3 ms·

Yes, immature people are everywhere, but SO took it to a new level before they had to implement a code of conduct. I remember asking questions and getting "this

Yes, immature people are everywhere, but SO took it to a new level before they had to implement a code of conduct. I remember asking questions and getting "this is is common misconception, maybe you're looking for X instead" type of actually helpful and kind answers. After some point it came to a point that if you're not asking a complete problem which can't be modeled as a logic statement, you're labeled as stupid for not knowing better. The thing is, if I knew better or already found the answer, I'd not be asking to SO in the first place. After a couple of incidents, I left the place for the better. I can do my own research, and share my knowledge elsewhere. Now they're training their and others models with that corpus, I'll never add a single dot to their dataset.

zahlman 2y ago
Stack Overflow always had a code of conduct - it just wasn't always called that, and it started out based in some naive assumptions about human behaviour. Someone who tells you something along the lines of "this is is common misconception, maybe you're looking for X instead" is being helpful and kind, and is not at all "labeling you as stupid". On Stack Overflow, it's not at all required that you actually need the question answered, as asked, in order to ask it. (You're even actively encouraged to ask and answer your own questions, as long as both question and answer meet the usual standards, as a way to share your expertise.) It has never been acceptable to insult others openly on the site - but moderation resources are, and always have been, extremely strained, and the community simply doesn't see certain things as insulting or "mean" that others might. In particular, downvotes aren't withheld out of sympathy, because they are understood to be purely for content rating - but many users take them personally anyway. Curators commonly get yelled at when they comment (thus identifying themselves) to explain policy in polite but blunt copy-paste terms; and they get seethed at when they don't comment. There is a standard set of reasons to close questions (https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/417476 https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/417476), and a how-to-ask guide (https://stackoverflow.com/help/how-to-ask https://stackoverflow.com/help/how-to-ask), and a site tour (https://stackoverflow.com/tour https://stackoverflow.com/tour), and an entire Meta site with a variety of FAQ entries and other common references (for example, I wrote the "proposed faq" of https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/429808); https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/429808); but very few people seem interested in checking the extant documentation for the community norms, and then feel slighted when the community norms aren't what they assume they ought to be (because it works that way everywhere else). Communities should be allowed to have their own norms, so that they can pursue their own goals (https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/254770 https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/254770). A ton of users confuse "know better or find the answer ahead of time" for debugging. Stack Overflow allows for what are commonly called "debugging questions", but this does not mean questions wherein you ask someone to debug the code for you. Why? Because that can't ever be helpful to someone else - nobody else has your code, and thus they can't benefit from someone locating the bug in your code. The "debugging questions" that Stack Overflow does want are questions about behaviour that isn't understood, after you have isolated the misbehaving part. These are ideally presented in the form of a "minimal reproducible example" or MRE (https://stackoverflow.com/help/minimal-reproducible-example https://stackoverflow.com/help/minimal-reproducible-example). Stack Overflow explicitly expects you to do research before asking your question (https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/261592 https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/261592) - because most of the goal of the site is to cover questions that can't be answered that way. Traditional reference documentation is only part of the puzzle (https://diataxis.fr/); https://diataxis.fr/); the Q&A site format allows for explanations (for "debugging questions") and how-to guides (in response to simple queries about how to do some atomic, well-specified task). (Tutorials don't fit in this format because they don't start with a clear question from the student.)

zahlman 2y ago

Stack Overflow always had a code of conduct - it just wasn't always called that, and it started out based in some naive assumptions about human behaviour. Someone who tells you something along the lines of "this is is common misconception, maybe you're looking for X instead" is being helpful and kind, and is not at all "labeling you as stupid". On Stack Overflow, it's not at all required that you actually need the question answered, as asked, in order to ask it. (You're even actively encouraged to ask and answer your own questions, as long as both question and answer meet the usual standards, as a way to share your expertise.) It has never been acceptable to insult others openly on the site - but moderation resources are, and always have been, extremely strained, and the community simply doesn't see certain things as insulting or "mean" that others might. In particular, downvotes aren't withheld out of sympathy, because they are understood to be purely for content rating - but many users take them personally anyway. Curators commonly get yelled at when they comment (thus identifying themselves) to explain policy in polite but blunt copy-paste terms; and they get seethed at when they don't comment. There is a standard set of reasons to close questions (https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/417476 https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/417476), and a how-to-ask guide (https://stackoverflow.com/help/how-to-ask https://stackoverflow.com/help/how-to-ask), and a site tour (https://stackoverflow.com/tour https://stackoverflow.com/tour), and an entire Meta site with a variety of FAQ entries and other common references (for example, I wrote the "proposed faq" of https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/429808); https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/429808); but very few people seem interested in checking the extant documentation for the community norms, and then feel slighted when the community norms aren't what they assume they ought to be (because it works that way everywhere else). Communities should be allowed to have their own norms, so that they can pursue their own goals (https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/254770 https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/254770). A ton of users confuse "know better or find the answer ahead of time" for debugging. Stack Overflow allows for what are commonly called "debugging questions", but this does not mean questions wherein you ask someone to debug the code for you. Why? Because that can't ever be helpful to someone else - nobody else has your code, and thus they can't benefit from someone locating the bug in your code. The "debugging questions" that Stack Overflow does want are questions about behaviour that isn't understood, after you have isolated the misbehaving part. These are ideally presented in the form of a "minimal reproducible example" or MRE (https://stackoverflow.com/help/minimal-reproducible-example https://stackoverflow.com/help/minimal-reproducible-example). Stack Overflow explicitly expects you to do research before asking your question (https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/261592 https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/261592) - because most of the goal of the site is to cover questions that can't be answered that way. Traditional reference documentation is only part of the puzzle (https://diataxis.fr/); https://diataxis.fr/); the Q&A site format allows for explanations (for "debugging questions") and how-to guides (in response to simple queries about how to do some atomic, well-specified task). (Tutorials don't fit in this format because they don't start with a clear question from the student.)