5 ms·
It was tried when it was new[1]. To me, abuse of vote to close is up there with deletionism on Wikipedia as making no sense, particularly in this case. [1]: h
by jedsmith 16y ago
It was tried when it was new[1].
To me, abuse of vote to close is up there with deletionism on Wikipedia as making no sense, particularly in this case.
[1]: http://stackoverflow.com/posts/4568645/revisions http://stackoverflow.com/posts/4568645/revisions
- gnaritas 16y agoDeletion-ism makes perfect sense, it maintains a high signal to noise ratio.
- flatline 16y agoMy problem with this is that filters (e.g. search, tagging, ranking) give the same result without destroying information which is not, strictly speaking, noise.
- gnaritas 16y agoNo they don't, noise drowns out signal, see Google's problem with spam and splogs.
- maxbRuns 16y agomore like a high ratio of one person's preferred signal to other signals
- gnaritas 16y agoBy that metric, spam is signal because some people (spammers) want it.
- Dylan16807 16y agoThey don't want it, they want people to see it.
- eli 16y agoFew people would have problems with the deletion of true "noise" -- obnoxious and indecipherable solve-my-homework questions or obvious trolls. But why delete a programming-related question with lots of healthy discussion and where people are enjoying themselves? Or, for that matter, a wikipedia page that is well-written and accurate, but only of interest to a small percent of people?
- alextgordon 16y agoNot at all! It's fine to have an article on a topic that is only of interest to a small percentage of people, as long as those people have high edit counts on wikipedia.