351–360 of 739 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it is not that toxic communities produce better content, it is just the fact that encyclopedic content websites tend to atract borderline autistic people obsessed with some subject who sound like absolute jerks for everybody but themselves.
Can you not use autistic as an insult, please?
Glad to see an active approach is being taken. SO is a great resource and contains some of the best information on the web IRT programming. If there was only one thing I could change it would be this: If someone marks a question as duplicate, and closes, make them provide a link to the 'original' question and a brief summary as to why it is a duplicate. Closing something as duplicate and then forcing the user who sub…
Actually, if you browse up to the top, it tells you what question it's a duplicate of. But even I was thrown off a few days ago, when I couldn't find that link after a question I answered was marked as duplicate. It's just bad UX, I suppose.
I've been an active user for 7 years… and I lived my very first case of moderator abuse last week. A moderator closed a 1.5 year old question[1] with 20 upvotes, 25 stars, 9000 views and an answer at 28 upvotes without any vote or consultation, because it was too broad for him. StackOverflow has all the tools to allow the users to moderate the platform by themselves, kinda democratically. From my experience, it works…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the core problem is that they've focused too much on being like wikipedia (a single authoritative, comprehensive answer to each important question), and not enough on helping people to learn. Over time a site will grow a culture, and experts on the site will outweigh and overrule experts on the subject matter. In this case, we're also seeing answerers' needs outweigh askers'. If you could only meet the needs…
> I think the core problem is that they've focused too much on being like wikipedia (a single authoritative, comprehensive answer to each important question), and not enough on helping people to learn. Over time a site will grow a culture, and experts on the site will outweigh and overrule experts on the subject matter. In this case, we're also seeing answerers' needs outweigh askers'. there's also the third, silent,…
We are all often times simply trying to learn and share. There is no one single, authoritative source. Millions of people have probably felt the same way after posting or researching an answer. It is really sad. It could have been great.
HN can get a little tight at times but all in all it is 100x better in terms of takeaway for the user.
I guess my only gripe with HN is it has a touch of that "uppity, d*ck, unwelcoming vibe" due to calculation of points. I feel like if an individual has honestly tried to engage/add value and posts/comments 45 times and has a score of 12 they will give up with a bad taste in their mouth. Not everyone fairs well with that kind of thing. It is hard to navigate the world let alone coming into a space like this and getting crushed by a bunch of anonymous handles.
All in all it has a similar impact on a user/readers reaction to their early engagement with the community.
Obviously some of us have thicker skin and some truly believe they are snowflakes...Can't win 'em all.
From the linked article: > Too many people experience Stack Overflow as a hostile or elitist place, especially newer coders, women, people of color, and others in marginalized groups Breaking that down... "...people experience Stack Overflow as a hostile or elitist place..." This is obvious just by looking at the discussions that happen here, or, even by observing the SO-related memes that bubble up to the top of Red…
I don't think what they mean is that when a minority goes to SO and they get a condescending response it's because of their race/ethnicity/gender. What they mean is that, since minorities might have insecurities about their ability to code because there are not that many people who look like them in the industry, when they receive a condescending response their insecurities aggravate. Therefore, SO can be consider mo…
I can see how you can tell someone is a newer coder on the internet by their questions. But how can anyone possibly tell if someone is in a "marginalized" group unless they go about broadcasting seemingly because you want to claim some greater virtue.
The internet was created by misfits (today called "marginalized" I guess) where everyone was accepted based on their ideas and no one knew if you were a man, woman, dog, or dolphin? It seems that it became popular and the real world just brought it's problems with it.
on_the_internet_no_one_knows_you_are_a_dog.png
PS If you're wondering if the implicit bias test is real. It isn't. It is fake science. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-false-science-of-implicit-b...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same situation as Wikipedia: Absolute power corrupts absolutely - but so does a small, petty amount.
I think it's significant though that both wikipedia and stack overflow, despite being ruled by petty assholes weilding the smallest amount of power in seemingly the stupidest way possible, have become two of the most valuable references in existence. Do toxic communities produce better content?