3 ms·

I love stack overflow, I love the idea, etc. What I don't like, and what I think is the real problem, which the author gets at, is that the site is becoming mo

by bherms 16y ago

I love stack overflow, I love the idea, etc. What I don't like, and what I think is the real problem, which the author gets at, is that the site is becoming more and more fragmented. Programming is a very broad topic and it drives me NUTS when I post a question on SO, and get several replies telling me its more suitable for another SE site, then eventually someone decides to close it and I have to find the other site to re-ask. More effort gets put in by the control freaks to tell you what stack overflow is for and that you're wrong for posting your question there than to actually just answer it in the first place.

dasil003 16y ago
Yeah I was thinking about this. The obvious counter-example where control-freakism works is wikipedia. But it works there because there is only one wikipedia, and it is supposed to be about anything that's important. So there's no fragmentation, and there's no higher ambition for the site creators. Stack Overflow is a great site, but I don't see the value of a federated series of sites for all manner of topics... at least not on a mass scale. I get the feeling that SO was just a bit too easy for Joel and Jeff, what with the sad state of the competition, and their mindshare amongst the target audience. So they needed to find a bigger challenge. I guess more power to them in their entrepreneurial efforts, but I think success will be elusive.
- dalke 16y ago
  "there is only one wikipedia, and it is supposed to be about anything that's important. So there's no fragmentation ..." There is fragmentation. See Wookiepedia, for one, where Star Wars fans have a different idea of what "important" means.
  - dasil003 16y ago
    anyone can open a new wikipedia clone, they're not all centrally controlled
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
  - mmacaulay 16y ago
    People on the main wikipedia site aren't going to tell you to go post your Star Wars article on the Star Wars-specific spinoff wiki site though are they?
    - dalke 16y ago
      Absolutely. I searched Deletionpedia (pages deleted from Wikipedia) for "Wookiepedia" and easily found that "Force Lightning" was deleted. One of the reasons for deletion (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Force_lightning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion... for discussion) was "this is precisely why we have outlets such as Wookiepedia for this sort of stuff." The page on Wookiepedia is http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Force_lightning http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Force_lightning .

by bherms 16y ago

dasil003 16y ago

Yeah I was thinking about this. The obvious counter-example where control-freakism works is wikipedia. But it works there because there is only one wikipedia, and it is supposed to be about anything that's important. So there's no fragmentation, and there's no higher ambition for the site creators. Stack Overflow is a great site, but I don't see the value of a federated series of sites for all manner of topics... at least not on a mass scale. I get the feeling that SO was just a bit too easy for Joel and Jeff, what with the sad state of the competition, and their mindshare amongst the target audience. So they needed to find a bigger challenge. I guess more power to them in their entrepreneurial efforts, but I think success will be elusive.

dalke 16y ago
"there is only one wikipedia, and it is supposed to be about anything that's important. So there's no fragmentation ..." There is fragmentation. See Wookiepedia, for one, where Star Wars fans have a different idea of what "important" means.
- dasil003 16y ago
  anyone can open a new wikipedia clone, they're not all centrally controlled
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
- mmacaulay 16y ago
  People on the main wikipedia site aren't going to tell you to go post your Star Wars article on the Star Wars-specific spinoff wiki site though are they?
  - dalke 16y ago
    Absolutely. I searched Deletionpedia (pages deleted from Wikipedia) for "Wookiepedia" and easily found that "Force Lightning" was deleted. One of the reasons for deletion (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Force_lightning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion... for discussion) was "this is precisely why we have outlets such as Wookiepedia for this sort of stuff." The page on Wookiepedia is http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Force_lightning http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Force_lightning .