Taking article views as acceptance for the article's viewpoints is quite the fallacy. That headline alone will generate many thousands of views because people a

Taking article views as acceptance for the article's viewpoints is quite the fallacy. That headline alone will generate many thousands of views because people are curious, not because they agree -- this is a problem with the internet as a whole these days, so many people have news and topics filtered and curated to their own beliefs, they are unaware that they are living in their own "filter bubble" and thus we assume if I click on article a it means I like article a, so news algorithm xyz will proceed to show me more like a. I've read the article. It has some legitimate claims, I've even experienced some of them, but I am not so thin-skinned as some people are about internet points, and these issues aren't exclusive to StackOverflow. They are gripes about internet behavior, and human behavior as a whole. It all has to be taken into context, as many point out, the situation was much worse before Stack Overflow. In the article, > Quora might seem like an obvious choice, but it shares many of the issues common at Stack Overflow, Exactly. You can take Stackoverflow and substitute Quora, or reddit in some cases and get the same exact situations described. It's a people problem. Anything led by a curated community of imaginary points will naturally produce elitist behavior. Heck you have this problem in real life (opposed to virtual life) in Academia, a.k.a the "academic elite," what makes you think it is going to be any different on the internet?