9 ms·

This was one of the promises originally of Stack Overflow: all the content is Creative Commons licensed so that if they "turned evil" (I believe it was Joel tha

This was one of the promises originally of Stack Overflow: all the content is Creative Commons licensed so that if they "turned evil" (I believe it was Joel that put it this way) the community could, in a way, create a fork. https://web.archive.org/web/20230203170609/https://stackoverflow.blog/2009/06/04/stack-overflow-creative-commons-data-dump/ https://web.archive.org/web/20230203170609/https://stackover... Unfortunately the dumps themselves are not a legal requirement, just a gentleman's agreement, so realistically exercising this ability was still at the whim of the company.

wahnfrieden 3y ago
So it's time to community fork?
- b3morales 3y ago
  Assuming that the linked post is accurate and that the "approval from senior leadership" to turn the dump back on does not come...then yes, I would say so. Actually there is already Codidact, although if I recall correctly they explicitly ruled out importing SE data when they started up. https://codidact.org https://codidact.org
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - Wowfunhappy 3y ago
    Yeah, Codidact isn't a "fork" because they don't use the SE data.
    - shagie 3y ago
      It’s a fork of the community rather than the data and content.
      - sitkack 3y ago
        You really would need an existing dump to seed the new site.
        shagie 3y ago
        There were a number of issues that lead to the decision not to do a grab and seed of SE into codidact. There was the "what license is that post actually under? Is it 2.5? 3.0? 4.0?" which made things difficult. There was the "what are the actual attribution requirements that SE has for sites that use its content?" This is a bit of an issue because it's never really clear what those requirements are and what you need to do. It can also hurt SEO because it's duplicated content. Furthermore, codidact leadership had already and enough dealings with SE lawyers and likely wanted to avoid any other. Lastly, there was the desire to make a philosophical break with SE. The codidact founders didn't want to have anything to do with SE. Some sites are doing ok. Others stood up but didn't have sufficient involvement to keep them going. For a counter example, "PhysisOverflow" has an import tool that they use. https://www.physicsoverflow.org/4536/import-queue https://www.physicsoverflow.org/4536/import-queue Having an imported site that is mostly inactive with activity on that same content is even more disappointing than having a mostly empty site. And active mirroring is a time-consuming process that runs into rate limit issues with an API.
        sitkack 3y ago
        Thanks for the write up. https://software.codidact.com/categories/38 https://software.codidact.com/categories/38 I haven't used codidact (sorry, name needs replacing), ok just poked around * too slow * needs type ahead find search * needs a GIST experience The site looks good, presentation is really clean. Lots to like about it. But the think that replaces SO is going to have to be a step function in capabilities. That said, just fixing the weird descend into performative rule following and language-lawyering on SO might be that step function. * "Tipping" or actually giving money to a question answerer would be cool * Having a question asker being able to put a bounty on question would be cool On the face of it, I am not getting scalability (in many senses) vibes from codidact.
theragra 3y ago
I always wonder why original founders just sell the company and do something else. Why don't they try to control it more and make sure it stays aligned with needs of society more? Either they can't because of shareholder/equity owners pressure, or they won't, because they really don't care and just said it for PR
- towawy 3y ago
  …or they might have determined that they‘d rather spend their time on something else. Keeping control is a (mostly time) commitment and liability. You have to stay on top of things and actively decide on issues that inadvertently come up.
- blihp 3y ago
  Because despite claims to the contrary most of these sites/projects aren't created for altruistic reasons, they were created to make money (at some point). Cashing out is typically part of the long term plan. In the case of Stack Overflow, I think the reason for the data dumps was two-fold: one of the original founders (who left long ago) came across as at least idealistic and wanting to do the right thing. The other was pragmatic and most likely always thinking about the money angle. However, the other founder likely also saw the value of the data dumps from a PR standpoint which was quite valuable as they were initially trying to replace expertsexchange.com that paywalled most of the content. IIRC, they discussed the data dumps in the early days of their podcast. Now that there's big money to be made from machine learning (both the models and the data they are trained on), they've likely decided 'screw it' on the PR value of the data dumps and would rather get some of that sweet, sweet machine learning money.
  - lotsoweiners 3y ago
    Wow I read the text for that link you posted in a very different way than I intended.
    - jraph 3y ago
      It is a well known situation. The best thing is that I don't think it was intentional, contrary to other well-known "offenders". Experts Exchange was well known for showing up in search results but not providing the answers without paying. Many people hated it and wanted search engines to implement some sort of deny list to filter it out automatically.
redbell 3y ago
> This was one of the promises originally of Stack Overflow: all the content is Creative Commons licensed This reminds me of the promise OpenAI was built on. Unfortunately, it turned out to be a bold claim to be respected and too good to be true [0] 0. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34979981 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34979981
juujian 3y ago
So the idea is that in case leadership wants to 'carve out a kingdom' that is not in line with community wishes, the community could take the data dump and create a clone of sorts? Then now the last snapshot for doing so would be the last data drop from March?
- resolutebat 3y ago
  Yes. There's moderately successful precedent: Wikivoyage is a fork of Wikitravel, which was went evil after it was sold to a content farm.
isoprophlex 3y ago
Maybe just a gentlemen's agreement, but a nice canary too. Once the dumps stop, it's time to start waving middle fingers and GTFO.
- sshine 3y ago
  I stopped answering questions when Monica got sacked as a moderator: https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/393046/who-or-what-is-monica-and-why-so-much-notice-from-se-users https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/393046/who-or-what-... To me, this was the canary. Just another psychopath megacorp.
  - version_five 3y ago
    That kind of shit is poison. It's like there's a weakness in community run stuff that allows people to come in and co-opt it for their own agenda. I don't know that this is a corporate issue, it's an issue of people not pushing back because they don't want to get accused of anything and letting special interests walk all over them. It's happening everywhere. But I agree, no point on dealing with people who spend their time on this garbage.
    - bombcar 3y ago
      It’s starting to look like benevolent dictator is the way to go as that has at least a small chance of survival
      - throwaway81523 3y ago
        I dunno, look what happened to RMS.
      - DANmode 3y ago
        Torvalds, Micay
    - tremon 3y ago
      a weakness in community run stuff But the community is not running it: all the infrastructure is in the hands of a for-profit corporation. Contrast this with the Freenode/Libera split: because not just moderation but also hosting was done by the community, they could continue operations fairly quickly when Freenode turned evil. So I guess that's the lesson we should learn from it (again): the community doesn't own shit if it does not run the daily operations.

wahnfrieden 3y ago

So it's time to community fork?

b3morales 3y ago
Assuming that the linked post is accurate and that the "approval from senior leadership" to turn the dump back on does not come...then yes, I would say so. Actually there is already Codidact, although if I recall correctly they explicitly ruled out importing SE data when they started up. https://codidact.org https://codidact.org
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Wowfunhappy 3y ago
  Yeah, Codidact isn't a "fork" because they don't use the SE data.
  - shagie 3y ago
    It’s a fork of the community rather than the data and content.
    - sitkack 3y ago
      You really would need an existing dump to seed the new site.
      - shagie 3y ago
        There were a number of issues that lead to the decision not to do a grab and seed of SE into codidact. There was the "what license is that post actually under? Is it 2.5? 3.0? 4.0?" which made things difficult. There was the "what are the actual attribution requirements that SE has for sites that use its content?" This is a bit of an issue because it's never really clear what those requirements are and what you need to do. It can also hurt SEO because it's duplicated content. Furthermore, codidact leadership had already and enough dealings with SE lawyers and likely wanted to avoid any other. Lastly, there was the desire to make a philosophical break with SE. The codidact founders didn't want to have anything to do with SE. Some sites are doing ok. Others stood up but didn't have sufficient involvement to keep them going. For a counter example, "PhysisOverflow" has an import tool that they use. https://www.physicsoverflow.org/4536/import-queue https://www.physicsoverflow.org/4536/import-queue Having an imported site that is mostly inactive with activity on that same content is even more disappointing than having a mostly empty site. And active mirroring is a time-consuming process that runs into rate limit issues with an API.
        sitkack 3y ago
        Thanks for the write up. https://software.codidact.com/categories/38 https://software.codidact.com/categories/38 I haven't used codidact (sorry, name needs replacing), ok just poked around * too slow * needs type ahead find search * needs a GIST experience The site looks good, presentation is really clean. Lots to like about it. But the think that replaces SO is going to have to be a step function in capabilities. That said, just fixing the weird descend into performative rule following and language-lawyering on SO might be that step function. * "Tipping" or actually giving money to a question answerer would be cool * Having a question asker being able to put a bounty on question would be cool On the face of it, I am not getting scalability (in many senses) vibes from codidact.

theragra 3y ago

I always wonder why original founders just sell the company and do something else. Why don't they try to control it more and make sure it stays aligned with needs of society more? Either they can't because of shareholder/equity owners pressure, or they won't, because they really don't care and just said it for PR

towawy 3y ago
…or they might have determined that they‘d rather spend their time on something else. Keeping control is a (mostly time) commitment and liability. You have to stay on top of things and actively decide on issues that inadvertently come up.
blihp 3y ago
Because despite claims to the contrary most of these sites/projects aren't created for altruistic reasons, they were created to make money (at some point). Cashing out is typically part of the long term plan. In the case of Stack Overflow, I think the reason for the data dumps was two-fold: one of the original founders (who left long ago) came across as at least idealistic and wanting to do the right thing. The other was pragmatic and most likely always thinking about the money angle. However, the other founder likely also saw the value of the data dumps from a PR standpoint which was quite valuable as they were initially trying to replace expertsexchange.com that paywalled most of the content. IIRC, they discussed the data dumps in the early days of their podcast. Now that there's big money to be made from machine learning (both the models and the data they are trained on), they've likely decided 'screw it' on the PR value of the data dumps and would rather get some of that sweet, sweet machine learning money.
- lotsoweiners 3y ago
  Wow I read the text for that link you posted in a very different way than I intended.
  - jraph 3y ago
    It is a well known situation. The best thing is that I don't think it was intentional, contrary to other well-known "offenders". Experts Exchange was well known for showing up in search results but not providing the answers without paying. Many people hated it and wanted search engines to implement some sort of deny list to filter it out automatically.

redbell 3y ago

> This was one of the promises originally of Stack Overflow: all the content is Creative Commons licensed This reminds me of the promise OpenAI was built on. Unfortunately, it turned out to be a bold claim to be respected and too good to be true [0] 0. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34979981 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34979981

juujian 3y ago

So the idea is that in case leadership wants to 'carve out a kingdom' that is not in line with community wishes, the community could take the data dump and create a clone of sorts? Then now the last snapshot for doing so would be the last data drop from March?

resolutebat 3y ago
Yes. There's moderately successful precedent: Wikivoyage is a fork of Wikitravel, which was went evil after it was sold to a content farm.

isoprophlex 3y ago

Maybe just a gentlemen's agreement, but a nice canary too. Once the dumps stop, it's time to start waving middle fingers and GTFO.

sshine 3y ago
I stopped answering questions when Monica got sacked as a moderator: https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/393046/who-or-what-is-monica-and-why-so-much-notice-from-se-users https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/393046/who-or-what-... To me, this was the canary. Just another psychopath megacorp.
- version_five 3y ago
  That kind of shit is poison. It's like there's a weakness in community run stuff that allows people to come in and co-opt it for their own agenda. I don't know that this is a corporate issue, it's an issue of people not pushing back because they don't want to get accused of anything and letting special interests walk all over them. It's happening everywhere. But I agree, no point on dealing with people who spend their time on this garbage.
  - bombcar 3y ago
    It’s starting to look like benevolent dictator is the way to go as that has at least a small chance of survival
    - throwaway81523 3y ago
      I dunno, look what happened to RMS.
    - DANmode 3y ago
      Torvalds, Micay
  - tremon 3y ago
    a weakness in community run stuff But the community is not running it: all the infrastructure is in the hands of a for-profit corporation. Contrast this with the Freenode/Libera split: because not just moderation but also hosting was done by the community, they could continue operations fairly quickly when Freenode turned evil. So I guess that's the lesson we should learn from it (again): the community doesn't own shit if it does not run the daily operations.