Talk:Stack Exchange Network: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 22:14, 16 May 2012

Template:Findsourcesnotice

Requested editor intervention

Requested editor intervention about the criticism section

Criticism section

as i see it, this section actually mentions more "how to abuse" rather than criticism. i think it should be rewritten or removed.--Infestor (talk) 11:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources were reliable so I've removed it. Anyone who can find some better sources is welcome to add something similar back. Qwfp (talk) 19:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

talk as I see on google you have got interests towards promoting http://tex.stackexchange.com/ in wikipedia, better stop deleting reliable sources with criticism about stackoverflow or this issue will be escalated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.170.90.111 (talk) 21:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That I once mentioned tex.stackexchange.com on the Math Ref Desk bears no relation to the fact that blog posts and social news sites are not WP:reliable sources. --Qwfp (talk) 19:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Serious blogs are recognized as reliable sources and many references are already from stackexchange blogs... it is obvious you don't want criticism. Lets request admins intervention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.170.90.111 (talk) 09:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the criticism is founded, just my two cents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.76.110.50 (talk) 10:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I too don't think the Criticism section makes any sense. I have no affiliation or ulterior motives; it's just irrelevant. The first point is:

"There is some criticism about Stack Exchange which focuses mainly about what happened with Experts-Exchange years ago when answers where made inaccessible to search engines"

As I understand it, the criticism is about programming answer sites in general; that there is a possibility for them becoming monetized, and one's knowledge to be "sold" as a consequence. Since there is no evidence for this happening in the future, and it is no different from any other answer site, I don't think this is an important point.

"the unfairness related with a voting based system when expertise is required."

This does not make any sense. The citation (as far as I can see) makes no point of this. Why is it unfair to upvote persons with expertise, if the answer is right, especially on an answer site, where this is inherently important? Is there anything non-trivial about the reputation?

Others have pointed out the faults of this section, so I will remove it. Please, if you want to put it back up, justify and explain the points, or make new ones. InverseHypercube (talk) 04:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to erase the criticism entry, that is the point. It is obvious people related to stackoverflow is lobbying about this issue and I hope it will get the same attention other issues like this have got. I will detail the entry in deep putting more references to experts on this issue and if you keep deleting it I will get it up to any required instances I have to, regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.37.169.250 (talk) 18:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked for editor assistance on the issue. We'll see what comes of it.

Cheers!

InverseHypercube (talk) 03:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think the main problem here is that entire article relies on unreliable sources and a primary source. I seriously query the notability of this. It needs a severe prune and cleanup. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the reference articles cited in the criticism section keep being re-instated. Neither of those references are valid as none of the sources are notable or considered widely as respected experts (sorry to burst bubbles). --Teh klev (talk) 09:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More criticism needed. Jidanni (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There remains nothing constructive about the Criticism section, it just reads like complaints from angry users, not anything from critics of note, research ect. What value does it pose and how can it be cleaned up? --Sirtaptap (talk) 21:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further inspection, the Criticism section is almost the sole work of one author (apparently with a chip on his shoulder) and I've removed the most irrelevant bits. If reddit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reddit) doesn't have a Criticism section I fail to see why Stack Exchange Network should have one.--Sirtaptap (talk) 21:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've blanked the whole section. The only sources for criticism whatsoever were two blog articles. Blogs are self-published sources and as such are not notable ("Anyone can create a personal web page or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field.") with very few exceptions (such as an established expert in the relevant field who has been published by reliable third-parties). I oppose any readdition of criticism until a reliable source is established that shows the criticism under discussion is owed due weight. -- Renesis (talk) 22:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability of the article in general

I agree, we need to find more reliable published sources. But this same problem plagues other similar articles, such as Stack Overflow. For now, I think that this article should be allowed to live, albeit with a reliability notice. After all, the Stack Exchange network is becoming increasingly popular (especially Stack Overflow itself), so more sources might appear soon! :) Maximz2005 ^(Talk) 05:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's the old "up and coming next big thing!" fallacy. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with you that there are issues with the sources. I have reinstated flags. Popularity or not, this reads like an ad for the company. I've also removed some of the external links.NCSS (talk) 23:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merging Server Fault into this page

I think that Server Fault is going to struggle to survive on its own. It has no secondary sources, is fairly "unloved" - there's very little on that page that doesn't apply to all Stack Exchange sites. I think it could be merged without losing any information. Anyone have any thoughts? -- Fluteflute ^Talk ^{Contributions} 19:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. Go for it. NCSS (talk) 21:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've done so. Not sure what to do about the infobox, perhaps just a screenshot would be better? -- Fluteflute ^Talk ^{Contributions} 11:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would... Article definitely needs more images. NCSS (talk) 01:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pasting big templates into the History section

Pasting big templates into the History section just makes the rendered text end up looking repetitive. Jidanni (talk) 23:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Biased lead

I think the lead is too biased (as if written by someone who thinks forums are better than the Stack Exchange way - I think they are just different and have different purposes). For example, "group of websites that reduces the traditional forum format of an online discussion to a trivial question and answer user exchange with the utter purpose of gaining reputation". --Mortense (talk) 13:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed jthetzel (talk) 00:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've "cleaned" that bit up, but there's no doubt the article as a whole is in need of some work... -- Fluteflute ^Talk ^{Contributions} 14:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is definitely looking better, but the introduction still needs some work. NCSS (talk) 01:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 44: / Line 44: @@
 There remains nothing constructive about the Criticism section, it just reads like complaints from angry users, not anything from critics of note, research ect. What value does it pose and how can it be cleaned up? --[[User:Sirtaptap|Sirtaptap]] ([[User talk:Sirtaptap|talk]]) 21:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 :Upon further inspection, the Criticism section is almost the sole work of one author (apparently with a chip on his shoulder) and I've removed the most irrelevant bits. If reddit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reddit) doesn't have a Criticism section I fail to see why Stack Exchange Network should have one.--[[User:Sirtaptap|Sirtaptap]] ([[User talk:Sirtaptap|talk]]) 21:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
+::I've blanked the whole section.  The only sources for criticism whatsoever were two blog articles.  Blogs are [[Wikipedia:BLOGS|self-published sources]] and as such are not notable ("Anyone can create a personal web page or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field.") with very few exceptions (such as an established expert in the relevant field who has been published by ''reliable'' third-parties).  I oppose any readdition of criticism until a reliable source is established that shows the criticism under discussion is owed [[Wikipedia:DUE|due weight]]. -- [[User:Renesis|Renesis]] ([[User talk:Renesis|talk]]) 22:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 == Reliability of the article in general ==