4 ms·
> overt deletionism. It wasn't enough to just close the questions, they actually felt the need to delete the content people put effort into writing as well. Th
by zahlman 3mo ago
> overt deletionism. It wasn't enough to just close the questions, they actually felt the need to delete the content people put effort into writing as well.
The site has more than three times as many publicly-visible questions as Wikipedia has articles. And that's with the scope restricted to just programming.
- matheusmoreira 3mo agoIs that supposed to somehow excuse the deletionism?
- zahlman 3mo agoNo excuse is required, because there's nothing wrong with it.
- witrak 3mo agoYou dare to compare a Wikipedia article (even a short one) to an SE "article," which is, according to SE's own rules, narrowly and up-to-the-point concentrated on an equally narrow formulated question?
- zahlman 3mo agoYes, because there's no reason not to. A Wikipedia article (even a long one) is "narrowly and up-to-the-point concentrated" on a single concept. There maybe a lot to say about dogs, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog only covers things common to all of them, and individual dog breeds get their own pages (as does the concept of a "dog breed"). Similarly, SO has good, valid questions about general concepts, which are narrowly scoped about the concept despite the broad applicability of that concept. For example, https://stackoverflow.com/questions/26337003 https://stackoverflow.com/questions/26337003 .