4 ms·

I don't love them getting into bed with AI, but also don't think it's unreasonable for them to not allow angry users to blank out their prior submissions. The

I don't love them getting into bed with AI, but also don't think it's unreasonable for them to not allow angry users to blank out their prior submissions. The whole deal was that you basically donated your posts and CC-licensed them. I wouldn't begrudge Wikipedia from similarly dealing with upset editors who went around blanking the articles they contributed to or reverting all their changes.

Retric 2y ago
Wikipedia editors aren’t the sole source of their pages. I am fine with people leaving and deleting their posts because they may feel the information will become outdated without being maintained. SO unfortunately is actively hostile to correcting outdated information. Which is somewhat understandable as recognizing how little long term value answers provide undermines their moat. The site has basically become worthless for JavaScript due to such rot which helps explain why they are trying to cash out on the AI side of things.
- arp242 2y ago
  Many answers have been edited, commented on, and reviewed by others. So it's also not exactly a one-person show either. Outdated info is a problem, but not so easy to solve; I have answers from Ruby on Rails 4 era that are still perfectly valid today. Others may not be. Also remember that people sometimes stay on old versions for a long time. I don't know what the best solution is, but destroying information is not it.
  - Retric 2y ago
    Few answers get any sort of editing or updating over time. If you’re worried about deleting information the obvious solution is to automatically hide the text when the poster says it’s outdated. At which point there’s little wrong with letting someone flag all their posts as likely outdated upon leaving. But this is where the business of SO comes into conflict with providing useful information on SO.

4 ms·

I don't love them getting into bed with AI, but also don't think it's unreasonable for them to not allow angry users to blank out their prior submissions. The

by zerocrates 2y ago

Retric 2y ago
Wikipedia editors aren’t the sole source of their pages. I am fine with people leaving and deleting their posts because they may feel the information will become outdated without being maintained. SO unfortunately is actively hostile to correcting outdated information. Which is somewhat understandable as recognizing how little long term value answers provide undermines their moat. The site has basically become worthless for JavaScript due to such rot which helps explain why they are trying to cash out on the AI side of things.
- arp242 2y ago
  Many answers have been edited, commented on, and reviewed by others. So it's also not exactly a one-person show either. Outdated info is a problem, but not so easy to solve; I have answers from Ruby on Rails 4 era that are still perfectly valid today. Others may not be. Also remember that people sometimes stay on old versions for a long time. I don't know what the best solution is, but destroying information is not it.
  - Retric 2y ago
    Few answers get any sort of editing or updating over time. If you’re worried about deleting information the obvious solution is to automatically hide the text when the poster says it’s outdated. At which point there’s little wrong with letting someone flag all their posts as likely outdated upon leaving. But this is where the business of SO comes into conflict with providing useful information on SO.