A large number of Stack Exchange mods resigning over new policies(meta.stackexchange.com)
meta.stackexchange.com
A large number of Stack Exchange mods resigning over new policies
https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/333965/firing-mods-and-forced-slippery-relicensing-is-stack-exchange-still-interested
321 comments
IME business cultures polarise along the politics/product axis.
When politics - i.e. status games and power plays - are prioritised over product quality, bad things happen.
Unfortunately SE seems to have chosen the former over the latter. I have suspicions that amateur modding is part of the problem.
I hope SE doesn't shut down, because currently it's still helpful in spite of itself - although probably more for experienced users than absolute beginners.
But I think a lot of people would like to see a saner and more concise alternative with a more generous and less confrontational culture.
When politics - i.e. status games and power plays - are prioritised over product quality, bad things happen.
Unfortunately SE seems to have chosen the former over the latter. I have suspicions that amateur modding is part of the problem.
I hope SE doesn't shut down, because currently it's still helpful in spite of itself - although probably more for experienced users than absolute beginners.
But I think a lot of people would like to see a saner and more concise alternative with a more generous and less confrontational culture.
> necessity to stay on topic
Try a little exercise: ask a computer literate person not familiar with SE to find out what questions are on-topic on https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/
Try a little exercise: ask a computer literate person not familiar with SE to find out what questions are on-topic on https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/
Ask about...
Questions that need improvement may be closed until someone fixes them.
Don't ask about...
software development methods and practices
requirements, architecture, and design
quality assurance and testing
configuration, build, and release management
Questions that need improvement may be closed until someone fixes them.
Don't ask about...
explaining, writing or debugging code
support for tools or products
finding or recommending products or services, including tools, libraries or packages, programming languages, books, scholarly papers, tutorials, articles, or blogs
career or education advice
legal advice or aid
This resignation notice from a moderator on the Christianity Stack Exchange appears to provide the most detail about what's going on: https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6718/b...
The whole pronoun drama that is inherently American is tearing down international communities left and right despite it not being even an issue.
If it really wasn't even an issue, this wouldn't be coming up as often as it does, though, would it? To me, "if someone tells you they prefer singular 'they', use that" is non-controversial, just like "if someone tells you they go by 'Goldie,' use that" should be. Insisting "No, I am going to call you by the pronouns I believe are 'correct' for you" is akin to "No, your legal name is 'Marigold,' and I am going to call you 'Mary.'" Insisting that you will not, under any circumstances, call a person what they've requested you call them is -- to me -- pretty clearly being a discourteous jerk.
There are a lot of valid complaints about the way Stack Overflow moderates in general, but I don't get the impression that this particular squabble is over moderation practices -- it seems to be about upcoming changes to SO's Code of Conduct. I don't know what those changes are, so I'll reserve judgement. I am certainly hoping that it doesn't boil down to "I cannot abide being required to refer to transgender women with 'her' and 'she'," though.
There are a lot of valid complaints about the way Stack Overflow moderates in general, but I don't get the impression that this particular squabble is over moderation practices -- it seems to be about upcoming changes to SO's Code of Conduct. I don't know what those changes are, so I'll reserve judgement. I am certainly hoping that it doesn't boil down to "I cannot abide being required to refer to transgender women with 'her' and 'she'," though.
It's StackEexchange. Pronouns don't matter.
I've never seen a reason for this person pronouns to be used. No one's generalist are topic of conversation, and it's not a a gossip forum, so there is no reason to use third person pronouns to refer to users at all!
If this is true, it's damning:
> Now if I avoid pronouns altogether by sticking to proper names or disengaging from the individual, that's being considered an insult too.
The complaints seem to be about some proposed new rule requiring users to explicitly write other users' pronouns, for no other reason than as a performative display of respect. This is quite different from a rule that says "If a user states that they prefer pronoun X, don't use other pronouns."
If this is true, it's damning:
> Now if I avoid pronouns altogether by sticking to proper names or disengaging from the individual, that's being considered an insult too.
The complaints seem to be about some proposed new rule requiring users to explicitly write other users' pronouns, for no other reason than as a performative display of respect. This is quite different from a rule that says "If a user states that they prefer pronoun X, don't use other pronouns."
I read that quote, too, but here's the thing -- I can't imagine a Code of Conduct actually demanding that staff go out of their way to explicitly write other user's pronouns just for the sake of demonstrating that they will, in fact, use the pronouns the users are requesting.
If moderators are really, truly being directed the way that quote suggests, then yeah, that's a bad directive, whether or not the intentions are good. But some comments here suggested that this had to do with a trans moderator, not a trans user, which makes me suspect the pronouns in question may have been not on public-facing Stack Exchange but in moderator chats/forums. And if moderator X is pointedly avoiding ever "engaging" with moderator Y when the position requires it, then that's going to be a personnel problem.
If moderators are really, truly being directed the way that quote suggests, then yeah, that's a bad directive, whether or not the intentions are good. But some comments here suggested that this had to do with a trans moderator, not a trans user, which makes me suspect the pronouns in question may have been not on public-facing Stack Exchange but in moderator chats/forums. And if moderator X is pointedly avoiding ever "engaging" with moderator Y when the position requires it, then that's going to be a personnel problem.
Moderators, as community leaders, need to go out of their way to signal inclusion for trans people. If they are unwilling to they should resign or be fired.
I think that connects with events like Princess Diana touching a patient with AIDS, Mr. Rogers inviting a black man to share the pool with him, etc. It's a top down change the role models (in this case moderators) can implement to improve equality and show humans as humans which in my experience goes a long way toward shutting down any *phobic type mentalities. It's never an easy or quick change but it's important.
You can't force or even ask someone to be a role model because than that's not being a role model. Much like telling someone to volunteer makes them "not a volunteer".
If I started referring to the men at my work place with "she and her" I would be dropped at the human resources office for harassment. I do not believe it is unreasonable for a public forum such as Stack Exchange to enforce such a policy. If this change forces transphobic people to leave the platform then it is for the better.
I agree. As I mentioned to another commenter, I have a suspicion that the fired moderator was insisting that they be able to basically avoid interacting with a trans moderator, and that this is indeed an HR problem (or the equivalent when you're talking about volunteer moderators). I have a suspicion that when/if a new Code of Conduct is revealed for Stack Exchange it's not going to be particularly controversial except with the crowd who gets up in arms at anything that says "no bigotry" and "no harassment" (which the current COC actually already says).
Imposing speech codes is most definitely an issue. It goes to the core of deeply held values. It replaces tolerance with intolerance as the value to be upheld.
Those imposing the CoC are getting exactly what they want - driving anyone who disagrees from the field.
Those imposing the CoC are getting exactly what they want - driving anyone who disagrees from the field.
Aha, the Jordan Peterson issue.
My understanding is that the train of events that resulted in mod Monica Cellio’s demodding from SE started with a gender-related complaint tweet (https://medium.com/@cellio/dear-stack-overflow-we-need-to-ta...). Companies are now very sensitive to this pattern, esp. true for SE due to the ongoing changes there.
> esp. true for SE due to the ongoing changes there
For the benefit of those of us who don't closely follow Stack Overflow meta-drama, can you explain what this is alluding to?
For the benefit of those of us who don't closely follow Stack Overflow meta-drama, can you explain what this is alluding to?
Recent change in management discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21062191 was widely interpreted as getting ready for SE to be sold. At this point any sort of bad publicity would be shunned, especially. of the “it’s not a welcoming community” kind.
[deleted]
That Twitter kerfuffle was in 2018. Has there been ongoing train of events since then?
Monica mentions "this rule mandates specific, positive actions." but not what the rule is, which I find disquieting. What is the rule, and if it's so bad, and also public (it's a new rule everyone has to know, right?), why is being kept secret?
Monica mentions "this rule mandates specific, positive actions." but not what the rule is, which I find disquieting. What is the rule, and if it's so bad, and also public (it's a new rule everyone has to know, right?), why is being kept secret?
There's been a steady breakdown of trust and goodwill between SO Employee's and moderators/power users over the last year. Part of why this blew up so fast is probably that there's no good will left between the two groups anymore; and people immediately assumed the worst and reacted in anger.
This is a decent (long) summary of what's been happening.
https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/331513/lets-take-a-...
This is a decent (long) summary of what's been happening.
https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/331513/lets-take-a-...
Using the correct pronouns for trans people. That’s it.
You know, maybe removing a whole site from the "Hot Network Questions" list is the easiest thing to do technically, if the goal is to stop certain questions from that site from showing up in that list right now?
Mods should have cooler heads than this, I think.
Mods should have cooler heads than this, I think.
And then they removed "Hot Network Questions" altogether (replaced them with "Network Questions, Manually Featured by Moderators"). And then all of moderators left. Wow.
Every one of these community groups inevitably has some sort of internal political strife of some sort. I've never found any meaning in attempting to engage their politics in any more than the most basic sense.
The groups always exaggerate the impact of actions upon the rest of us when it's usually a no-op as far as we're concerned.
E.g. Reddit iama had this massive controversy around a Reddit facilitator being fired and everyone predicted insta failure or whatever. Lots of time passed and the product is still pretty damned successful (Bill Gates was on it within the last year). I'm sure Wikipedia has had "I'm stepping down" posts and whatnot.
Perhaps the learning is that it isn't a worthwhile way to seek meaning in your life to give away volunteer hours moderating sites unless they're your own or you're paid for it. It is a pointless place to put your self-worth because disagreements will occur and they will be enforced as the site owner desires. Your hours earn you no power.
The groups always exaggerate the impact of actions upon the rest of us when it's usually a no-op as far as we're concerned.
E.g. Reddit iama had this massive controversy around a Reddit facilitator being fired and everyone predicted insta failure or whatever. Lots of time passed and the product is still pretty damned successful (Bill Gates was on it within the last year). I'm sure Wikipedia has had "I'm stepping down" posts and whatnot.
Perhaps the learning is that it isn't a worthwhile way to seek meaning in your life to give away volunteer hours moderating sites unless they're your own or you're paid for it. It is a pointless place to put your self-worth because disagreements will occur and they will be enforced as the site owner desires. Your hours earn you no power.
Reddit is one hell of a case study where owners were willing to let a lot of user goodwill burn and came out on top.
Heck, I was one type of user (wrote comments, had a 6+ year account) until things started to change. Years later, I became a mobile user to scroll through the memes because I wanted something to infini-scroll.
The gamble was that whatever was left of the old reddit would be a springboard for a more conventional user-generated content platform. They were right.
Heck, I was one type of user (wrote comments, had a 6+ year account) until things started to change. Years later, I became a mobile user to scroll through the memes because I wanted something to infini-scroll.
The gamble was that whatever was left of the old reddit would be a springboard for a more conventional user-generated content platform. They were right.
I think I haven't really read an AMA for years now, they're all very bland now.
Bigger names, politicians, etc. too often seem to be bland, seemingly PR-run affairs. For smaller names and niche topics, there is often some legitimate discussion worth reading.
Of course sometimes the bigger ones are great for another reason, their PR-run effort blows up in their face. The recent Beto AMA was a great dumpster fire of a read.
Of course sometimes the bigger ones are great for another reason, their PR-run effort blows up in their face. The recent Beto AMA was a great dumpster fire of a read.
The quality of iama clearly declined and has not recovered. Is that success? Not by my standard. But it might be successful from Reddit's corporate point of view, since they are no longer paying her salary.
One of the forum I'm a member of had some drama the last two weeks, over forum avatars. First all the avatars were replaced by the one from a notorious moderator/news poster making browsing a very interesting experience, at least for myself, since I recognize people there more by avatar than handle and I was catching myself "nope, that's not that mod, it's so-and-so".
Then all the sidebar info (name, posts count, location, badges and tags) and forum signatures were removed, so you'd get no information on who's posting, making it nearly 4chan-style (not a big change on the usual level of discourse there, though). And yesterday only the users who have donated money (either to the forum or to fundraisers events) have their info + signatures back.
Then all the sidebar info (name, posts count, location, badges and tags) and forum signatures were removed, so you'd get no information on who's posting, making it nearly 4chan-style (not a big change on the usual level of discourse there, though). And yesterday only the users who have donated money (either to the forum or to fundraisers events) have their info + signatures back.
Misguided yet understandable conclusion.
People enjoy doing things for others. It's a deep Need people have. If mass violence and wars, natural disasters of all kinds through the ages, have not been able to make us more selfish and wipe out that need, internet drama is not going to either.
The process is messy sure, and if you are experiencing it for the first time it can be confusing, repulsive and misleading. It's not a good idea to follow those feelings and make conclusions. Because those conclusions will obscure from your view, the reasons why anything good happens in the world.
People enjoy doing things for others. It's a deep Need people have. If mass violence and wars, natural disasters of all kinds through the ages, have not been able to make us more selfish and wipe out that need, internet drama is not going to either.
The process is messy sure, and if you are experiencing it for the first time it can be confusing, repulsive and misleading. It's not a good idea to follow those feelings and make conclusions. Because those conclusions will obscure from your view, the reasons why anything good happens in the world.
If sure you didn't intend it, but your tone "misguided", "if you are experiencing it for the first time..." is rather condescending.
Bear in mind there are many of us with many years in the online trenches who have reached the same conclusion - participation is one thing; giving over a huge part of your time and energy is more questionable.
Also the idea that people do it out of an altruistic need to help may be true in some cases but neglects the significant motivation of validation, the need to feel noticed and appreciated through upvotes and other reputation buzzes, and the following increase in "power" and "status", which isn't so obviously positive and healthy.
Bear in mind there are many of us with many years in the online trenches who have reached the same conclusion - participation is one thing; giving over a huge part of your time and energy is more questionable.
Also the idea that people do it out of an altruistic need to help may be true in some cases but neglects the significant motivation of validation, the need to feel noticed and appreciated through upvotes and other reputation buzzes, and the following increase in "power" and "status", which isn't so obviously positive and healthy.
Oh no, I've been around this stuff for decades and I contribute to Wikipedia. It's the tying your self-worth and identity to it that's going to lead to unhappiness. I like contributing to Wikipedia. If I were banned, I'd just eat it and go away. It wouldn't hurt me.
People enjoy power over other people. The benefit of closing questions or moderation on Stack Overflow is questionable.
I have always found Monica Cellio to be a great moderator. If she has been fired then something is deeply wrong over at Stack Exchange.
First manager I've had, great guy and despite his shortcomings I'd work with him again. Straightforward honest guy, did he work well, mentored me well. Then one day he assaulted another coworker in the break room.
Someone's on-the-job performance doesn't mean they are always and forever in the right. Given the lack of any concrete evidence posted but lots of hand-wringing and pearl clutching about vague incidences, I think reserving judgment is the proper course.
Someone's on-the-job performance doesn't mean they are always and forever in the right. Given the lack of any concrete evidence posted but lots of hand-wringing and pearl clutching about vague incidences, I think reserving judgment is the proper course.
A "Director of Public Q&A at Stack Overflow" answered with:
"We aren’t going to share specifics out of respect for all individuals involved but this is a site reaching millions of people and we have to do what we believe fosters a spirit of inclusion and respect. When a moderator violates that, we will always do our best to resolve it with them privately. When we can’t we must take action."
(https://judaism.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5197)
So it look like we won't have anymore information, at least from the SE side.
The fired mod answered in the comments:
"Inclusion and respect are important, yes! I never said otherwise or did anything to violate either the current or forthcoming CoC (as best I understand the latter; y'all haven't answered my questions). Please read the email I sent in response to my firing. It doesn't have to be this way. "
"We aren’t going to share specifics out of respect for all individuals involved but this is a site reaching millions of people and we have to do what we believe fosters a spirit of inclusion and respect. When a moderator violates that, we will always do our best to resolve it with them privately. When we can’t we must take action."
(https://judaism.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5197)
So it look like we won't have anymore information, at least from the SE side.
The fired mod answered in the comments:
"Inclusion and respect are important, yes! I never said otherwise or did anything to violate either the current or forthcoming CoC (as best I understand the latter; y'all haven't answered my questions). Please read the email I sent in response to my firing. It doesn't have to be this way. "
I understand SE respecting privacy by not publishing details about the firing. I don't understand Monica raising a complaint about being fired, giving a lot of background info, saying he knows why he was fired, but writing in tangles to avoid stating what he believes triggered the firing. If it's something about pronouns, or whatever it is, he should say so. Otherwise it's just "I was fired for something that they think is justified but I won't, but I won't say what, and I ask your support."
I read that more as "I disagreed and commented on a future CoC change, but I won't discuss a CoC change that's not been publicly revealed, because it's beside the point".
Well, I read a post from another ex-moderator[0] and it seems the CoC change has a part about pronouns, but it doesn't mean that all the changes are about this and that Monica left because of the changes on pronouns. But that still doesn't change the fact that "firing" a mod for disagreeing with and commenting on a future change of a CoC seem wrong, especially since it didn't look like SE tried to discuss the issue before firing them.
[0]https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6718/b...
[0]https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6718/b...
Last comment and I'll stop updating that thread with new information.
So the disagreement and comments by Monica regarding the CoC was about pronouns. But Monica had waited before another ex-mod talked about this [0], I think because she didn't want discussion about this CoC change to distract from her issue (being "fired" as a mod without discussion).
[0]https://judaism.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5193/stack-...
So the disagreement and comments by Monica regarding the CoC was about pronouns. But Monica had waited before another ex-mod talked about this [0], I think because she didn't want discussion about this CoC change to distract from her issue (being "fired" as a mod without discussion).
[0]https://judaism.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5193/stack-...
Aren't you ignoring your own advice by supporting the dismissal of a moderator before the policy they supposedly might break is even in effect?
It seems like SE got rid of a mod because they voiced concerns about an upcoming rule change... comparing that to assaulting someone is a cheap shot.
It seems like SE got rid of a mod because they voiced concerns about an upcoming rule change... comparing that to assaulting someone is a cheap shot.
They're not in support; they're reserving their judgment, staying neutral.
They did the comparison only to show how goatinaboat's appeal to trust is a logical fallacy. Before coming to a judgment, one should take the facts at hand, instead of relying solely on the trust you have of the people involved like goatinaboat did.
In this case, many details cannot be seen, so it's not proper to decide on a judgment solely on the fact that we trust Monica.
They did the comparison only to show how goatinaboat's appeal to trust is a logical fallacy. Before coming to a judgment, one should take the facts at hand, instead of relying solely on the trust you have of the people involved like goatinaboat did.
In this case, many details cannot be seen, so it's not proper to decide on a judgment solely on the fact that we trust Monica.
Guilty until proven innocent?
It is on the accuser to make the case.
It is on the accuser to make the case.
Considering how rarely the community get any answer from the SE company, I doubt we'd ever get their side of the story.
Well until someone comes forward with some concrete evidence we'll never anything beyond this he said, she said tale.
Don't you mean, "a she-said / stonewall-silence tale"?
I'm curious as to what lead up to the assault.
[deleted]
I am legitimately curious—and concerned—about the relicensing of answers. It really seems as though they shouldn't be able to do that. And if they can, can they also change the license to "all rights reserved by SE"?
Like GPL, CCBYSA allows you —the licensee— to pick a future version of the same license. That is, if you receive a copy of work under v3, you can make it available under v4, no questions asked.
That's all SE has done here. Exercised a clause in the license. If you don't like that, don't submit content under licenses that allow it.
That's all SE has done here. Exercised a clause in the license. If you don't like that, don't submit content under licenses that allow it.
I don't think that's true, see: https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/4.0_upgrade_guidelines
> Original contributions remain under prior version unless express permission to upgrade is obtained.
> Original contributions remain under prior version unless express permission to upgrade is obtained.
Edit: I'm misreading the text[0]. Section 4, clause b:
> You may Distribute or Publicly Perform an Adaptation only under the terms of: (i) this License; (ii) a later version of this License with the same License Elements as this License ...
That only covers adaptations. Ignore me.
[0]: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode
> You may Distribute or Publicly Perform an Adaptation only under the terms of: (i) this License; (ii) a later version of this License with the same License Elements as this License ...
That only covers adaptations. Ignore me.
[0]: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode
So much politics about that. I go on on SO from Google, find solution to my problem. Sometime add my own answers. And sometime I post question when I can't find solution. End of the story. Why the fuck it need to be so complicated?
The problem is, of course, the humans.
Because at the end of the day, SO/SE and everything is in the service of human culture, not a Platonic ideal in and of itself. So the culture wars fold back in on it.
Reading between the lines, it looks like a queer mod felt unsupported by SE over a long period of time, and SE eventually decided to make a code of conduct change. These mods disagreed with that change (some using language like "thought crime") which precipitated their resignations?
It looks more like one mod voiced something potentially ranging between legit concerns to outright argumentative opposition (we don't know) and got demodded for that, and a bunch of other mods are quitting in protest in part because of that, and in part because they feel it went from a mod as first class citizens community with a business component to a top down structure of decisions they have no say in.
Basically if there was going to be a new rule, some of the mods would have preferred if SE had came to meta and asked for help writing it and feedback on it, and instead of being told what the new rule was going to be.
Basically if there was going to be a new rule, some of the mods would have preferred if SE had came to meta and asked for help writing it and feedback on it, and instead of being told what the new rule was going to be.
It's not as simple and linear as you make it out here, from what I can tell. The individual fact bits are right, but the story you paint is too simple.
One big point is that many mods resigned not over the future CoC change but over the plain unprofessional "termination" of the one mod in question (in multiple cases this being straw-camel-back regarding other recent missteps of the SO company). I recommend at least this interaction: https://judaism.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5197
One big point is that many mods resigned not over the future CoC change but over the plain unprofessional "termination" of the one mod in question (in multiple cases this being straw-camel-back regarding other recent missteps of the SO company). I recommend at least this interaction: https://judaism.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5197
> reading between the lines
The lines here are so blurry, I can’t make heads or tails out of any of this. All I can tell for sure is that some of the mods are upset about something (but won’t or can’t say what) and they’re leaving SO. The forced abstraction of this whole saga reminds me of stories I’ve heard from people who lived under communist dictatorships: they’d have to peel back multiple layers of insinuations to try to figure out what was actually meant. The way some of the commenters on here are dancing around saying anything concrete suggests that there are a few people who do know what’s going on but are afraid to come out and say what it is.
The lines here are so blurry, I can’t make heads or tails out of any of this. All I can tell for sure is that some of the mods are upset about something (but won’t or can’t say what) and they’re leaving SO. The forced abstraction of this whole saga reminds me of stories I’ve heard from people who lived under communist dictatorships: they’d have to peel back multiple layers of insinuations to try to figure out what was actually meant. The way some of the commenters on here are dancing around saying anything concrete suggests that there are a few people who do know what’s going on but are afraid to come out and say what it is.
I read through the resignation notices linked from OP, and this one seems to provide some more detail: https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6718/b...
> If person A comes along and demands that I refer to them by their "preferred pronoun" (even if it is a mismatch for their genetic sex or the grammar of the language being spoken) and I refuse, that's considered an insult.
Yep, there it is.
Yep, there it is.
No, not really.
> Now if I avoid pronouns altogether by sticking to proper names or disengaging from the individual, that's being considered an insult too.
It seems like the new CoC requires that not only you don't disparage another's belief, which is fine and everyone agrees with, but you have to actively show that you agree with their point of view as well. You can't remain impartial.
> Now if I avoid pronouns altogether by sticking to proper names or disengaging from the individual, that's being considered an insult too.
It seems like the new CoC requires that not only you don't disparage another's belief, which is fine and everyone agrees with, but you have to actively show that you agree with their point of view as well. You can't remain impartial.
Hold on, it's not clear to me that Aza's and Monica Cello's resignations are connected like this.
Aza's formal resignation is here:
https://literature.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1195/res...
https://literature.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1195/res...
[deleted]
Is there any detail anywhere about why Monica Cellio was fired? Will no one leak the internal chat that was supposedly the justification for her firing?
All I can see online is everyone vaguely talking around the issue.
Make the facts public and let people decide for themselves.
All I can see online is everyone vaguely talking around the issue.
Make the facts public and let people decide for themselves.
Anyone else felt disconcerting about the reoccurring theme of platform attracts communicated generated content, only to shift interest/motive once critical mass is achieved?
Community starts with good people; creates good content; attracts more people; that new people tends to average; contents tends to average; new people tends even more to average; contents quality becomes average; community isn't good anymore.
The cycle certainly didn't start with groups over a computer network, but I think it's very unlikely that it started before written texts. So there's ~8k years window there. It's not literally timeless, but does feel like so.
The cycle certainly didn't start with groups over a computer network, but I think it's very unlikely that it started before written texts. So there's ~8k years window there. It's not literally timeless, but does feel like so.
GP wasn't talking about the community, but of changes dictated by the corporation running the website for that community, which is an important distinction.
In most, if not all of the resignations the primary reason for resigning was the way the firing of one moderator was handled. The internally announced changes to the policies were not necessarily the reason for the resignations. The headline is pretty misleading in that regard.
What I am curious why haven't we seen a quality mashup of a SE site? Some sort of interesting curation/filters etc.
Even the new CC-share-alike allows commercial mixins https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ .
So being that SE started with SO and thus heavy programming emphasis there should be a plethora of interesting mashups.
Instead the only SE content derived sites have been banal copies.
Even the new CC-share-alike allows commercial mixins https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ .
So being that SE started with SO and thus heavy programming emphasis there should be a plethora of interesting mashups.
Instead the only SE content derived sites have been banal copies.
Google will kill it like the Wikipedia clones.
Spotted this on the hot question list, totally out of the loop on the latest SE drama, can somebody fill me in?
There is a perpetual tension between those who want SE to be helping everyone, and those who want to curate a helpful resource. People involved with community moderation aspects tend to fall into the latter group.
For the last half decade or so SE has progressively abandoned this latter group, leading to a lot of pent-up frustration. Some changes SE has made are sensible (e.g. striving to be more welcoming and more inclusive), but the volunteer work of curators has only become more difficult. SE refuses to implement new tools to aid moderation, so that e.g. spam fighting is mostly done by volunteer projects.
That only sets the general scene. Since the last year or so SE has stopped engaging the community on Meta, mostly just announcing changes top-down. Tweets by third parties have larger impact on SE policy than long-standing complaints by the community. This has led to a further deterioration of the relationship. The illegal changes to the content license a month ago are a perfect example of this top-down, uncooperative approach.
Now the actual drama starts: in a closed moderator chat, there was some kind of discussion or disagreement. I'm not privy to the details. Not all of this is nice, e.g. it seems that SE is unwilling to protect trans moderators from vitriol by other mods. But to everyone's confusion, Monica Cellio was suddenly removed as a volunteer moderator. She is known as being extremely reasonable, experienced, and sincere. While she might have tried to discuss sincere questions, it is beyond belief that she would attack another moderator.
So moderators and other engaged users are deeply frustrated, see a company that no longer engages with the community, does stupid decisions, and has now fired one of the best volunteer moderators in a despicable manner. For a lot of people, this is the straw that broke the camel's back. E.g. one mod I know decided to resign because they now see themselves completely unable to achieve any positive change on the site. And if Monica isn't a good-enough mod, how can they hope to be remotely adequate?
Disclosure: I wrote the linked Meta.SE question. It is my belief that SE the company and SE the community need to cooperate for both to be successful. Yes, the community can sometimes be toxic. But the company seems to have given up completely on engaging with the community, and that does not bode well.
For the last half decade or so SE has progressively abandoned this latter group, leading to a lot of pent-up frustration. Some changes SE has made are sensible (e.g. striving to be more welcoming and more inclusive), but the volunteer work of curators has only become more difficult. SE refuses to implement new tools to aid moderation, so that e.g. spam fighting is mostly done by volunteer projects.
That only sets the general scene. Since the last year or so SE has stopped engaging the community on Meta, mostly just announcing changes top-down. Tweets by third parties have larger impact on SE policy than long-standing complaints by the community. This has led to a further deterioration of the relationship. The illegal changes to the content license a month ago are a perfect example of this top-down, uncooperative approach.
Now the actual drama starts: in a closed moderator chat, there was some kind of discussion or disagreement. I'm not privy to the details. Not all of this is nice, e.g. it seems that SE is unwilling to protect trans moderators from vitriol by other mods. But to everyone's confusion, Monica Cellio was suddenly removed as a volunteer moderator. She is known as being extremely reasonable, experienced, and sincere. While she might have tried to discuss sincere questions, it is beyond belief that she would attack another moderator.
So moderators and other engaged users are deeply frustrated, see a company that no longer engages with the community, does stupid decisions, and has now fired one of the best volunteer moderators in a despicable manner. For a lot of people, this is the straw that broke the camel's back. E.g. one mod I know decided to resign because they now see themselves completely unable to achieve any positive change on the site. And if Monica isn't a good-enough mod, how can they hope to be remotely adequate?
Disclosure: I wrote the linked Meta.SE question. It is my belief that SE the company and SE the community need to cooperate for both to be successful. Yes, the community can sometimes be toxic. But the company seems to have given up completely on engaging with the community, and that does not bode well.
I really wish more details about this was available.
> it seems that SE is unwilling to protect trans moderators from vitriol by other mods.
Reading Monica's post made me pretty sure this was trans related. I'm sad that I was right.
> [From Monica's Post] unlike the rest of the CoC, this rule mandates specific, positive actions.
This is something I've heard many times from anti-trans activists in order to justify their purposeful, and intentional misgendering and dead-naming of trans individuals. I'm not saying that is what Monica is advocating, but my spidey-sense is definitely tingling.
> [From Monica's Post] chastising me for raising issues and saying my values were out of alignment.
Again this is something I hear from anti-trans activists. We saw similar rhetoric from homophobic individuals back in the 90s. That their religion and values dictated that gay people were bad therefore they couldn't <insert action here>.
---
Without knowing more it is hard to say, but even if this isn't about trans people Monica's arguments aren't inherently right. One person's religious beliefs don't justify the disregard for others. A very extreme example would be that many KKK member's religion states that black people are inherently inferior, and we don't give that belief consideration.
If you know more, please do share, because right now it seems like one sides arguments are valid, but they can quickly fall apart depending upon the specifics.
> it seems that SE is unwilling to protect trans moderators from vitriol by other mods.
Reading Monica's post made me pretty sure this was trans related. I'm sad that I was right.
> [From Monica's Post] unlike the rest of the CoC, this rule mandates specific, positive actions.
This is something I've heard many times from anti-trans activists in order to justify their purposeful, and intentional misgendering and dead-naming of trans individuals. I'm not saying that is what Monica is advocating, but my spidey-sense is definitely tingling.
> [From Monica's Post] chastising me for raising issues and saying my values were out of alignment.
Again this is something I hear from anti-trans activists. We saw similar rhetoric from homophobic individuals back in the 90s. That their religion and values dictated that gay people were bad therefore they couldn't <insert action here>.
---
Without knowing more it is hard to say, but even if this isn't about trans people Monica's arguments aren't inherently right. One person's religious beliefs don't justify the disregard for others. A very extreme example would be that many KKK member's religion states that black people are inherently inferior, and we don't give that belief consideration.
If you know more, please do share, because right now it seems like one sides arguments are valid, but they can quickly fall apart depending upon the specifics.
I understand your scepticism, and was thinking hard about this before I published the linked post.
Anti-trans and anti-CoC sentiment are certainly part of the issue at hand, but likely not by Monica. Some of the resignations may be partially motivated by hate, many of the responses definitely are. However, there are many other aspects of the firing that are problematic by themselves, regardless of the reason for the firing.
It doesn't matter what Monica believes, only how she acts and speaks. It is my understanding (based on hearsay) that at no point in this incident did she make statements that would be considered transphobic by a reasonable person. While she was uncomfortable with upcoming CoC changes, she was also asking for clarification and guidance in good faith. Definitely not in that “I'm just asking a question!” trolling style. Asking sincere questions would be the sign of a potential ally, it is illogical to shut those down. However, some of the relevant correspondence is in personal emails, so we'll never know the truth.
I'm confident that she didn't say or do anything that would violate the current or upcoming SE CoC, but that the director firing her felt that Monica's questions were evidence that she would not uphold the upcoming CoC. This is silly: if a mod feels they are unable to fulfil their position they can just resign, no need to boot them in advance. I dislike the “thoughtcrime” meme, but here it might actually fit.
There's also an aspect that I find more troubling, which is the legitimacy of CoCs. They only protect the community when violations are investigated fairly. Normally the problem is that the CoC is not enforced enough. Here, a CoC was enforced without there being a violation, and that gives ammunition to the idiots who think the sole purpose of a CoC is to silence insufficiently progressive speech.
Edit 1: the first resignation is in that explicitly lists the CoC as reason for resignation [1]. The CoC will apparently require that correct pronouns are used.
Edit 2: the new CoC will allegedly require pronouns, i.e. will not allow the avoidance of pronouns. As a person who prefers non-standard pronouns, such a requirement is counterproductive because it requires some people to act against their conscience, whereas avoiding pronouns still avoids misgendering and lets everyone save face.
[1]: https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6718/b...
Anti-trans and anti-CoC sentiment are certainly part of the issue at hand, but likely not by Monica. Some of the resignations may be partially motivated by hate, many of the responses definitely are. However, there are many other aspects of the firing that are problematic by themselves, regardless of the reason for the firing.
It doesn't matter what Monica believes, only how she acts and speaks. It is my understanding (based on hearsay) that at no point in this incident did she make statements that would be considered transphobic by a reasonable person. While she was uncomfortable with upcoming CoC changes, she was also asking for clarification and guidance in good faith. Definitely not in that “I'm just asking a question!” trolling style. Asking sincere questions would be the sign of a potential ally, it is illogical to shut those down. However, some of the relevant correspondence is in personal emails, so we'll never know the truth.
I'm confident that she didn't say or do anything that would violate the current or upcoming SE CoC, but that the director firing her felt that Monica's questions were evidence that she would not uphold the upcoming CoC. This is silly: if a mod feels they are unable to fulfil their position they can just resign, no need to boot them in advance. I dislike the “thoughtcrime” meme, but here it might actually fit.
There's also an aspect that I find more troubling, which is the legitimacy of CoCs. They only protect the community when violations are investigated fairly. Normally the problem is that the CoC is not enforced enough. Here, a CoC was enforced without there being a violation, and that gives ammunition to the idiots who think the sole purpose of a CoC is to silence insufficiently progressive speech.
Edit 1: the first resignation is in that explicitly lists the CoC as reason for resignation [1]. The CoC will apparently require that correct pronouns are used.
Edit 2: the new CoC will allegedly require pronouns, i.e. will not allow the avoidance of pronouns. As a person who prefers non-standard pronouns, such a requirement is counterproductive because it requires some people to act against their conscience, whereas avoiding pronouns still avoids misgendering and lets everyone save face.
[1]: https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6718/b...
I'm not perfect, but I understand the need to use the correct pronouns. Ultimately Stack Exchange needs to make this new CoC public. People should know the guidelines to post on a site and not unintentionally break rules that one can't read...
Thanks. I do appreciate the details, and the discussion around this. As I said I don't know what Monica said so I'm trying to reserve judgement, but I am sceptical because of how I've seen many of these arguments play out. I would be interested in seeing the details of the particular conversation, because this is one of those situations where details really truly matter.
I think that you're spot-on. Some 2% of the population is neither man nor woman; if Monica doesn't use "they" to refer to them, then how does she refer to them?
Well in this case biology doesn't give the question a consideration, even though the issue is not anyone, even the moderator in question, attacking anyone for being transsexual. No one even knows one gender on stackoverflow, you just assume it from name or write neutrally.
What does biology have to do with what I wrote? If someone says call me Pete and you then insist on calling them Sam, you are being a jerk.
Also “write neutrally” tends to not actually be written neutrally. “Guys” being one of the common examples, it is used neutrally but inherently has a male biases. This can be frustrating to many women, trans or cis. Invisible Women has a lot in it about this problem and knock on effects of it.
Why are you using the word transsexual? It is largely a medical term at this point referring to the someone who has undergone full SRS. As it is generally considered quite rude to talk about people’s genital configuration the LGBT community has largely moved on from this term to transgender.
Also “write neutrally” tends to not actually be written neutrally. “Guys” being one of the common examples, it is used neutrally but inherently has a male biases. This can be frustrating to many women, trans or cis. Invisible Women has a lot in it about this problem and knock on effects of it.
Why are you using the word transsexual? It is largely a medical term at this point referring to the someone who has undergone full SRS. As it is generally considered quite rude to talk about people’s genital configuration the LGBT community has largely moved on from this term to transgender.
Well I'm not an American or native speaker, it's rude to think we all live in the same culture and moral code too.
The other threads show that there has never been a complaint about misgendering anyone on purpose but the new CoC lays out bunch of very difficult to characterize commandments.
The biology has to do with it that no matter what we decide how to speak in society, it doesn't inherently change the fact sex has very much biological meaning and words don't change that. That is the belief consideration we give a lot of power even though we should not.
The other threads show that there has never been a complaint about misgendering anyone on purpose but the new CoC lays out bunch of very difficult to characterize commandments.
The biology has to do with it that no matter what we decide how to speak in society, it doesn't inherently change the fact sex has very much biological meaning and words don't change that. That is the belief consideration we give a lot of power even though we should not.
Of course sex has a biological meaning. Trans people are more aware of that than anyone else. That is why many trans people change their primary and secondary sex characteristics through hormones and surgery.
You can change your sex but not your gender.
You can change your sex but not your gender.
> There is a perpetual tension between those who want SE to be helping everyone, and those who want to curate a helpful resource. ...
The thing is the "curator" people feel really strongly about what they're doing. Obviously, I am on the side of at least trying to help everyone even if that means "the rules" get bent.
Let's not blow this out of proportion. It's NOT "a firing" No one lost their livelihood.
When I visit someone else's house, I do my best to adhere to any rules or customs they may have. I usually stay quiet, listen, and attempt to understand their ways.
Stack Exchange is not really any different than visiting a stranger's home. SE has its own set of rules and customs. It takes effort to sit back, listen, and understand them without questioning them. Just accepting them for what they are without any judgment.
Stack Exchange has high standards for what it considers to be an acceptable question as well as an acceptable answer. These standards are quite different than nearly all other forums that came before it. It was their site and they created the rules. It's our job to play their game.
If I don't like the rules of the game that they've laid out, then I can play a different game. There are literally hundreds, if not thousands of other forums where you can ask questions and get answers with less standards and barriers to entry than Stack Exchange.
One of the reasons SE emerged as the leading Q&A site is that they imposed these strict set of rules. They provided a very structured way to both ask a question (minimally sufficient reproducible example) and to produce an answer. Another goal was to limit discussion.
Packaging all these ideas together along with points and badges lead to its tremendous success. Getting answers to programming questions before SE wasn't nearly as easy. But their gamification with explicit rules worked better than that came before it.
If the first Q&A volunteers from SE did not adhere to these rules of the game and if they were not strictly enforced, then it wouldn't exist today. It exists precisely because these rules exist and were adhered to.
As a human being who uses emotional-based reasoning, it can hurt whenever an interaction on SE is met without the expected conclusion. When someone posts a question on SE, the expectation is that it is answered. Getting a question downvoted or closed does hurt, but it's very likely that these actions are just the rules of the game playing itself out.
This really isn't different than playing Monopoly and landing on the 'Go to Jail' square. It doesn't help meeting your goal for the game and can sting in that moment. Eliminating the Go to Jail square from Monopoly fundamentally changes the game. You can imagine more 'negative' rules from Monopoly being eliminated such that the game wouldn't even resemble itself anymore. And if such a game were invented, it likely would never have been successful. If I don't like Monopoly's rules, I can play another game.
SE is successful because there are a strict set of rules that restrict the set of content that can be posted. It is these rules that have lead to its success.
This doesn't absolve SE from criticism just like it doesn't absolve Monopoly from criticism. You are free to dislike any of its set of rules. But at the end of the day, you still have to play by the rules or find a different site.
This also doesn't absolve any of the people moderating, asking or answering questions, or commenting. It's possible to break the rules or code of conduct. SE has guidelines for this as well. As humans, there is going to be some failure to maintain civilized discussion. But, enforcing a rule correctly as a moderator that someone else might perceive as negative (going to jail) is just part of the SE game.
Stack Exchange is not really any different than visiting a stranger's home. SE has its own set of rules and customs. It takes effort to sit back, listen, and understand them without questioning them. Just accepting them for what they are without any judgment.
Stack Exchange has high standards for what it considers to be an acceptable question as well as an acceptable answer. These standards are quite different than nearly all other forums that came before it. It was their site and they created the rules. It's our job to play their game.
If I don't like the rules of the game that they've laid out, then I can play a different game. There are literally hundreds, if not thousands of other forums where you can ask questions and get answers with less standards and barriers to entry than Stack Exchange.
One of the reasons SE emerged as the leading Q&A site is that they imposed these strict set of rules. They provided a very structured way to both ask a question (minimally sufficient reproducible example) and to produce an answer. Another goal was to limit discussion.
Packaging all these ideas together along with points and badges lead to its tremendous success. Getting answers to programming questions before SE wasn't nearly as easy. But their gamification with explicit rules worked better than that came before it.
If the first Q&A volunteers from SE did not adhere to these rules of the game and if they were not strictly enforced, then it wouldn't exist today. It exists precisely because these rules exist and were adhered to.
As a human being who uses emotional-based reasoning, it can hurt whenever an interaction on SE is met without the expected conclusion. When someone posts a question on SE, the expectation is that it is answered. Getting a question downvoted or closed does hurt, but it's very likely that these actions are just the rules of the game playing itself out.
This really isn't different than playing Monopoly and landing on the 'Go to Jail' square. It doesn't help meeting your goal for the game and can sting in that moment. Eliminating the Go to Jail square from Monopoly fundamentally changes the game. You can imagine more 'negative' rules from Monopoly being eliminated such that the game wouldn't even resemble itself anymore. And if such a game were invented, it likely would never have been successful. If I don't like Monopoly's rules, I can play another game.
SE is successful because there are a strict set of rules that restrict the set of content that can be posted. It is these rules that have lead to its success.
This doesn't absolve SE from criticism just like it doesn't absolve Monopoly from criticism. You are free to dislike any of its set of rules. But at the end of the day, you still have to play by the rules or find a different site.
This also doesn't absolve any of the people moderating, asking or answering questions, or commenting. It's possible to break the rules or code of conduct. SE has guidelines for this as well. As humans, there is going to be some failure to maintain civilized discussion. But, enforcing a rule correctly as a moderator that someone else might perceive as negative (going to jail) is just part of the SE game.
> SE is successful because there are a strict set of rules that restrict the set of content that can be posted. It is these rules that have lead to its success.
The sites have never been even remotely consistent in their enforcement of the rules, so it is really not possible to make the claim that "strictness" is what has made stackexchange a success. Many of the things that the strict people abhor are some of the best things on the sites-- like comments, open-ended questions, answers that question the question. This is especially true in stackexchanges like "The Workplace".
It remains to be seen what really caused Monica to get ousted (not "fired") as a moderator. I expect it to be something quite ugly relating to the upcoming guidelines that most people haven't seen yet.
Thankyou.
I would browse Workplace SE quite a bit (it seems to feature on the 'Hot Questions' list regularly) and Monica Cellio has always come across as decent/smart/sincere, so yeah, that's pretty bizarre.
I would browse Workplace SE quite a bit (it seems to feature on the 'Hot Questions' list regularly) and Monica Cellio has always come across as decent/smart/sincere, so yeah, that's pretty bizarre.
Spot on. Monica is a fantastic person and was a huge asset to SE. I've continually expected to hear that SE had hired Monica as a Community Manager, as they have over the years done with other well-respected mods.
This is a "You maniacs; you blew it up!" moment. What just happened??
This is a "You maniacs; you blew it up!" moment. What just happened??
>> There is a perpetual tension between those who want SE to be helping everyone, and those who want to curate a helpful resource.
I never understood this. Why have one or the other instead of both. All questions funnel in on a "everyone" area for a particular type of question. (Junior people can moderate those to gain experience if the senior mods don't want to. This will give them experience, insight, etc.) Even the most repetitive and/or superficial homework question can be answered and not closed as duplicate. (Or at least pointed to the duplicates but not closed until the questioner has accepted a duplicate as an acceptable answer.)
When "good quality" appear or new/unique questions and answers appear they can be refined and moved over into a curated persistent section for future reference. The senior mods can take over at this point to make sure the reference Q&A are as they like.
I always hated that "closed as duplicate" reply especially if I'd already seen the supposed duplicates and didn't think they applied. This approach would allow those to be answered by new people or ignored if nobody wanted to answer.
I never understood this. Why have one or the other instead of both. All questions funnel in on a "everyone" area for a particular type of question. (Junior people can moderate those to gain experience if the senior mods don't want to. This will give them experience, insight, etc.) Even the most repetitive and/or superficial homework question can be answered and not closed as duplicate. (Or at least pointed to the duplicates but not closed until the questioner has accepted a duplicate as an acceptable answer.)
When "good quality" appear or new/unique questions and answers appear they can be refined and moved over into a curated persistent section for future reference. The senior mods can take over at this point to make sure the reference Q&A are as they like.
I always hated that "closed as duplicate" reply especially if I'd already seen the supposed duplicates and didn't think they applied. This approach would allow those to be answered by new people or ignored if nobody wanted to answer.
FWIW, Jeff Atwood has voiced similar ideas (or support thereof), as have many others. It is my impression that people would be open to such drastic changes to the core QA aspect, but whether SO (the company) is willing to make them is a very different question. I see no indication that the answer is "yes".
I've seen proposals along these lines made many times. SE (the company) apparently isn't interested in that tho.
I think it's worth pointing out that there is also a commercial imperative involved in the tension you cite.
In fact, it is that - not "the community" - that is the ultimate decision maker here, though naturally the community being part of the USP, the commercial enterprise undermines it at it's peril.
As you disclose, you are seeing this from a particular point of view - the mods (whether or not you are one yourself).
It is worth bearing in mind that is a minority - if heavily invested - point of view.
Most users probably have little interest in the politics you describe, and the business only in so far as it affects returns.
In fact, it is that - not "the community" - that is the ultimate decision maker here, though naturally the community being part of the USP, the commercial enterprise undermines it at it's peril.
As you disclose, you are seeing this from a particular point of view - the mods (whether or not you are one yourself).
It is worth bearing in mind that is a minority - if heavily invested - point of view.
Most users probably have little interest in the politics you describe, and the business only in so far as it affects returns.
>> There is a perpetual tension between those who want SE to be helping everyone, and those who want to curate a helpful resource.
I never understood this. Why have one or the other instead of both. All questions funnel in on a "everyone" area for a particular type of question. (Junior people can moderate those to gain experience if the senior mods don't want to. This will give them experience, insight, etc.) Even the most repetitive and/or superficial homework question can be answered and not closed as duplicate. (Or at least pointed to the duplicates but not closed until the questioner has accepted a duplicate as an acceptable answer.)
When "good quality" appear or new/unique questions and answers appear they can be refined and moved over into a curated persistent section for future reference. The senior mods can take over at this point to make sure the reference Q&A are as they like.
I always hated that "closed as duplicate" reply especially if I'd already seen the supposed duplicates and didn't think they applied. This approach would allow those to be answered by new people or ignored if nobody wanted to answer.
I never understood this. Why have one or the other instead of both. All questions funnel in on a "everyone" area for a particular type of question. (Junior people can moderate those to gain experience if the senior mods don't want to. This will give them experience, insight, etc.) Even the most repetitive and/or superficial homework question can be answered and not closed as duplicate. (Or at least pointed to the duplicates but not closed until the questioner has accepted a duplicate as an acceptable answer.)
When "good quality" appear or new/unique questions and answers appear they can be refined and moved over into a curated persistent section for future reference. The senior mods can take over at this point to make sure the reference Q&A are as they like.
I always hated that "closed as duplicate" reply especially if I'd already seen the supposed duplicates and didn't think they applied. This approach would allow those to be answered by new people or ignored if nobody wanted to answer.
The policy in question appears to be affirmatively requiring moderators not to (deliberately) mis-gender trans people, or allow user content to do the same.
All these ex-mods wrote these coy essays with discussions of free will and human rights in order to avoid discussing the issue at hand.
Trans people are surely a more important part of the StackExchange community and business than a few unpaid volunteers.
I am not sorry that Monica’s feelings were hurt by a demand for basic human decency.
All these ex-mods wrote these coy essays with discussions of free will and human rights in order to avoid discussing the issue at hand.
Trans people are surely a more important part of the StackExchange community and business than a few unpaid volunteers.
I am not sorry that Monica’s feelings were hurt by a demand for basic human decency.
>The policy in question appears to be affirmatively requiring moderators not to (deliberately) mis-gender trans people
This is either incorrect or relies on an unconventionally broad notion of "misgendering." Normally misgendering is understood to be the act of using pronouns other than a person's preferred pronouns, the point of controversy is that now simply avoiding pronouns can be considered an act of misgendering. This is new territory.
This is either incorrect or relies on an unconventionally broad notion of "misgendering." Normally misgendering is understood to be the act of using pronouns other than a person's preferred pronouns, the point of controversy is that now simply avoiding pronouns can be considered an act of misgendering. This is new territory.
If you very conspicuously avoid using pronouns for someone, it’s pretty obvious what’s going on and that you’re deliberately avoiding gendering someone correctly. It’s not as bad as using the wrong pronouns, but it’s still very disrespectful.
I think we need to see this policy.
Particularly on a Q&A site, avoiding gendered pronouns altogether strikes me as the _most_ practical policy. It's what I (try my best to remember to) do on Hacker News. I don't know what pronouns the GP prefers, and I can't very well ask them right now, so if I have to refer to them, I'll either say "they" or "the GP".
Particularly on a Q&A site, avoiding gendered pronouns altogether strikes me as the _most_ practical policy. It's what I (try my best to remember to) do on Hacker News. I don't know what pronouns the GP prefers, and I can't very well ask them right now, so if I have to refer to them, I'll either say "they" or "the GP".
The specific complaint made by one of the mods is that avoiding pronouns for or disengaging from a specific person to avoid using is viewed as improper under the new CoC. That's not the same as avoiding pronouns generally, it's differential treatment of an individual for not conforming to your preferred gender expression.
The line is when you treat trans and nonbinary people differently from cis people.
Do Jeff Atwood and Joel Spolsky still a say in how SE is run? If yes, now would be the perfect time to step in and moderate the discussion.
One of the moderators resigned by citing a persistent pattern of corporate missteps and a monumentally deplorable moderator dismissal.
Jeff Atwood commented under the resignation: "It is definitely hard to see long time deep contributors go, but this is sometimes the way of life. I don't begrudge anyone after ~10 years wanting a change."
https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/389906/moderator-re...
Hardly seems helpful to me in calming down the heated minds.
Jeff Atwood commented under the resignation: "It is definitely hard to see long time deep contributors go, but this is sometimes the way of life. I don't begrudge anyone after ~10 years wanting a change."
https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/389906/moderator-re...
Hardly seems helpful to me in calming down the heated minds.
In the linked post Jeff Atwood is in the comments moaning about the title.
I believe it was also Jeff Atwood who, for the longest time, could not fathom why people did not like being forced to use OpenID to log into Stack Overflow. Like, he could literally not fathom it and agonized in blog posts over his own inability to understand people (he was quite honest about it). Even though they caved on this point, to this day Stack Overflow actively fights new users trying to get in and participate on the platform (I have long since given up).
Jeff seems to have a lot of trouble empathising with users, especially when they want something that clashes with whatever he has discovered is the 'right' solution. See blocklists in discourse, why people join unions, &c.
Jeff Atwood had left half a decade or more ago, to work on a forum platform, called discourse. Joel Spolsky was CEO until last month, but I don't know how much he worked directly on the Q&A.
He quit just a month or so ago. https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2019/03/28/the-next-ceo-of-st...
Atwood has not worked there since 2012 and has no say in the day-to-day operations: https://blog.codinghorror.com/what-does-stack-overflow-want-...
Back in the day I used to be among top users on that site - they even sent me a T-shirt at some time. Left several years ago, as the site became toxic.
I'm not mentioning this "top user" thing on my resume anymore, because not relevant.
The site is still an excellent source of information about all things that were cool ten years ago, such as Java, Spring, SQL, Python.
I'm not mentioning this "top user" thing on my resume anymore, because not relevant.
The site is still an excellent source of information about all things that were cool ten years ago, such as Java, Spring, SQL, Python.
RIP SE
Reminds me of the company take overs where the key asset is human capital and they all just walk out the door after the deal. Congrats you bought an empty building for billions
Don't think SE is ever going to be profitable if they can't keep key figures happy
Reminds me of the company take overs where the key asset is human capital and they all just walk out the door after the deal. Congrats you bought an empty building for billions
Don't think SE is ever going to be profitable if they can't keep key figures happy
> "they think I will in the future violate a thoughtcrime-style provision of a Code of Conduct change that hasn't been made yet"
Seems like a code of conduct issue?
Seems like a code of conduct issue?
Why did this story drop off the front page so quickly when it was one of the most popular?
Is the flag system being abused?
Is the flag system being abused?
So why hasn't an alternative to SO emerged where users can come, everyone who thirsts, come to the waters; and he who has no money, come, ask and learn! Come, ask questions and get expert answers without money and without price
Isn't that how literally any forum operates? Maybe the SO format has some merit that made it come out so far ahead of any kind of forum?
The old system, whatever it was, incentivized bad mod behavior and ruined the experience.
This is natural selection at work.
Stack Exchange has become a frustrating site to use.
"Closed as duplicate: different and unrelated question"
reopen further explaining the question and how its not related
"Closed as duplicate: the first question that was immediately closed with no replies"
OR!
Google around, find SE link on issue, everybody is arguing about why the user wants to do it that why, convinces them to do it another way, only I don't have that option, so I open my own question, and its closed as a dupe of the one from google where the original question was never answered.
or
Post helpful answer that actually answers the users question as asked without berating them for wanting to do it that way
Get yelled at in the comments for creating noise?
---
The moral of the story is that stack exchange needs to die so that something else can come from its ashes that is able to look back at SE as an example of how not to do shit.
Stack Exchange has become a frustrating site to use.
"Closed as duplicate: different and unrelated question"
reopen further explaining the question and how its not related
"Closed as duplicate: the first question that was immediately closed with no replies"
OR!
Google around, find SE link on issue, everybody is arguing about why the user wants to do it that why, convinces them to do it another way, only I don't have that option, so I open my own question, and its closed as a dupe of the one from google where the original question was never answered.
or
Post helpful answer that actually answers the users question as asked without berating them for wanting to do it that way
Get yelled at in the comments for creating noise?
---
The moral of the story is that stack exchange needs to die so that something else can come from its ashes that is able to look back at SE as an example of how not to do shit.
Ah yes, the good old "X/Y Problem" [0]
Doesn't matter if Y is non-negotiable, or if I've purposely constrained Y, to get a specific answer for a specific technology.
How infuriating for a "Questions and Answers" site, to be told when you're asking a question, that the question you're asking is wrong, and that "you should instead have asked ..."
I swear to god, the SO mods are the dumbest, most priggish, humourless beaureucrats in existence.
[0] https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/66377/what-is-the-x...
Doesn't matter if Y is non-negotiable, or if I've purposely constrained Y, to get a specific answer for a specific technology.
How infuriating for a "Questions and Answers" site, to be told when you're asking a question, that the question you're asking is wrong, and that "you should instead have asked ..."
I swear to god, the SO mods are the dumbest, most priggish, humourless beaureucrats in existence.
[0] https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/66377/what-is-the-x...
I would be okay with the moderation if there were some constraints to non-community mods. I find these kafkaesque processes unacceptable where same people downvote, close, dismiss flags and delete.
It's just impossible that they don't make any mistakes judging the questions but SO makes it near impossible to fight back or correct any mistakes you might've made (mistakes they don't really tell you, keep in mind).
In the end StackExchange owners should decide on what's the point of SO, if it's meant to be a historical archive about solutions that are often outdated and pedantically kept like that, citing vague rules. Or do they want a site where people can ask questions, actually get helpful corrections and to get up-to-date answers - basically as the smaller communities are where people haven't accumulated reputation in (tens of) thousands.
It's just impossible that they don't make any mistakes judging the questions but SO makes it near impossible to fight back or correct any mistakes you might've made (mistakes they don't really tell you, keep in mind).
In the end StackExchange owners should decide on what's the point of SO, if it's meant to be a historical archive about solutions that are often outdated and pedantically kept like that, citing vague rules. Or do they want a site where people can ask questions, actually get helpful corrections and to get up-to-date answers - basically as the smaller communities are where people haven't accumulated reputation in (tens of) thousands.
You see this phenomenon here on HN all the time. Find anybody asking a question or help to figure something out and the first couple answers will likely be "why are you doing it that way?", followed by almost completely useless advice to do something else entirely a completely different way.
Well, it is often useful to ask why a user wants to do something a particular way, and commendable to inform them if it’s bad practice.
The trouble is, if you’re going to reply that way, you should strive to first answer the question, as asked. If the answer is bad practice, of course, you should mention that.
That’s the respectful way to handle a misguided question, in my opinion. Give the reader both solutions, explain why the alternate is better, and leave it to the reader how to proceed from there.
The trouble is, if you’re going to reply that way, you should strive to first answer the question, as asked. If the answer is bad practice, of course, you should mention that.
That’s the respectful way to handle a misguided question, in my opinion. Give the reader both solutions, explain why the alternate is better, and leave it to the reader how to proceed from there.
The one case where I think it makes sense to say "Don't do that" unequivocally is with security issues. Cryptography SE gets a decent number of people asking some variant of "how do I implement <incredibly insecure harebrained scheme>" to which the only correct answer is "Don't do that. It's unsafe."
Home Improvement is another good one where “STOP IMMEDIATELY” is a good answer:
https://diy.stackexchange.com/a/174646/35432
https://diy.stackexchange.com/a/174646/35432
The really funny thing is that the OP of that question ignored absolutely everything being suggested, finished the project himself, and then posted an answer saying as much on his own question (yeah, an actual answer as opposed to adding an "edit" to his OP!), never selected a best answer, and then mods closed the post. So now any DIY'er who encounters the same thing OR even worse encounters something different but still thinks it's the same thing will believe it's perfectly safe to roll the dice and continue the project on their own, likely killing themselves and/or loved ones. I don't have sympathy for them, but I sure do for their families.
seriously.
I've been doing this stuff a long time, there's usually a reason why I'm doing it the way I'm doing it. I understand you don't like it, think it shouldn't be done that way, and so forth.
But I promise you, I've already considered the alternatives. And if you mention an alternative I haven't considered, I'll consider it then.
But please, for the love of god, just answer the effing question and stop assuming you know the nuances of my problem better than I do.
I've been doing this stuff a long time, there's usually a reason why I'm doing it the way I'm doing it. I understand you don't like it, think it shouldn't be done that way, and so forth.
But I promise you, I've already considered the alternatives. And if you mention an alternative I haven't considered, I'll consider it then.
But please, for the love of god, just answer the effing question and stop assuming you know the nuances of my problem better than I do.
> I've been doing this stuff a long time, there's usually a reason why I'm doing it the way I'm doing it.
People who've been doing it long enough probably also have the experience to know how to ask a good question that explains the why of the unusual request.
"I unfortunately stuck on an low-power embedded device that for some weird reason only supports MD5" is going to be treated differently on SO than "I'm new to PHP and I'm using MD5 for to encrypt passwords but I can't reverse the encryption to read the password!"
People who've been doing it long enough probably also have the experience to know how to ask a good question that explains the why of the unusual request.
"I unfortunately stuck on an low-power embedded device that for some weird reason only supports MD5" is going to be treated differently on SO than "I'm new to PHP and I'm using MD5 for to encrypt passwords but I can't reverse the encryption to read the password!"
at which point you get into arguments about whether or not you really should be taking that approach.
just answer the damned question, and if you have concerns, ask. I'm more than happy to explain it, I just don't want to have an hours long discussion when I asked a fairly specific question.
just answer the damned question, and if you have concerns, ask. I'm more than happy to explain it, I just don't want to have an hours long discussion when I asked a fairly specific question.
Classic situation faced repeatedly throughout one's career -- I used the word nuance just yesterday!
Lest we forget, stack exchange is already rising from the ashes of the 'Experts Exchange' if anyone remembers that --
Lest we forget, stack exchange is already rising from the ashes of the 'Experts Exchange' if anyone remembers that --
We aren't here to just answer your homework question. Why you're doing something is part of the conversation and its context.
It's also part of asking a good question. I don't understand the uproar especially on a Q&A site.
It's also part of asking a good question. I don't understand the uproar especially on a Q&A site.
This behaviour is particularly bad on a Q&A site that aims, as SO claims to do, to optimise for future readers (rather than the individual asking the question).
It leads to a page with a clear question at the top and a great deal of text below which is not an answer to that question.
It leads to a page with a clear question at the top and a great deal of text below which is not an answer to that question.
> Why you're doing something is part of the conversation and its context.
...and is often a way to shift the conversation to an argument about why the asker is doing it that way instead of giving them the information they actually asked for. I don't have time to argue about the sequence of events and layers of requirements that led to me asking the question, it doesn't matter if this "isn't the right way" to do it, it's the way I need to do it.
...and is often a way to shift the conversation to an argument about why the asker is doing it that way instead of giving them the information they actually asked for. I don't have time to argue about the sequence of events and layers of requirements that led to me asking the question, it doesn't matter if this "isn't the right way" to do it, it's the way I need to do it.
Often the best answer will depend on that seemingly off-topic information though.
Why didn't you write it in Rust?
Because I only know Python.
That is a poor example. Rust and Python are vastly dissimilar, and one could easily be recommended over the other for various reasons. Python for portability, Rust for system oriented programming. To say you don't use rust because you don't know it is an excuse, and a terrible one at that. i would say the learning curve of Python is similar to Rust, why not learn?
> to be told when you're asking a question, that the question you're asking is wrong
I've long associated this behavior with Linux evangelists, and one wonders how much cross over there is with the people who answer questions on SO. It seems like both categories would be attractive to the kind of holier-than-thou mindset that would do this.
I've long associated this behavior with Linux evangelists, and one wonders how much cross over there is with the people who answer questions on SO. It seems like both categories would be attractive to the kind of holier-than-thou mindset that would do this.
I've noticed that fields with high levels of knowledge or guild based status and gatekeeping display that sort of behavior.
Embedded engineers, game programmers, mechanical engineers you ask them a question they'll usually be happy to blather on. Ask a Cisco certified engineer a question and he'll make fun of you for daring to ask. Sometimes I think it's cultural too.
If you look at the people that founded SO and their careers it's obvious why the place is a toxic mess.
Embedded engineers, game programmers, mechanical engineers you ask them a question they'll usually be happy to blather on. Ask a Cisco certified engineer a question and he'll make fun of you for daring to ask. Sometimes I think it's cultural too.
If you look at the people that founded SO and their careers it's obvious why the place is a toxic mess.
Part of the problem is that it's not just mods, it's anybody who's gained enough points to get some extra power on the site. Without a formal vetting process beyond "got enough points?" there's no way to control the quality of the actions.
XY Problem is very real though, especially among beginners, which by its nature SO has a lot of.
The solution is not to just close the questions though.
Indeed.
Typically I answer[1] these kind of questions by answering what I think is the solution to X, and then I'll follow up with "but if you still really want to do Y" and my attempt at solution for that.
If it's not very clear what they're trying to do, I will just answer Y but follow up with asking what they're really trying to do and that there might be a better way than Y because...
[1]: on IRC or forums, not on SO
Typically I answer[1] these kind of questions by answering what I think is the solution to X, and then I'll follow up with "but if you still really want to do Y" and my attempt at solution for that.
If it's not very clear what they're trying to do, I will just answer Y but follow up with asking what they're really trying to do and that there might be a better way than Y because...
[1]: on IRC or forums, not on SO
Answer X first, then explain why typically Y is what you want so I can safely ignore it.
About 90% of the time it is an XY problem, though. A couple clarifying questions and it turns out the OP really needed something much simpler.
For example, people who insist they can’t use a Laravel package because of “performance”, but it turns out they just don’t know how the composer autoloader works.
For example, people who insist they can’t use a Laravel package because of “performance”, but it turns out they just don’t know how the composer autoloader works.
No... Just answer the question.
You’re not there to babysit the question asker or convince them to change their approach/hair style/choice of library.
I know it’s frustrating to see people doing something wrong, or that you don’t agree with, but you know what you can do?
Just... don’t get involved if you can’t answer the actual question that was asked, and if it’s a bad question, let it die a natural death.
You’re not there to babysit the question asker or convince them to change their approach/hair style/choice of library.
I know it’s frustrating to see people doing something wrong, or that you don’t agree with, but you know what you can do?
Just... don’t get involved if you can’t answer the actual question that was asked, and if it’s a bad question, let it die a natural death.
If Y actually has an answer - but often enough Y is so convoluted that it just won't work.
Asking the poster about X, and offering a solution Y' which will solve X should at least be attempted.
If the poster insists on Y, then he'll also have to accept the answer "sorry, you can't do it that way, for the following reasons".
Asking the poster about X, and offering a solution Y' which will solve X should at least be attempted.
If the poster insists on Y, then he'll also have to accept the answer "sorry, you can't do it that way, for the following reasons".
> Asking the poster about X, and offering a solution Y' which will solve X should at least be attempted.
No!
Goodness me, why is this so difficult?
It should not be attempted. That’s an arbitrary expression of your opinion on the poster.
If the question can’t be solved in the way it’s asked let it die gracefully with a “no you can’t do it that why” and suck up the down votes when someone comes along and proves yes you actually can.
I know it’s frustrating for you, but asking a question isn’t about you.
It’s a glib response to suggest that this is just done when Y is a terrible question for new users.
It’s also very common when Y is a very good just very difficult or obscure question.
I think it’s quite clear that a common sense approach isn’t working on this topic.
The solution really is, if you have nothing meaningful on topic to contribute, then don’t.
There really needs to be a way to make this behaviour on SO punitive somehow, giving people points for it results in the current situation.
No!
Goodness me, why is this so difficult?
It should not be attempted. That’s an arbitrary expression of your opinion on the poster.
If the question can’t be solved in the way it’s asked let it die gracefully with a “no you can’t do it that why” and suck up the down votes when someone comes along and proves yes you actually can.
I know it’s frustrating for you, but asking a question isn’t about you.
It’s a glib response to suggest that this is just done when Y is a terrible question for new users.
It’s also very common when Y is a very good just very difficult or obscure question.
I think it’s quite clear that a common sense approach isn’t working on this topic.
The solution really is, if you have nothing meaningful on topic to contribute, then don’t.
There really needs to be a way to make this behaviour on SO punitive somehow, giving people points for it results in the current situation.
Well, I disagree despite the condescension (which isn't as disarming as you think, btw).
Qs on a Q&A site become a sort of permanent record that other people stumble across, not just a wham bam thankya ma'am transaction that only the Q-asker sees. By revealing XY problems, a better service is provided for everyone who stumbles upon the Q.
> Goodness me, why is this so difficult?
Because not everyone agrees with you. This faction war has been going on at SE forever.
Qs on a Q&A site become a sort of permanent record that other people stumble across, not just a wham bam thankya ma'am transaction that only the Q-asker sees. By revealing XY problems, a better service is provided for everyone who stumbles upon the Q.
> Goodness me, why is this so difficult?
Because not everyone agrees with you. This faction war has been going on at SE forever.
> Qs on a Q&A site become a sort of permanent record that other people stumble across
The fact that it is a permanent record that lives on is another argument in favor of the "just answer the damn question".
Context changes. Requirements change. Someone in the future might need the exact answer for some reason, but instead they get some useless back-and-forth and low-effort condescending answers that is super-specific to that asker.
Asking for more context, adding disclaimers before answering or linking to alternative solutions in the comments is fine, but it's a pain in the ass when the answers doesn't match the questions.
The fact that it is a permanent record that lives on is another argument in favor of the "just answer the damn question".
Context changes. Requirements change. Someone in the future might need the exact answer for some reason, but instead they get some useless back-and-forth and low-effort condescending answers that is super-specific to that asker.
Asking for more context, adding disclaimers before answering or linking to alternative solutions in the comments is fine, but it's a pain in the ass when the answers doesn't match the questions.
I think you've illustrated the grandparent's point perfectly!
(in a pleasingly condescending manner too - I might add!)
(in a pleasingly condescending manner too - I might add!)
>I know it’s frustrating for you, but asking a question _isn’t about you_.
Well, if StackOveflow/StackExchange is still following Jeff Atwood's philosophy, asking a question isn't necessarily about the questioner either. The question & the answer is for the community more than questioner.[0]
Understandably, most question askers see Stack Overflow as a "Siri/Alexa" type of resource to ask a question. E.g. If I ask Siri voice AI, "where's the nearest Starbucks?", she doesn't talk back about any X/Y problem such as "Is your actual problem that you're not getting enough sleep and therefore you're really asking how to cure insomnia instead of a caffeine fix?" No, Siri just responds with the address of the closest Starbucks. Why can't Stack Overflow be just like that?!?
The above "Siri" type perspective is a huge misunderstanding because the messaging from founders Atwood/Spolsky about Stack Overflow's editorial purpose is very nuanced and difficult to grasp. It's been 11 years since 2008 and that "wiki" intention is still drowned out by the frustrated by users who simply want any of their questions answered: they don't care if it's a duplicate; they don't want pushback on X/Y; they don't want their question downvoted/closed/deleted.
In contrast, the moderators (a.k.a. the high rep fellow users) of Stack Overflow are definitely not in the mode of mimicking Siri/Alexa. They're humans and they definitely will "talk back" to you and ask, "what exactly are you trying to accomplish?" Heck, the famous blog by Microsoft's Raymond Chen (The Old New Thing) is basically a collection of essays about various "X/Y Problem" submitted by customers.
(To downvoters... I don't mind the downvotes but please help with quality of this discussion: If there's a public statement from Stack Overflow explaining its true intended purpose that contradicts my cite, please reply with a reference to it for the benefit of readers of this thread.)
[0] https://twitter.com/codinghorror/status/991082088689381376?r...
Well, if StackOveflow/StackExchange is still following Jeff Atwood's philosophy, asking a question isn't necessarily about the questioner either. The question & the answer is for the community more than questioner.[0]
Understandably, most question askers see Stack Overflow as a "Siri/Alexa" type of resource to ask a question. E.g. If I ask Siri voice AI, "where's the nearest Starbucks?", she doesn't talk back about any X/Y problem such as "Is your actual problem that you're not getting enough sleep and therefore you're really asking how to cure insomnia instead of a caffeine fix?" No, Siri just responds with the address of the closest Starbucks. Why can't Stack Overflow be just like that?!?
The above "Siri" type perspective is a huge misunderstanding because the messaging from founders Atwood/Spolsky about Stack Overflow's editorial purpose is very nuanced and difficult to grasp. It's been 11 years since 2008 and that "wiki" intention is still drowned out by the frustrated by users who simply want any of their questions answered: they don't care if it's a duplicate; they don't want pushback on X/Y; they don't want their question downvoted/closed/deleted.
In contrast, the moderators (a.k.a. the high rep fellow users) of Stack Overflow are definitely not in the mode of mimicking Siri/Alexa. They're humans and they definitely will "talk back" to you and ask, "what exactly are you trying to accomplish?" Heck, the famous blog by Microsoft's Raymond Chen (The Old New Thing) is basically a collection of essays about various "X/Y Problem" submitted by customers.
(To downvoters... I don't mind the downvotes but please help with quality of this discussion: If there's a public statement from Stack Overflow explaining its true intended purpose that contradicts my cite, please reply with a reference to it for the benefit of readers of this thread.)
[0] https://twitter.com/codinghorror/status/991082088689381376?r...
> The question & the answer is for the community more than questioner.
Part of the confusion might be that they're very unclear about this point. For example, on the front page right now the following is prominently displayed:
> Stack Overflow is an open community for anyone that codes. We help you get answers to your toughest coding questions, share knowledge with your coworkers in private, and find your next dream job.
Emphasis mine. Clearly that is something very different from building a "Q&A wiki" which you allude to.
I guess the impedance mismatch comes from the fact that the route they chose to get to their "Q&A wiki" goal was to curate questions from individuals, rather than to for example extract questions and answers from a more regular help forum.
So individuals go on SO and think the site is about helping them, and then get confused about what happens next.
Part of the confusion might be that they're very unclear about this point. For example, on the front page right now the following is prominently displayed:
> Stack Overflow is an open community for anyone that codes. We help you get answers to your toughest coding questions, share knowledge with your coworkers in private, and find your next dream job.
Emphasis mine. Clearly that is something very different from building a "Q&A wiki" which you allude to.
I guess the impedance mismatch comes from the fact that the route they chose to get to their "Q&A wiki" goal was to curate questions from individuals, rather than to for example extract questions and answers from a more regular help forum.
So individuals go on SO and think the site is about helping them, and then get confused about what happens next.
>, on the front page right now [...] "We help you get answers to your toughest coding questions, " -- Clearly that is something very different from building a "Q&A wiki" which you allude to.
That text blurb on the landing page is relatively new. It may not accurately reflect Stack Overflow's long-standing strict editorial focus. The new SO landing page appeared less than 4 months ago around June 27, 2019.[1][2]
In contrast, the following "wikipedia" intention is from the SO launch 11 years ago back in September 15, 2008: "Stack Overflow is a _collaboratively edited_ question and answer site for programmers"[0]
So from September 2008 to June of 2019, it has been ~11 years of endless confusion from users because Atwood/Spolsky's intended editorial purpose of Stack Overflow has been poorly explained -- and I would also contend that it's non-intuitive for most users and hard to understand. E.g. The following is too nuanced to explain to drive-by casual SO users: I'm not just asking _my_ particular question to get _my_ particular answer but actually seeding _a_ question that's also also a _helpful_ contribution to the _community_ to build a repository quality answers to questions.
>I guess the impedance mismatch [...] So individuals go on SO and think the site is about helping them, and then get confused about what happens next.
Yes, I totally agree why the confusion happens and why the same complaints about SO have been repeated for over a decade. It's because SO's editorial purpose is basically invisible and only manifested in the powers given to moderators[3] to downvote/close and for the tradition of fellow users pushing back with X/Y dissection instead of simply answering the question.
Does the June 2019 landing page mean that SO has changed and they want to be more of "Siri/Alexa" type of resource? I'm not an employee and I don't know.
[0] 2008-09-15 launch: http://web.archive.org/web/20080915103343/http://stackoverfl...
[1] 2019-06-26 old: http://web.archive.org/web/20190626143412/https://stackoverf...
[2] 2019-06-27 new: http://web.archive.org/web/20190627173410/https://stackoverf...
[3] footnote about "moderator" powers : a Stack Overflow user only needs 15 points to flag a post as "duplicate". And voting to "close" only requires 250 points.
Those thresholds are so low that SO is basically asking non-hardcore users to also exercise moderation powers. In other words, the "moderators" are not an elite cabal; they're your fellow users voting to flag questions as "duplicate". Why are my peers flagging questions as duplicate?!? I don't know. As the old saying goes, "maybe we've met the enemy and the enemy is us."
List of reputation scores required for various "moderation" privileges:
https://stackoverflow.com/help/privileges
https://meta.stackexchange.com/help/privileges
That text blurb on the landing page is relatively new. It may not accurately reflect Stack Overflow's long-standing strict editorial focus. The new SO landing page appeared less than 4 months ago around June 27, 2019.[1][2]
In contrast, the following "wikipedia" intention is from the SO launch 11 years ago back in September 15, 2008: "Stack Overflow is a _collaboratively edited_ question and answer site for programmers"[0]
So from September 2008 to June of 2019, it has been ~11 years of endless confusion from users because Atwood/Spolsky's intended editorial purpose of Stack Overflow has been poorly explained -- and I would also contend that it's non-intuitive for most users and hard to understand. E.g. The following is too nuanced to explain to drive-by casual SO users: I'm not just asking _my_ particular question to get _my_ particular answer but actually seeding _a_ question that's also also a _helpful_ contribution to the _community_ to build a repository quality answers to questions.
>I guess the impedance mismatch [...] So individuals go on SO and think the site is about helping them, and then get confused about what happens next.
Yes, I totally agree why the confusion happens and why the same complaints about SO have been repeated for over a decade. It's because SO's editorial purpose is basically invisible and only manifested in the powers given to moderators[3] to downvote/close and for the tradition of fellow users pushing back with X/Y dissection instead of simply answering the question.
Does the June 2019 landing page mean that SO has changed and they want to be more of "Siri/Alexa" type of resource? I'm not an employee and I don't know.
[0] 2008-09-15 launch: http://web.archive.org/web/20080915103343/http://stackoverfl...
[1] 2019-06-26 old: http://web.archive.org/web/20190626143412/https://stackoverf...
[2] 2019-06-27 new: http://web.archive.org/web/20190627173410/https://stackoverf...
[3] footnote about "moderator" powers : a Stack Overflow user only needs 15 points to flag a post as "duplicate". And voting to "close" only requires 250 points.
Those thresholds are so low that SO is basically asking non-hardcore users to also exercise moderation powers. In other words, the "moderators" are not an elite cabal; they're your fellow users voting to flag questions as "duplicate". Why are my peers flagging questions as duplicate?!? I don't know. As the old saying goes, "maybe we've met the enemy and the enemy is us."
List of reputation scores required for various "moderation" privileges:
https://stackoverflow.com/help/privileges
https://meta.stackexchange.com/help/privileges
Fair points. They did indeed bury it before though. Yes "collaboratively edited" is there, but what you saw front and center were the questions and answers. And as you say, the nuances of what "collaboratively edited" means can quickly get lost, especially for non-native speakers.
Maybe a meta-moderation system like Slashdot had could have helped. In the end though I think their implementation was ultimately flawed. They created a great platform for asking questions, but that wasn't what they wanted to create.
Maybe a meta-moderation system like Slashdot had could have helped. In the end though I think their implementation was ultimately flawed. They created a great platform for asking questions, but that wasn't what they wanted to create.
correction to above: close vote is 3000 points not 250.
[deleted]
Applying the XY transform to the question is often a good way to help the user asking the question. It's very rarely a good way to build up a bank of generally useful questions and answers, because it attaches answers to very specific problems to much more general questions.
Yeah, I know that this is the rationale for the rule ... but it really has become an excuse to close a question as duplicate just because one of the X solutions might "in theory" solve your problem, even if they don't. Even if you've stipulated in your question why, because you've anticipated all those alternative answers yourself, already.
You can actually do both. Indeed, the most popular and heavily upvoted answers on SO tend to do just that, in the form of "here's the answer to the question you asked, and btw, I think this other thing here might be a better way to go about solving your broader problem and maybe avoiding the issue in your question altogether!".
This is what I've tried to do in many cases, because, on one hand, if there are potential ramifications of X (security, etc.) it's good to educate, not just OP, but anyone else who may stumble on the same question. However, I've been on the other side too, and have written knowingly strage, contrived code for the purpose of teaching myself a concept, and it's frustrating when people just say "no".
There's one answer I had to do that with, simply because the title of the question didn't match the body of the question. I kept getting downvotes from people who came to the question via Google and found my answer didn't match their question.
I think you're underestimating the level of crap StackOverflow attracts: https://www.google.com/search?q=stackoverflow+concatenate+st...
(My favorite is the one where they were actually asking about PHP)
(My favorite is the one where they were actually asking about PHP)
> if it’s a bad question, let it die a natural death
This is... weird, IMO.
I'd much prefer as a new user "I think I know what you're trying to do, your way is gonna cause you a bunch of pain, there's a better way, and here's why" to zero answers and a dead question.
This is... weird, IMO.
I'd much prefer as a new user "I think I know what you're trying to do, your way is gonna cause you a bunch of pain, there's a better way, and here's why" to zero answers and a dead question.
I think it's better than having answers that doesn't match the questions. This makes for a terrible experience for future users.
IMO it ok to suggest alternatives in the comments though. Alternatively, you can open a new question, answer it yourself and link to it on the old answer... I think it's allowed, but who knows.
IMO it ok to suggest alternatives in the comments though. Alternatively, you can open a new question, answer it yourself and link to it on the old answer... I think it's allowed, but who knows.
Seems to make having a body of information that has real answers to edge cases and obscure problems is better than one that's just non answers and thinly veiled insults.
The problem with this is that one of the best way to learn real lessons that stick in this line of work is to do it the hard way first. Being told you’re doing it the hard way and never learning firsthand why is no kind of lesson.
These XY answers should contain a mention of Y, if relevant, skip the scolding, and answer the question.
These XY answers should contain a mention of Y, if relevant, skip the scolding, and answer the question.
Sometimes, "here's why you're about to accidentally put your head into a wood chipper" is enough to learn a lesson from.
If it were a wood chipping forum/chatroom, sure, but it's a programming Q&A... people might need the answer in the future.
If you have the answer but would rather the person not do it, just put a disclaimer on top of your answer.
If the question/answer combo is way too specific that there's no chance someone is going to to benefit from it the future, maybe it should die, like other posters said.
If you have the answer but would rather the person not do it, just put a disclaimer on top of your answer.
If the question/answer combo is way too specific that there's no chance someone is going to to benefit from it the future, maybe it should die, like other posters said.
There are cases where there isn't an answer.
A common one I come across is people trying to track who's online/offline with window.onbeforeunload.
The answer is always "that's not reliable, you can't really use it for this".
A good answer mentions the alternatives - storing the user's last activity and considering them logged out after X minutes, using websockets for a presence channel, etc.
I see no reason to avoid the "you can accomplish your underlying goal in a better way" answers.
A common one I come across is people trying to track who's online/offline with window.onbeforeunload.
The answer is always "that's not reliable, you can't really use it for this".
A good answer mentions the alternatives - storing the user's last activity and considering them logged out after X minutes, using websockets for a presence channel, etc.
I see no reason to avoid the "you can accomplish your underlying goal in a better way" answers.
> The answer is always "that's not reliable, you can't really use it for this".
Only if the question is "Is window.onbeforeunload reliable to track online/offline users?"
In every other case, that should be a disclaimer on top of an answer to the actual question.
Maybe future users don't need 100% reliability for some reason. Maybe they're just trying to find out if something like onbeforeunload even exists.
Sure, showing better ways is fine. As long as there is an actual answer somewhere (preferably with the disclaimer), instead of cute but condescending non-answers like [1].
[1] https://stackoverflow.com/a/1732454
Only if the question is "Is window.onbeforeunload reliable to track online/offline users?"
In every other case, that should be a disclaimer on top of an answer to the actual question.
Maybe future users don't need 100% reliability for some reason. Maybe they're just trying to find out if something like onbeforeunload even exists.
Sure, showing better ways is fine. As long as there is an actual answer somewhere (preferably with the disclaimer), instead of cute but condescending non-answers like [1].
[1] https://stackoverflow.com/a/1732454
> Only if the question is "Is window.onbeforeunload reliable to track online/offline users?"
We're gonna have to disagree on this.
That's like me asking "how do I get to this restaurant", and you give me directions to the place that burned down a year ago without mentioning that. Useless, and infuriating when I drive a half hour to discover it.
We're gonna have to disagree on this.
That's like me asking "how do I get to this restaurant", and you give me directions to the place that burned down a year ago without mentioning that. Useless, and infuriating when I drive a half hour to discover it.
I know it's impolite to say that here, but if you actually read the rest of my reply, you'd see that in my opinion the best answer for a Q&A site would be "The restaurant burned a year ago, but it was at 450, Blahblah street". Maybe I didn't make it clear enough before, but I am saying it now.
Consider that the asker might just using the restaurant as a reference to some other place. Or someone "hearing" the answer in the future wanted to know the address to visit the ruins. The information might still be useful. Consider that you might not always know better.
If this were a chatroom or forum, fine, answer informally. But we're talking in the context of a Q&A webiste.
Consider that the asker might just using the restaurant as a reference to some other place. Or someone "hearing" the answer in the future wanted to know the address to visit the ruins. The information might still be useful. Consider that you might not always know better.
If this were a chatroom or forum, fine, answer informally. But we're talking in the context of a Q&A webiste.
The most likely answer the OP in that scenario needs is "it burned down". If they want to visit the ruins, they can easily say so in the comments and likely get an updated answer (or they can mention it in the original question; perhaps they'll think to do it the next time around when they've got an unusual requirement).
So you'd be in favor of the question "What's the best regular expression for parsing HTML?"
Why not?
Like it or not, regexes are able to parse a limited subset of HTML.
By explaining why they only can parse this small subset is a great teaching opportunity on Chomsky Hierarchies. And the people searching for it might learn that XML parsers exist.
By actually giving an answer to the question (after saying the above of course) you might be helping thousands of people parse very simple HTML when they're in a hurry.
By saying [1] you're just adding low-effort content on the internet that doesn't teach anyone anything, but make you look cool to your peers.
[1] https://stackoverflow.com/a/1732454
Like it or not, regexes are able to parse a limited subset of HTML.
By explaining why they only can parse this small subset is a great teaching opportunity on Chomsky Hierarchies. And the people searching for it might learn that XML parsers exist.
By actually giving an answer to the question (after saying the above of course) you might be helping thousands of people parse very simple HTML when they're in a hurry.
By saying [1] you're just adding low-effort content on the internet that doesn't teach anyone anything, but make you look cool to your peers.
[1] https://stackoverflow.com/a/1732454
That's one of my all-time favorite answers on stackoverflow, and it doesn't exactly look low effort. It would probably take more time to write something like that than write about Chomsky Hierarchies.
Besides, I concede that "helping thousands of people parse very simple HTML when they're in a hurry" has its merit, but IMHO that's also how you end up debugging a production bug at 3am while losing faith in your fellow developers and humanity, so I'm not sure if it's a net plus. YMMV.
Besides, I concede that "helping thousands of people parse very simple HTML when they're in a hurry" has its merit, but IMHO that's also how you end up debugging a production bug at 3am while losing faith in your fellow developers and humanity, so I'm not sure if it's a net plus. YMMV.
> It would probably take more time to write something like that than write about Chomsky Hierarchies.
And yet it is not only wrong, but the answers below do a much better job at explaining Chomsky Hierarchies and other things correctly.
Why is it wrong? "Have you tried using an XML parser instead?" is wrong because HTML is not necessarily XML/XHTML. The first working draft of HTML5 was published a year before that answer, and non-XML websites existed since the 90s, so there's no excuses.
-
> but IMHO that's also how you end up debugging a production bug at 3am while losing faith in your fellow developers and humanity, so I'm not sure if it's a net plus
And that's why you treat people like adults: you tell them the limitations of each method, instead of making a meme.
And btw, you can get bugs at 3am with a XML (or HTML) parser too.
And yet it is not only wrong, but the answers below do a much better job at explaining Chomsky Hierarchies and other things correctly.
Why is it wrong? "Have you tried using an XML parser instead?" is wrong because HTML is not necessarily XML/XHTML. The first working draft of HTML5 was published a year before that answer, and non-XML websites existed since the 90s, so there's no excuses.
-
> but IMHO that's also how you end up debugging a production bug at 3am while losing faith in your fellow developers and humanity, so I'm not sure if it's a net plus
And that's why you treat people like adults: you tell them the limitations of each method, instead of making a meme.
And btw, you can get bugs at 3am with a XML (or HTML) parser too.
Anyone incapable of writing their own regular expression for this is unlikely to know when their problem is too complicated to be solved by it. You're not actually doing them a favor by answering the question.
That's bullshit.
By explaining to them Chomsky Hierarchies they can understand limitations of regexes and learn about parsers and.
By showing them the regex able to parse a limited HTML subset they might be able to try it out and see such limitations by themselves on their own screen. Additionally they might be able to learn some new regex tricks.
Maybe you learned things in a different way, but lots of people enjoy learning stuff by doing and by seeing demonstrations.
By explaining to them Chomsky Hierarchies they can understand limitations of regexes and learn about parsers and.
By showing them the regex able to parse a limited HTML subset they might be able to try it out and see such limitations by themselves on their own screen. Additionally they might be able to learn some new regex tricks.
Maybe you learned things in a different way, but lots of people enjoy learning stuff by doing and by seeing demonstrations.
Sure, there's a pretty reasonable answer about regex flavors with recursive extensions and how that makes them non-regular, which transitions nicely into a discussion of why you should just use a standard parser.
Maybe the OP did in fact want something simpler—but one of the tenants of SE is that questions should help more than just the original asker, right?
I often come across these questions in Google searches months/years after they were closed, and I'm pretty darn sure I legitimately need to do Y. (If I'm wrong, it's for a very different reason than the OP.)
I often come across these questions in Google searches months/years after they were closed, and I'm pretty darn sure I legitimately need to do Y. (If I'm wrong, it's for a very different reason than the OP.)
Maybe you frequent a different sample of questions / answers than I do, because by my estimation it's 10% XY-problem and 90% XY-problem-problem.
That's very possible - I've seen a lot of variance between different tags. They're often like little mini-communities.
I saw someone post eleven different questions with almost the same code in a 48 hour period the other day - each time about a tiny specific question but you could tell they were trying to do something (online/offline user detection) via a method that wasn't suited for it.
I saw someone post eleven different questions with almost the same code in a 48 hour period the other day - each time about a tiny specific question but you could tell they were trying to do something (online/offline user detection) via a method that wasn't suited for it.
> the dumbest, most priggish, humourless beaureucrats
Clearly you've never been to reddit...
Clearly you've never been to reddit...
I deleted my account when I had a notification that a 5 year old question of mine was edited to remove a "thanks for any help" at the end. This was after the blog post stating SE had an unfriendliness problem and they would stop doing things like that.
Edit: Wow speaking of edits, am I reading this right that Jeff Atwood himself edited the title to remove the word "stealing"?
Edit: Wow speaking of edits, am I reading this right that Jeff Atwood himself edited the title to remove the word "stealing"?
There is an unfortunate karma-reward for making edit suggestions. This regularly results in people making tonnes of similar edits across the site, eg correcting a common spelling error, adding slightly-related tags, or, like your case, removing things that to a Puritan appears superfluous to the question.
Yep: it seems so. That is pretty unbelievable; one posts a question and it gets CHANGED.
It seems he does not enjoy being called a thief?
[deleted]
Seems weird since he's not working at SE/SO since 2012:
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2012/02/farewell-stack-exch...
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2012/02/farewell-stack-exch...
[deleted]
It would help to just remove the current moderators that are super pedantic about building a "knowledge base", when actually they just like exercising their power.
I've also noticed a recent trend that moderators on SO are also now deleting questions to stop any objections to the close votes from lower-ranked users, it's ridiculous.
I've also noticed a recent trend that moderators on SO are also now deleting questions to stop any objections to the close votes from lower-ranked users, it's ridiculous.
Questions are rarely deleted by moderators. The community, through voting, is very often the one to delete through voting directly, or through severe downvoting, in which case a bot removes bad questions. And if you have higher score, you can still see these deleted questions and answers.
Moderators are part of the community that can vote and high-ranked people that vote have access to mod tools - they're basically moderators - just without the diamond.
I can see quite a lot, not everything though, and I don't want to grind reputation asking inane questions to get access to more, to keep my detailed questions from being closed without explanation and then deleted. These kafkaesque trials are ridiculous and obnoxious.
I can see quite a lot, not everything though, and I don't want to grind reputation asking inane questions to get access to more, to keep my detailed questions from being closed without explanation and then deleted. These kafkaesque trials are ridiculous and obnoxious.
> Moderators are part of the community that can vote and high-ranked people that vote have access to mod tools - they're basically moderators - just without the diamond.
Yes, I know, which puts the entire outcry here (from likely low-score users) in a very comical light. "Ban mods"—what they really are asking for is "ban high-score users who do not like my low-quality questions".
Yes, I know, which puts the entire outcry here (from likely low-score users) in a very comical light. "Ban mods"—what they really are asking for is "ban high-score users who do not like my low-quality questions".
> "ban high-score users who do not like my low-quality questions"
Thanks for telling me you're part of the problem. You're not nearly as infallible in your judgement about what's a "bad question", it's plain and simple hubris most high-ranks have. The system should not allow such consolidation of power, there's a very good reason most democratic countries have separated the three powers.
Thanks for telling me you're part of the problem. You're not nearly as infallible in your judgement about what's a "bad question", it's plain and simple hubris most high-ranks have. The system should not allow such consolidation of power, there's a very good reason most democratic countries have separated the three powers.
I'm not sure what "power" you think I have. I rarely vote to close questions. But I do flag, and do down-vote. Isn't that as democratic as it gets?
> Isn't that as democratic as it gets?
Why should you be able to flag for close, downvote and get to delete all at once? It's basically all the power there is, especially bad if you own a tag badge. We have enough people to separate those tasks, it'd definitely reduce one person's ability to do harm.
Why should you be able to flag for close, downvote and get to delete all at once? It's basically all the power there is, especially bad if you own a tag badge. We have enough people to separate those tasks, it'd definitely reduce one person's ability to do harm.
Everyone is able to flag for close, delete or downvote (above a very small point requirement—125, I thing). I cannot delete questions or answers on any whim. I can vote to to delete after a certain threshold of low-score passes. I don't see what is so problematic with this, as any user with a little persistence can reach this goal.
How is "persistence" the correct characteristic based on which to select who gets to moderate? I'm also well aware of the thresholds, I don't think one user should just have only one integer value based on which one gets all the privileges.
Because someone who is active in a community and has high confidence by the community (= high points), it is more likely that this person is capable of moderating this community better than someone who is not familiar with the subjects of the community.
That's the problem though, isn't it?
> high confidence by the community = high points
High confidence at answering questions. We don't get to vote on moderation, closed as dupe, deletion etc. Karma is only a weak indicator of being a good moderator. Sure they may know the subject well, but that's not reflective of a good and empathetic moderator.
Frustration with this is one of the main reasons I just stopped logging in and participating. SE is now static web search results.
> high confidence by the community = high points
High confidence at answering questions. We don't get to vote on moderation, closed as dupe, deletion etc. Karma is only a weak indicator of being a good moderator. Sure they may know the subject well, but that's not reflective of a good and empathetic moderator.
Frustration with this is one of the main reasons I just stopped logging in and participating. SE is now static web search results.
> has high confidence by the community
Could just be that you've gamed the system.
Could just be that you've gamed the system.
Also, I don't feel like apologizing for having a high score. I've earned it with hard work over many years. I understand it is more difficult now, because most of the good questions have been asked, and the vast majority of new questions are a repeat, but that does not mean I should feel guilty for having been able to, in my niche sector, to amass scores by helping people in their coding endeavors.
Who said you have to feel guilty? It's just that you belong in a group of people that basically oppress other users, often unjustifiedly so.
Who am I oppressing exactly? By downvoting, am I oppressing the asking person? That’s ridiculous. Why does everyone insist on being so weak-minded?
I think people don't want to feel like they're in some sort of social Darwin experiment where they have to compete to prove the worth of their questions. They just want help with their problems.
As many have noted, there is a conflict between the goal of a wiki and the goal of getting answers to people.
I speak as someone with a decent score answering questions, who had to fight tooth-and-nail for years to stop people from downvoting and close-voting questions they didn't understand in one of "my" tags.
As many have noted, there is a conflict between the goal of a wiki and the goal of getting answers to people.
I speak as someone with a decent score answering questions, who had to fight tooth-and-nail for years to stop people from downvoting and close-voting questions they didn't understand in one of "my" tags.
That’s understandable. Anyone downvoting a question they don’t understand is wrong. But objectively, there is a very large daily volume of very low quality questions. People can’t be arsed to, or are unable to, perform even the most rudimentary search, and just dump their questions, often in terrible English (In my niche, I’ve seen a clear correlation between bad English asking and duplicates or lazy “solve my homework” questions). I don’t think those are helping the community to grow in quality. I don’t think downvoting those is oppression, it’s a demand to do better. I’ve mostly left Stack Overflow because of these people. (No, I don’t claim oppression!)
I agree that it can be exhausting. I just wonder if downvotes are the best solution.
I put a lot of effort into editing questions to make them clear. More often than bad faith, I see people who don’t have the experience to know what a good question is, or who really struggle to express themselves in English.
Often it’s only through interaction that I can tell if people are making the effort or not. Does SO need more people editing and doing triage? A different interface that bridges the gap between Q&A and wiki? I don’t know.
I put a lot of effort into editing questions to make them clear. More often than bad faith, I see people who don’t have the experience to know what a good question is, or who really struggle to express themselves in English.
Often it’s only through interaction that I can tell if people are making the effort or not. Does SO need more people editing and doing triage? A different interface that bridges the gap between Q&A and wiki? I don’t know.
You're literally invalidating all the effort put into the question with a single downvote without consequence to you. How do you not see that?
Don't try to process more question volume that you can adequately rate, it isn't that hard. The path to hell is paved with good intentions (to make SO a better knowledge site).
Don't try to process more question volume that you can adequately rate, it isn't that hard. The path to hell is paved with good intentions (to make SO a better knowledge site).
I always leave a comment why I voted this way or the other, unless there is already a comment that explains why the vote is in progress. If I vote the other way, I leave a comment explaining why.
How many SO moderators do you actually know @Avamander?
Are they all the same?
You repeatedly make really broad generalizations about SO mods that do nothing to help make your point.
Are they all the same?
You repeatedly make really broad generalizations about SO mods that do nothing to help make your point.
Not technically deleted perhaps, but flagging a unique and/or relevant question as a duplicate or not relevant, is guaranteed to make that question effectively invisible.
One of the most frustrating things is when SE modes decide to deputize themselves on behalf of third parties, and try to enforce the laws of other countries or the intellectual property rights of decades old software.
I've seen questions about how to bypass DRM on 20 year old software deleted. And why do they assume that the DMCA applies in other countries? What if you are asking how to build an unauthorized media player in a market where it is not for sale anyway?
I remember in like 2011, someone asked how to virtualize OSX Tiger on a non Apple host because they needed to use this proprietary software for their business. The top answer was that it was 100% impossible to do this (not true) and that they were a horrible human being for even considering it because it violated Apple's TOS. I've also seen this happen when people want to do things like retrieve music that they paid for off of their devices.
I have heard that in Saudi Arabia husbands have a legal right to monitor their wives communications. So if a Saudi woman posted on SE asking how to remove a keylogger her husband installed, would it be deleted for violating local law?
Or what if a Saudi woman simply wanted help cracking the Google authorized wife-tracking app[1], so she could flee? That would be violating local laws, and upsetting Google.
[1]: https://www.npr.org/2019/02/12/693994447/apple-google-critic...
I've seen questions about how to bypass DRM on 20 year old software deleted. And why do they assume that the DMCA applies in other countries? What if you are asking how to build an unauthorized media player in a market where it is not for sale anyway?
I remember in like 2011, someone asked how to virtualize OSX Tiger on a non Apple host because they needed to use this proprietary software for their business. The top answer was that it was 100% impossible to do this (not true) and that they were a horrible human being for even considering it because it violated Apple's TOS. I've also seen this happen when people want to do things like retrieve music that they paid for off of their devices.
I have heard that in Saudi Arabia husbands have a legal right to monitor their wives communications. So if a Saudi woman posted on SE asking how to remove a keylogger her husband installed, would it be deleted for violating local law?
Or what if a Saudi woman simply wanted help cracking the Google authorized wife-tracking app[1], so she could flee? That would be violating local laws, and upsetting Google.
[1]: https://www.npr.org/2019/02/12/693994447/apple-google-critic...
> And why do they assume that the DMCA applies in other countries?
The company is on the US, so it would be illegal for them to keep the answer.
The company is on the US, so it would be illegal for them to keep the answer.
Not sure why you're downvoted. I don't know that your statement is 100% accurate, but it's not far off the mark, either.
The law in the US is such that a high-profile site that does business in the USA, like SO, is entirely reasonable if it wants to to err on the side of caution on these things. Not all the questions around the DMCA have been settled by the courts, so, no, we can't necessarily say for sure what is legal and illegal. But we can say that volunteering to help everyone to figure this out could be a very expensive proposition.
For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_A...
The law in the US is such that a high-profile site that does business in the USA, like SO, is entirely reasonable if it wants to to err on the side of caution on these things. Not all the questions around the DMCA have been settled by the courts, so, no, we can't necessarily say for sure what is legal and illegal. But we can say that volunteering to help everyone to figure this out could be a very expensive proposition.
For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_A...
Actually in the case of breaking DRM potentially in violation of the DMCA, they have relaxed things a bit[1].
I do remember that they would delete any discussion of cracking DRM.
But my bigger point is that they essentially act as toadies when they are not obligated to. I think it is actually worse when they try to act as enforcement agents of behalf of terms of service for corporations that they have no relationship with.
And there is no moral context considered. What if a Saudi woman being held hostage wanted technical information to escape and seek refuge in another country, but doing so violated some company's TOS? I am certain that SO would side against the woman, because of their narrow and sycophantic attitude.
For example, I was enrolled in the Meego developer program in 2011, and was given a free Exo Tab tablet from Intel. When the project was canceled, I was supposed to destroy the tablet after one year. Intel technically retained ownership of the tablets on paper, so that developers would not have to pay taxes on them.
So, I posted, asking to find out how I could get the specialized drivers and interface software for Windows 7 on the device. But the mods decided that they should act as agents on behalf of Intel and the US Internal Revenue Service, even though nobody else cared.
I asked a simple technical question about where I could hypothetically get software for hardware I was in possession of.
A representative from Intel assured me that Intel had no plans to enforce this agreement, and it was merely on paper so that we did not have to pay taxes. Additionally, I seriously doubt that the IRS would want to track me down and fine me for not paying taxes on the $700 tablet I received. And the development program was canceled anyway, so why not put it to other use? And how do they know I was not going to honor my agreement and destroy it anyway??
But no, the toadies on SO decided that just in case I wouldn't honor my trivial agreement with Intel and just in case I wouldn't pay taxes, they would prevent further discussion of it. How could they possibly know my intentions? Nobody asked them to interpret the intentions of Intel and do what they think is their bidding for them! They are a bunch of toadies who way overstep their bounds.
[1]: https://meta.superuser.com/questions/2212/is-discussion-of-t...
But my bigger point is that they essentially act as toadies when they are not obligated to. I think it is actually worse when they try to act as enforcement agents of behalf of terms of service for corporations that they have no relationship with.
And there is no moral context considered. What if a Saudi woman being held hostage wanted technical information to escape and seek refuge in another country, but doing so violated some company's TOS? I am certain that SO would side against the woman, because of their narrow and sycophantic attitude.
For example, I was enrolled in the Meego developer program in 2011, and was given a free Exo Tab tablet from Intel. When the project was canceled, I was supposed to destroy the tablet after one year. Intel technically retained ownership of the tablets on paper, so that developers would not have to pay taxes on them.
So, I posted, asking to find out how I could get the specialized drivers and interface software for Windows 7 on the device. But the mods decided that they should act as agents on behalf of Intel and the US Internal Revenue Service, even though nobody else cared.
I asked a simple technical question about where I could hypothetically get software for hardware I was in possession of.
A representative from Intel assured me that Intel had no plans to enforce this agreement, and it was merely on paper so that we did not have to pay taxes. Additionally, I seriously doubt that the IRS would want to track me down and fine me for not paying taxes on the $700 tablet I received. And the development program was canceled anyway, so why not put it to other use? And how do they know I was not going to honor my agreement and destroy it anyway??
But no, the toadies on SO decided that just in case I wouldn't honor my trivial agreement with Intel and just in case I wouldn't pay taxes, they would prevent further discussion of it. How could they possibly know my intentions? Nobody asked them to interpret the intentions of Intel and do what they think is their bidding for them! They are a bunch of toadies who way overstep their bounds.
[1]: https://meta.superuser.com/questions/2212/is-discussion-of-t...
You're raising a bunch of very legitimate concerns, and they speak to how deeply @#$#@%ed the DMCA is as a law.
But I still think it's legitimate for a company like SO to err on the side of taking things down. You can cast it as being toadies, you can cast it as CYA. You can also cast it as an abundance of caution. It's probably a distinction without a difference, but words are funny things like that. The lawyers who are often setting these policies are presumably thinking in terms of their professional responsibility, which is to minimize the chance that their employer gets sued. They're probably not thinking in terms of unlikely hypotheticals involving hostage scenarios, because "We thought it was OK to bend the rules because otherwise X might happen" is unlikely to hold up in court. The American courts are more like Immanuel Kant than Jeremy Bentham about these sorts of things. Nor do they give a crap about your free tablet, or whether or not Intel gives a crap about your free tablet. It's way too expensive for them to be making these decisions on a case-by-case basis.
Maybe that's not exactly how SO was thinking. Joel Spolsky and Jeff Atwood are not lawyers, nor do I know if they consulted their lawyers. Nor am I a lawyer. But I had a dream where I played one on TV once, and that's more than a passing qualification for weighing in on legal matters around here.
But I still think it's legitimate for a company like SO to err on the side of taking things down. You can cast it as being toadies, you can cast it as CYA. You can also cast it as an abundance of caution. It's probably a distinction without a difference, but words are funny things like that. The lawyers who are often setting these policies are presumably thinking in terms of their professional responsibility, which is to minimize the chance that their employer gets sued. They're probably not thinking in terms of unlikely hypotheticals involving hostage scenarios, because "We thought it was OK to bend the rules because otherwise X might happen" is unlikely to hold up in court. The American courts are more like Immanuel Kant than Jeremy Bentham about these sorts of things. Nor do they give a crap about your free tablet, or whether or not Intel gives a crap about your free tablet. It's way too expensive for them to be making these decisions on a case-by-case basis.
Maybe that's not exactly how SO was thinking. Joel Spolsky and Jeff Atwood are not lawyers, nor do I know if they consulted their lawyers. Nor am I a lawyer. But I had a dream where I played one on TV once, and that's more than a passing qualification for weighing in on legal matters around here.
I've noticed you didn't post this under your real name...
You are asking a company to help you do something illegal, on writing and published to the entire world in a high visibility site. Do you really thing they shouldn't reserve the right to deny help?
The DMCA bothers me a lot, because on my country I have the right to remove restrictions on anything I own, yet it's hard to find a safe forum to discuss how to do it without it being taken down for some commercial reason. But it's really undeserved entitlement to expect other people to risk themselves helping you.
You are asking a company to help you do something illegal, on writing and published to the entire world in a high visibility site. Do you really thing they shouldn't reserve the right to deny help?
The DMCA bothers me a lot, because on my country I have the right to remove restrictions on anything I own, yet it's hard to find a safe forum to discuss how to do it without it being taken down for some commercial reason. But it's really undeserved entitlement to expect other people to risk themselves helping you.
How is that possible that I created like 100 questions on SO/SE over years and 90+% of them weren't closed/marked?
Im that lucky or people tend to do not care about quality of their questions and then cry about how SO is bad?
Im that lucky or people tend to do not care about quality of their questions and then cry about how SO is bad?
Maybe you have better communication skills than average, happen to include enough code so that people know you are putting in the effort.
IME down/close votes have at least as much to do with soft skills and English proficiency as quality of the underlying question.
IME down/close votes have at least as much to do with soft skills and English proficiency as quality of the underlying question.
Did your questions fit in a pattern of questions that SE fails at, or did they have straight-forward answers?
Hah, exactly my experience:
Open question about potential Android bug. I mention I have checked threads A, B, and C, and the symptoms of my bug are different, therefore why I opened a new question
"Closed as duplicate: thread A"
Sigh.
Open question about potential Android bug. I mention I have checked threads A, B, and C, and the symptoms of my bug are different, therefore why I opened a new question
"Closed as duplicate: thread A"
Sigh.
Google leads me to the site because I have the exact problem. I'm excited to see someone has already asked the same questions that I would on the problem. Then I see the dead end and wonder if anyone actually read and understood the question.
"Moderators" with a preconceived notion of what the question or subject is all about are not moderators.
"Moderators" with a preconceived notion of what the question or subject is all about are not moderators.
Funny thing, I frequent a few of the SE sites, and the only ones that have this problem are the tech ones.
I feel like there is a lot to be said about this. It could be that a large portion of the tech sector is living up to the stereotypical "arrogant/egotistical/know-it-all" label that we get hit with quite often.
Also an illusion that technical problems are black-and-white, when of course there is a social component which must be balanced with technical accuracy.
I think this is a big part of it. At least some of the questions I see unnecessarily closed, it seems that the complaint is that the community disagrees with the business constraints being imposed on the problem, and would rather close the question than help someone to find a solution that meets their constraints.
It almost seems like "closed as duplicate" needs to be split into "closed: duplicate," and "closed: you should just quit your job instead of solving this problem."
It almost seems like "closed as duplicate" needs to be split into "closed: duplicate," and "closed: you should just quit your job instead of solving this problem."
Could it be that the problem is just a lot more visible on those specific sites, because they have a lot more users than any of the others?
https://stackexchange.com/sites?view=list#traffic
https://stackexchange.com/sites?view=list#traffic
StackExchange needs a sibling forum.
I know forums are in opposition to everything that SE stands for, but for quite a lot of cases the questioner would benefit more from a back-and-forth, or open-ended discussion, and then at the end of the process if it's been refined then turn it into a question. If not, then let the thread auto-close and maybe even expire into deletion.
Also, any SE equivalent needs to understand the power dynamic between questioners and answerers, and what motivates people to put in the huge volunteer effort on which it's built.
I know forums are in opposition to everything that SE stands for, but for quite a lot of cases the questioner would benefit more from a back-and-forth, or open-ended discussion, and then at the end of the process if it's been refined then turn it into a question. If not, then let the thread auto-close and maybe even expire into deletion.
Also, any SE equivalent needs to understand the power dynamic between questioners and answerers, and what motivates people to put in the huge volunteer effort on which it's built.
Programmers, among others, are notoriously unable to give up on arguments. What makes you think discussion would help someone refine inquiries into a question rather than just an endless tribal war or bikeshedding session?
Additionally, I can't imagine any format less friendly to a beginner/intermediate programmer than an endless thread of experts arguing minutiae and holy-wars couched as objective fact. Even as an advanced user, sometimes I want a straight and to the point answer, even if it's not the best possible one, so I can get on with my work or research from there.
Remember, SE is foremost a site for readers seeking existent answers. Not askers. Not answerers. Neither of those last two groups has dwindled substantially enough in response to askers/answerers complaints to impact the experience of users seeking existent answers. Therefore, in my opinion, SE still works well.
Additionally, I can't imagine any format less friendly to a beginner/intermediate programmer than an endless thread of experts arguing minutiae and holy-wars couched as objective fact. Even as an advanced user, sometimes I want a straight and to the point answer, even if it's not the best possible one, so I can get on with my work or research from there.
Remember, SE is foremost a site for readers seeking existent answers. Not askers. Not answerers. Neither of those last two groups has dwindled substantially enough in response to askers/answerers complaints to impact the experience of users seeking existent answers. Therefore, in my opinion, SE still works well.
those arguments are how you learn.
I get what you're saying, but I can tell you personally I learned SOOO much from getting into arguments with people and then going off and doing research during the argument.
And sometimes I'll completely do a 180 after a few years because I REMEMBER those arguments, and I eventually understand their perspective because I started coming across the problems they were having.
I may not always do a 180, but I WILL more fully understand the pros and cons of everything.
And this is a major reason why the "discourse" here on HN is only half useful.
Too many people think not being challenged is somehow good and educational. Perhaps for a subset of people, but there are many like me who learn through challenge.
Just consider that often the very act of responding to someone forces you to consider their position better. Which is why trite dismissal is one of the poorest forms of argumentation ever made.
I get what you're saying, but I can tell you personally I learned SOOO much from getting into arguments with people and then going off and doing research during the argument.
And sometimes I'll completely do a 180 after a few years because I REMEMBER those arguments, and I eventually understand their perspective because I started coming across the problems they were having.
I may not always do a 180, but I WILL more fully understand the pros and cons of everything.
And this is a major reason why the "discourse" here on HN is only half useful.
Too many people think not being challenged is somehow good and educational. Perhaps for a subset of people, but there are many like me who learn through challenge.
Just consider that often the very act of responding to someone forces you to consider their position better. Which is why trite dismissal is one of the poorest forms of argumentation ever made.
Each site has a chat room where you can have the back-and-forth to clarify a question or refine it. So this already exists to some degree.
Talking about X/Y problem — the actual incident described here doesn't seem to have anything to do with it, but rather to the ham-fisted handling of a disagreement between the company and a moderator. Or is there some relation between the two, eg was the disagreement about how to handle answers to what look like the wrong questions to ask?
I agree about SO becoming a frustrating site because of crappy mods - in particular, questions being closed by someone who plainly hasn't even read the new question... drives me nuts!
However, it really doesn't look like natural selection is at work here - I recognise several names in the list of resigned/fired mods, and they were some of the good ones.
No, it really looks like SO is well on the way to "becoming evil", forsaking community in the name of profit - which cannot end well for them.
However, it really doesn't look like natural selection is at work here - I recognise several names in the list of resigned/fired mods, and they were some of the good ones.
No, it really looks like SO is well on the way to "becoming evil", forsaking community in the name of profit - which cannot end well for them.
AFAICT among mods there is a good deal of discontent because of the precise opposite reason. In their opinion Stack Overflow has gone overboard with the "Welcome Wagon" and made it overly accommodating to newcomers without thought for the downstream impacts to mods and quality answers.
https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/386324/the-stack-ov...
https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/331513/lets-take-a-...
This particular wave seems to be touched off by the firing of a well-loved mod over disagreements in a new CoC.
https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/386324/the-stack-ov...
https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/331513/lets-take-a-...
This particular wave seems to be touched off by the firing of a well-loved mod over disagreements in a new CoC.
I would argue it was always like that. Some of it seemed to be actively encouraged by Jeff Atwood/moderators/senior users. You forgot another common one: "not clear what you are asking". I normally have to reply to this with "the question is in the final paragraph". Which often results negative comments and perhaps the question being closed. Or trying to edit a bug out of an answer, being refused because you didn't change enough, tidying up some wording, and getting the edit rejected for supposedly changing what the person is saying.
I don't think any of it is specific to SO - online communities seem to attract people who like everything to be extremely specific and rule-based, regardless of whether that creates the best outcomes. I've seen mods destroy several forums.
SO gets a lot of other stuff right though. I don't think it will die anytime soon, nor does it need to in order to improve things.
I don't think any of it is specific to SO - online communities seem to attract people who like everything to be extremely specific and rule-based, regardless of whether that creates the best outcomes. I've seen mods destroy several forums.
SO gets a lot of other stuff right though. I don't think it will die anytime soon, nor does it need to in order to improve things.
I've seen proposed edits on my own answers that would have changed them from correct to incorrect, so that's a real problem.
Man as someone trying to learn something new
I avoid posting to that site like the plague. Oh yeah I'll search but you couldn't pay me to make a post because I've seen what happens to the people that post the question I was searching for.
[deleted]
>Post helpful answer that actually answers the users question as asked without berating them for wanting to do it that way
>Get yelled at in the comments for creating noise?
Problem is: SE can edit and rephrase the whole question in order to be more helpful (both the question and the answer) for future visitors. The original question and intent from the OP doesnt matter that much to SE.
>Get yelled at in the comments for creating noise?
Problem is: SE can edit and rephrase the whole question in order to be more helpful (both the question and the answer) for future visitors. The original question and intent from the OP doesnt matter that much to SE.
None of that has anything to do with the topic discussed here.
[deleted]
What you are describing is human nature. The same things happen on Quora and other Q&A sites. As long as human nature doesn't change, the same patterns will emerge.
As long as there isn't a push to fix it and prevent it and stop it, and coach around it, the issue doesn't get solved.
That sounds like defeatist attitude.
Stack Exchange could add a rule forbidding asking why or adding answers that have caveats the question asker already said in op were unacceptable and deal with part of the issue
They could also add a system to review, rate, and appeal moderator actions, and penalize people who's moderator actions aren't proper.
They could also add a regular segment to their blog or meta that is just about showcasing improper moderator actions in the light of this is why they thought that was the proper action, this is what they missed, this is how we can avoid that kind of mistake in the future.
But all of this really has to be built in from the ground up, as no existing mod community with go along with that being added after the fact.
That sounds like defeatist attitude.
Stack Exchange could add a rule forbidding asking why or adding answers that have caveats the question asker already said in op were unacceptable and deal with part of the issue
They could also add a system to review, rate, and appeal moderator actions, and penalize people who's moderator actions aren't proper.
They could also add a regular segment to their blog or meta that is just about showcasing improper moderator actions in the light of this is why they thought that was the proper action, this is what they missed, this is how we can avoid that kind of mistake in the future.
But all of this really has to be built in from the ground up, as no existing mod community with go along with that being added after the fact.
> Stack Exchange could add a rule forbidding asking why
.. that would make the outcome significantly more frustrating, as the only way to discover the real requirements is then to post an answer which the questioner regards as wrong.
.. that would make the outcome significantly more frustrating, as the only way to discover the real requirements is then to post an answer which the questioner regards as wrong.
SE is a collection of question answering sites, not requirements-gathering sites. The network has a borderline-psychotic devotion to the Q&A format. In that light, just answer the question that was presented. Identifying the "real requirements" is out of scope unless the question itself makes no sense.
It's not at all uncommon for the question to not make sense until you get some supporting information.
> Stack Exchange could add a rule forbidding asking why or adding answers that have caveats the question asker already said in op were unacceptable and deal with part of the issue
Any such answer I see, I flag as not an answer to the question, and those answers are often converted to comments or deleted. It seems you are not really familiar with all the tools in your disposal on SO.
> They could also add a system to review, rate, and appeal moderator actions, and penalize people who's moderator actions aren't proper. These tools already exists, sans the penalizing. The whole idea is not to penalize anyone. Just as users are not penalized for asking bad questions, likewise users are not penalized for potentially bad votes.
Any such answer I see, I flag as not an answer to the question, and those answers are often converted to comments or deleted. It seems you are not really familiar with all the tools in your disposal on SO.
> They could also add a system to review, rate, and appeal moderator actions, and penalize people who's moderator actions aren't proper. These tools already exists, sans the penalizing. The whole idea is not to penalize anyone. Just as users are not penalized for asking bad questions, likewise users are not penalized for potentially bad votes.
It's a realistic attitude. When you have been around for more than a couple of these cycles, you just see the same things happen, over and over and over.
It's very difficult to sustain a technical solution in the face of human nature that moves at such a comparatively glacial pace.
It's very difficult to sustain a technical solution in the face of human nature that moves at such a comparatively glacial pace.
345218435(1)
[deleted]
that's like, not a "large number" but i digress... just wanted to say that i empathize with the mod that wrote they just were just tired. mods getting tired is reason #1 i left a few communities in the past.
it usually means that things aren't looking good. but there is little that could be done about it. i have not seen it last though. a new wave of people tend to come along with a fresh view on how to handle things. the meantime, though, is what's hard to live through. it's what makes people tired and what makes them move on...
it usually means that things aren't looking good. but there is little that could be done about it. i have not seen it last though. a new wave of people tend to come along with a fresh view on how to handle things. the meantime, though, is what's hard to live through. it's what makes people tired and what makes them move on...
Its bittersweet to see Stack Overflow continue its downward spiral. Given all that is happening there, I'd give it about 12 months before they start implementing a paywall there of some description.
I doubt the paywall idea to be honest. They have other revenue streams like SO for teams.
It's not clear to me. Were those people paid or volunteers?
mods are volunteers, who provide their time for free to improve the site, I'm not aware of any mods that are paid.
How is that acceptable? People need to be paid for working.
Volunteering is a common concept in many communities. We have volunteer fire fighters, volunteer paramedics, volunteer librarians, volunteer social worker, volunteer ...
Some of these in fields, and sometimes even in close alignment to payed people.
In the context of SO there is a community producing Creative Commons (while there was recently a license change making the company less trustworthy) contents to help people and some people love helping others and the assumption is that the value this brings to all is bigger than the value for the company. Until recently the combination seemed to work. The company runs the platform to advertise their job boards and enterprise versions of SO and the community manages the content. But recently changes seem to be frustrating.
For comparison see also Wikipedia volunteers vs. Wikipedia foundation, Mozilla foundation&corp vs. Contributors, and even people happily submitting pull requests to Microsoft products on GitHub.
Some of these in fields, and sometimes even in close alignment to payed people.
In the context of SO there is a community producing Creative Commons (while there was recently a license change making the company less trustworthy) contents to help people and some people love helping others and the assumption is that the value this brings to all is bigger than the value for the company. Until recently the combination seemed to work. The company runs the platform to advertise their job boards and enterprise versions of SO and the community manages the content. But recently changes seem to be frustrating.
For comparison see also Wikipedia volunteers vs. Wikipedia foundation, Mozilla foundation&corp vs. Contributors, and even people happily submitting pull requests to Microsoft products on GitHub.
> We have volunteer fire fighters, volunteer paramedics, volunteer librarians, volunteer social workers
None of these positions are with a private business operating for profit.
None of these positions are with a private business operating for profit.
SE does not profit from its community websites (eg the ones we all read) aside from a vague "getting traffic to its enterprise product" which is probably not worth what they spend on hosting.
They have always had ads, and they have started serving, um, new varieties of ads: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21051472
> SE does not profit from its community websites
I don’t see how it’s my problem that their business model isn’t profitable. The board & C-suite still draw a salary, and the company value is built on unpaid labour.
I don’t see how it’s my problem that their business model isn’t profitable. The board & C-suite still draw a salary, and the company value is built on unpaid labour.
And now we are contributing for free to Y Combinator!
(True - there's not much direct revenue from this comment I'm typing here, but this is Hacker News, the place where the imorotantninfirmationnos and YC is in the center of it, don't you see how cool they are?)
(True - there's not much direct revenue from this comment I'm typing here, but this is Hacker News, the place where the imorotantninfirmationnos and YC is in the center of it, don't you see how cool they are?)
uh HN is not the 'business' of YC. get back to work
It certainly is not the core business. But it is part of the business.
look, I get that you're not used to being called out on being hopelessly wrong. rephrasing the statement to be an empty tautology so you can be right is a waste of both of our times and only serves to protect your ego
Whoa, please don't break the site guidelines like that!
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Wikipedia and Mozilla were at one time mainly Non-Profits that people volunteered at for the same reason people volunteer at other non-profits, to benefit wider society
Both are turning more and more to be more profit-seeking, (Mozilla more than Wikipedia ) and it is tarnishing their reputations
SE has always been a for-profit business, this makes Volunteering more like Free Labor and less like "doing something good for humanity".
Generally speaking, I do not believe For-Profit business should be allowed to seek Volunteers for their labor, this includes SE, Reddit, etc
If a business model can not pay for labor, then it needs to be a Non-profit Foundation, not a for-profit business
Both are turning more and more to be more profit-seeking, (Mozilla more than Wikipedia ) and it is tarnishing their reputations
SE has always been a for-profit business, this makes Volunteering more like Free Labor and less like "doing something good for humanity".
Generally speaking, I do not believe For-Profit business should be allowed to seek Volunteers for their labor, this includes SE, Reddit, etc
If a business model can not pay for labor, then it needs to be a Non-profit Foundation, not a for-profit business
> SE has always been a for-profit business, this makes Volunteering more like Free Labor and less like "doing something good for humanity".
> If a business model can not pay for labor, then it needs to be a Non-profit Foundation, not a for-profit business
Considering executive compensation at many non-profits, I don't think non-profit status alone is a good indicator of anything.
As for SO / SE, I didn't volunteer time and effort in light of their non-profit status, I volunteered in light of their mission. It was about putting in some amount of effort to make the world a better place. I couldn't care less if they made money off of it, just like I don't care if someone takes my open-source work and manages to make a business of it.
> If a business model can not pay for labor, then it needs to be a Non-profit Foundation, not a for-profit business
Considering executive compensation at many non-profits, I don't think non-profit status alone is a good indicator of anything.
As for SO / SE, I didn't volunteer time and effort in light of their non-profit status, I volunteered in light of their mission. It was about putting in some amount of effort to make the world a better place. I couldn't care less if they made money off of it, just like I don't care if someone takes my open-source work and manages to make a business of it.
How is Wikipedia turning to be more profit-seeking?
Or, people need to stop volunteering their time for free to commercial enterprises and then thinking that time investment gives them rights regarding the management of the enterprise.
Of course it doesn't grant them explicit rights, but it for sure grants implicit leverage if said commercial enterprise depends on these voluntary contributions. "Alienate your contributors, lose the basis of your business" doesn't sound very sustainable.
If you pay people for their labor then you can set terms in exchange for pay. It validates and reinforces the agreement. I’m being attached here for saying people should be paid for work.
Not having to accept terms is the point, or one of the major points, though. As an employee, you're beholden to the company, whereas as a volunteer, you don't owe them anything.
That doesn't mean exploitation isn't real and shouldn't be combated, but I think there's also a grey area that should be acknowledged.
By the way, what do you think of open source, and companies which use it?
That doesn't mean exploitation isn't real and shouldn't be combated, but I think there's also a grey area that should be acknowledged.
By the way, what do you think of open source, and companies which use it?
My intent was not to attack you but rather the idea that contributing to internet forums somehow gives you any ownership rights to the forum.
For example, I don't know if HN makes money off this forum, but all of us commenters are contributing content that furthers the site's goals (hopefully). Yes, dang and sctb are paid to moderate this forum, but if there were no comments, there would be nothing to moderate.
Does that mean that by virtue of participating here for seven years I somehow have some right to tell them how to run their business? No, because there's no employment agreement. And even if there were any agreement, I doubt we would have the ability to do anything about some sudden change in direction from the C suite.
The realization that mere comments or the moderation of them on an internet forum create uncompensated content that someone else may profit from is apparently not as plain as I thought it was.
For example, I don't know if HN makes money off this forum, but all of us commenters are contributing content that furthers the site's goals (hopefully). Yes, dang and sctb are paid to moderate this forum, but if there were no comments, there would be nothing to moderate.
Does that mean that by virtue of participating here for seven years I somehow have some right to tell them how to run their business? No, because there's no employment agreement. And even if there were any agreement, I doubt we would have the ability to do anything about some sudden change in direction from the C suite.
The realization that mere comments or the moderation of them on an internet forum create uncompensated content that someone else may profit from is apparently not as plain as I thought it was.
[deleted]
It's voluntary, volunteering... there's no need for payment.
I say this as someone who has previously run for (and lost) a moderator role.
I say this as someone who has previously run for (and lost) a moderator role.
There is a lot of "work" that goes unpaid. House work. Internships. And many artist work for free in order to get exposure.
> Internships. And many artist work for free in order to get exposure.
Both of those (assuming the work is for for-profit companies) are controversial as well.
Both of those (assuming the work is for for-profit companies) are controversial as well.
You listed two jobs here.
There is no detail of the actual argument, just loads of people claiming to be in the know and indicating toxic behaviour and dramatic battles behind the scenes.
There's a lot of flouncing resignations and "we need to talk" style essays also revealing little of substance.
Considering the passion involved some people have clearly been hurt, but perhaps that's due to the amount of time they have invested in somebody else's commercial enterprise ("our community") while believing it's something more.
Perhaps what they are trying to say is the "something more" (presumably the voluntary contributions) is being undermined by paid staff. It's not clear.
At the moment it all reads a bit like a tin pot Game of Thrones though.
There's a lot of flouncing resignations and "we need to talk" style essays also revealing little of substance.
Considering the passion involved some people have clearly been hurt, but perhaps that's due to the amount of time they have invested in somebody else's commercial enterprise ("our community") while believing it's something more.
Perhaps what they are trying to say is the "something more" (presumably the voluntary contributions) is being undermined by paid staff. It's not clear.
At the moment it all reads a bit like a tin pot Game of Thrones though.
I was going to write essentially this. Obvious there was a disagreement, obviously there are at least two sides to the story, but after reading a number of meta posts (and responses to the meta posts), including from the person whose firing apparently started it all, I haven't seen a single statement about what the actual issue was. I don't see any value in publicly complaining about treatment without providing details about what actually occurred.
All I see is a handful of people saying "I liked that person and I don't think they should have been fired". I'm not sure what the larger community is supposed to do with this information.
All I see is a handful of people saying "I liked that person and I don't think they should have been fired". I'm not sure what the larger community is supposed to do with this information.
> There's a lot of flouncing resignations and "we need to talk" style essays also revealing little of substance.
I feel similarly, I've read all of Monica Cellio's posts and still have no real idea what is going on. Lot's of talk of DMs and messages and emails, but nothing concrete posted, just he said / she said, all while alleging personal innocence and purity.
If there is some concrete evidence and examples, put up or shut up. This is the internet, your word isn't worth much.
I feel similarly, I've read all of Monica Cellio's posts and still have no real idea what is going on. Lot's of talk of DMs and messages and emails, but nothing concrete posted, just he said / she said, all while alleging personal innocence and purity.
If there is some concrete evidence and examples, put up or shut up. This is the internet, your word isn't worth much.
Well, they were internally discussing a proposed Code of Conduct. I imagine mods are bound by an NDA, and management are choosing not to share.
Ah. Very frustrating to read complaints that omit key info. Would have been nice if they explained that they're under an NDA.
I agree it should have been clarified, but the initial intended audience was meta users who would be familiar. Elected moderators need to accept the https://stackoverflow.com/legal/moderator-agreement agreement before they're giving their privileges, and they have to agree not to disclose any information that they get obtain using their mod access, such as the private discussions between moderators and staff here.
It might not be legally binding, but Stack Overflow could plausibly delete their account as punishment.
It might not be legally binding, but Stack Overflow could plausibly delete their account as punishment.
> perhaps that's due to the amount of time they have invested in somebody else's commercial enterprise ("our community") while believing it's something more.
> Perhaps what they are trying to say is the "something more" (presumably the voluntary contributions) is being undermined by paid staff. It's not clear.
You have it right, this matches sentiments I've read by long-term contributors. For many of them, contributing to "our community" and improving SO as a knowledge base are sufficient motivation to donate vast amounts of free time. If SO no longer cares to at least pretend they are more than a corporate entity that extracts money from voluntary unpaid labor, those contributions will likely dwindle.
> Perhaps what they are trying to say is the "something more" (presumably the voluntary contributions) is being undermined by paid staff. It's not clear.
You have it right, this matches sentiments I've read by long-term contributors. For many of them, contributing to "our community" and improving SO as a knowledge base are sufficient motivation to donate vast amounts of free time. If SO no longer cares to at least pretend they are more than a corporate entity that extracts money from voluntary unpaid labor, those contributions will likely dwindle.
I got downvoted to oblivion for reporting a bug to them, with several SO devs trying to explain it’s not a bug, this doesn’t surprise me.
Without studying it thoroughly I would comment: Great, finally!
Moderator abuse was the biggest problem on SO, without any oversight.
What's the best alternative to Stack Overflow?
Official and unofficial documentation, IRC, mailing lists, forums, and source code.
Github issues is something I've seen mentioned in this context.
Well ... Google?
shrugs
shrugs
Nearly every google search I’ve done for the past decade pulls up SO first.
[deleted]
[deleted]
The whole concept is pretty asinine:
”Collect points to gain the power to fuck with other peoples questions!”
”Collect points to gain the power to fuck with other peoples questions!”
I personally decided to boycott the site for several reasons explained here. In short, the site allows dicks to run rampant and I find more answers on GitHub these days.
http://bit.ly/2mfUvCs
http://bit.ly/2mfUvCs
Stack Exchange has developed the same group of power people that rule Wikipedia. They have arcane rules with the major effect of keeping people out.
Stack Exchange is good to read, but hard to ask a question that is not immediately due to some rule.
Stack Exchange is good to read, but hard to ask a question that is not immediately due to some rule.
The moderators don't add value.
I think this is untrue. Some do, some less so.
Certainly there is a toxic tendency for some mods to become power crazed, assume a higher understanding of the world than the lowly non-mods and mod everything into oblivion.
There is also sometimes a tribal back-slapping tendency that doesn't always weed out this nonsense but encourages it.
I don't know if that is involved in this case.
Certainly there is a toxic tendency for some mods to become power crazed, assume a higher understanding of the world than the lowly non-mods and mod everything into oblivion.
There is also sometimes a tribal back-slapping tendency that doesn't always weed out this nonsense but encourages it.
I don't know if that is involved in this case.
There are a lot of very toxic moderators on the network.
As far as I recognize, none of them are among the resigned. They'll probably be more prominent now that reasonable kind people like Monica have been removed.
As far as I recognize, none of them are among the resigned. They'll probably be more prominent now that reasonable kind people like Monica have been removed.
In order for a community to succeed, there must be a continual rotation of the people in power so that no one can be corrupted by it. Moderators to me are the same as a dictatorship. There shouldn't be any moderators on SE, the community should be voting on what is valid question and upvoting the best answers as it has always done. There is no need for a single person to police each community. If something is off topic then the community can vote on removing or moving the topic or answer.
The issue with SE is the fact that they have allowed moderators to have too much power and too control over the communities. In changing their policies it has caused a removal of the moderators so that communities are force to come together to survive then I feel that this was a good step for SE as a whole. Though there will be some hard times at first I think that SE will become the site that it founders actually envisioned.
The issue with SE is the fact that they have allowed moderators to have too much power and too control over the communities. In changing their policies it has caused a removal of the moderators so that communities are force to come together to survive then I feel that this was a good step for SE as a whole. Though there will be some hard times at first I think that SE will become the site that it founders actually envisioned.
I think the issue is not just moderator vs rest of the community, but also SE company (well, its employees) vs the moderator vs the rest of the community, with all groups having different purposes and goal (and even the moderators and community have more sub-groups, around openness, quality, governance and so on). It's not just the case of mods having too much power.
And one could even add more fault lines, between SO's community and mods and the rest of the sites of SE, since the rest of the sites don't have the same issues as SO, for example regarding discrimination, inclusivness, welcoming..., but rules are made and applied by the SE company on all the sites, creating even more issues.
I abhor the recent trend of content decontamination like many others do. But for Q&A sites like SE, I think it is a necessity to stay on topic.
Yes, some moderators might have been too eager in some cases, happened to me too. But since these people are all volunteers, I think they should get some support from the community.
I mean I might have to look for another job if SE ever gets shut down and a lot of knowledge would immediately be lost.
Many people seem to know some mods personally. I have spend a lot of time on that site and couldn't even name one moderator by name/handle.
Quite ironic that a site with a wealth of knowledge has problems with monetization. Some things in the internet economy seem to be quite off.