6

UPDATE: It's seems that we can change the welcome message and that there is a desire to change it. However, there is still discussion evolving about what the welcome message should be. I've posted a separate meta question that seeks to make a decision about exactly what the new welcome message should be.

I went to our site as a new user and saw the following message in the side bar:

Welcome!

This is a collaboratively edited question and answer site for practitioners and research professionals of the cognitive sciences. It's 100% free, no registration required.

The problem with this message is that "cognitive science" has less than inclusive connotations. It suggests an emphasis on cognitive science rather than the full spectrum of interests of the site. Changing the welcome message is one way that we could make the inclusive nature of our site more self-evident. For example, we could have a message something like the following which explicitly mentions other areas.

Welcome!

This is a collaboratively edited question and answer site for practitioners and research professionals in cognitive science, psychology, psychiatry, and the neurosciences. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Thus, my questions:

  • Can, and if so how, we change the welcome message?
  • If so, should we change it? and if yes, then what should we change it to?

Update

There was some suggestion that a shorter version might be better. Artem likes this, and I do too:

Welcome!

This is a collaboratively edited question and answer site for researchers in cognitive science, psychology, neuroscience, and psychiatry. It's 100% free, no registration required.

  • I like that, since it's not the title it's okay for it to be a bit longer. One of the community and or dev team would have to change it I'm sure though. Once we get a consensus we can try and ping one of them – Ben Brocka Apr 30 '12 at 3:32
  • 1
    Shog9 confirmed it can be changed but that exact wording shows up in a couple of other places (like the About page) so keeping it short and concise is a good goal. FWIW he also echoed my thought that Cog Scis is a superset of the others, but... – Ben Brocka Apr 30 '12 at 20:29
  • @BenBrocka Okay. Thanks for communicating with Shog9. I wonder if the proposed modification here is too long? – Jeromy Anglim May 1 '12 at 7:46
  • He didn't flat out say "no, it's too long", he just didn't see the extra as necessary. You can ask him for specifics in the Teacher's Lounge or via email, it'd be good to know where all the blurb shows up – Ben Brocka May 1 '12 at 15:01
  • @BenBrocka Okay. I think the important thing is the bit where it lists key disciplines: e.g., "cognitive science, psychology, psychiatry, and neuroscience". It could be shorter but retain this. – Jeromy Anglim May 2 '12 at 7:06
  • 1
    I think the blurb should be changed, and I prefer the updated shorter version "researchers in cognitive science, psychology, ..." listed in the question. – Artem Kaznatcheev May 2 '12 at 7:24
  • 1
    Okay. I don't have shog9's email. So I sent an email to Aarthi requesting a change to the shorter version above and also seeking information about the process of changing the welcome message. – Jeromy Anglim May 2 '12 at 7:37
  • Sorry, I meant to respond the other day, but got sidetracked sidetracking @Ben. – Shog9 May 2 '12 at 14:57
  • 1
    Regarding the updated version, so only researchers are welcome now? – Steven Jeuris May 2 '12 at 15:04
  • Why drop "practitioners"? – Ben Brocka May 2 '12 at 18:56
  • @BenBrocka and Steven: My only thought was if we are adding some words, we should take a few away to keep it short and sweet. And I also see researchers as a pretty broad term; even people working in industry or people just interested in the disciplines could identify themselves as "researchers". That said, I liked the previous version as well. – Jeromy Anglim May 2 '12 at 23:59
  • @Shog9 At this point it seems like we have consensus that we'd like to change the welcome message, but we might have to discuss fine tuning the final wording for a bit before we reach consensus. Thanks for staying involved. – Jeromy Anglim May 3 '12 at 0:08
6

I say yes, I approve of the following specific text 100% and it's in a blurb where the extra text isn't burdensome.

This is a collaboratively edited question and answer site for researchers in cognitive science, psychology, neuroscience, and psychiatry. It's 100% free, no registration required.

-2

Short and sweet beats a list of values if it's at all possible to avoid the latter. Best way to introduce folks to what and who is welcome here is to actually welcome questions and askers on the topics...

That said, I don't have any serious reservations about your updated version. I'd like to suggest a shorter alternative for you to consider first though:

This is a collaboratively edited question and answer site for researchers in the cognitive sciences and neuroscience. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Think about it for a bit.

  • 5
    My main concern with leaving out "psychology" is that most researchers in non-cognitive psychology (i.e.,the majority) would not identify themselves as doing research in the "cognitive sciences". I also think that the history of the proposal as the merger of psychology, psychiatry, and cognitive science proposals gives some merit to explicitly mentioning the three. – Jeromy Anglim May 3 '12 at 0:12

You must log in to answer this question.

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