I'll try see whether 'questions' will auto-delete within a day, if I use it briefly (using it to tag this topic) and then disuse it (remove it from this topic).

We can't let your enthusiasm go to waste! I'm inclined to say, go ahead and do the above. Deep bows and thank you.

Should I ask for permission/discussion of specific tag-edits (e.g. as listed above) before I do it?

While I don't have concerns about you getting carried away, being too methodical, following a single organizational principle too far etc., let's not go all or nothing with permissions. If you feel an edit could be questioned, go ahead and ask, otherwise just do it.
Just my personal opinion, I'm not a boss here.