I think the nice thing about this code of conduct is that it provides specific examples of common negative language and provides ways to say the same thing but nicer. Other than that it seems...
I think the nice thing about this code of conduct is that it provides specific examples of common negative language and provides ways to say the same thing but nicer. Other than that it seems pretty straightforward, basically just "hey don't be a dick". This can probably help everyone from new users to existing users if they have trouble not being a dick.
Yup, there's definitely plenty of that to go around. I've read a couple of discussions on reddit about SO and how close votes are a huge turnoff for new users - they ask a question and come back...
Yup, there's definitely plenty of that to go around. I've read a couple of discussions on reddit about SO and how close votes are a huge turnoff for new users - they ask a question and come back 15 minutes later and their question is closed. The main opinion in that reddit thread was that close votes are just a way for people to get their names into an official-looking shaded box on questions.
I wonder how much of the one-upping comes from permissions being tied to rep. If permissions were dolled out on a case-by-case basis (ignoring the huge overhead from that), I wonder if people wouldn't be so eager to edit/close/delete.
Of course, I have no evidence to back up my claim, but IMHO it's just the typical problem of a bunch of nerds all trying to prove to everybody else that they're the smartest person there.
I wonder how much of the one-upping comes from permissions being tied to rep.
Of course, I have no evidence to back up my claim, but IMHO it's just the typical problem of a bunch of nerds all trying to prove to everybody else that they're the smartest person there.
Has anyone else read SE's new CoC? What are your thoughts? If you were a new user to one of the sites, would this help you? What about a long-time existing member?
Has anyone else read SE's new CoC? What are your thoughts? If you were a new user to one of the sites, would this help you? What about a long-time existing member?
I love it. It's simple, has clear examples, and unlike with Github's Code of Conduct mishap a few years back (when they explicitly wrote in that any "privileged" groups were not important and...
I love it. It's simple, has clear examples, and unlike with Github's Code of Conduct mishap a few years back (when they explicitly wrote in that any "privileged" groups were not important and wouldn't receive the same enforcement), the explanation of what constitutes bigotry is fair, broad, and holds everyone's behavior to the same standard no matter who they're interacting with.
Sometimes I think toxicity can be a feature, but I think for the broadest audience a learning environment shouldn't have it. I think this CoC very effectively says "If you're going to be toxic, stop, hit the back button, and just ignore it." Maybe this can save me some time in the future when I'm 5-deep into SO questions and having to scroll past the funny douche with the Google comment when I've got a deadline.
Definitely - their definitions of name-calling, bigotry, and harassment are clear and don't flagrantly leave out huge groups of people because they don't align with some political goal. That's my...
Definitely - their definitions of name-calling, bigotry, and harassment are clear and don't flagrantly leave out huge groups of people because they don't align with some political goal. That's my favorite part of the CoC, because it's simple and sensible.
The part above, the no "unfriendly language" part is the part I don't agree with, this "forced friendliness" for the sake of being a "welcoming place."
I think a lot of this will come down to enforcement, I couldn't call it at all until we see how they actually enforce it once it's at a steady state. Could be unpleasant whilst they try and curb...
I think a lot of this will come down to enforcement, I couldn't call it at all until we see how they actually enforce it once it's at a steady state. Could be unpleasant whilst they try and curb previously acceptable behavior.
That said the volunteer aspect is a double edged sword. On the one hand no one is paying you to answer this question so why should take lots of effort to be nice?
On the other hand, no one is paying you to answer this question. Nothing stops you just walking away. So perhaps stack overflow will have different more friendly people do more of the grunt work in simple questions. Perhaps they will find more stupid questions just to unanswered. I don't really see why that's a problem if that's what the site owners want?
As a long-time member, I think it's ridiculous from several points: They're trying to drastically change the direction of the site years into its existence They're actively alienating the people...
As a long-time member, I think it's ridiculous from several points:
They're trying to drastically change the direction of the site years into its existence
They're actively alienating the people who've held up the site for those years
They're trying to cater to a crowd of people that don't contribute to the site (yet*)
The point of SO (and other as-serious sites like English.SE) is to answer questions, not make people feel happy and smart. If SO was about making people feel happy instead, then it wouldn't be the incredible resource that it is today - it'd just be another forum. SO's place in the world is being that treasure trove of knowledge, that first link on Google, that place for quick lookups to unlock programmers as they go about their day at work and at home. Anything shy of that wealth of knowledge and it's no more than a random programming forum.
I suppose I don't understand how they're alienating anyone with this, I didn't see anything in there that could possibly be read as exclusionary. Is there something specific you have a problem with?
They're actively alienating the people who've held up the site for those years
I suppose I don't understand how they're alienating anyone with this, I didn't see anything in there that could possibly be read as exclusionary. Is there something specific you have a problem with?
It's a bad message to all of the long-time members: "you're wrong, SO isn't a place for the highest-quality questions on the internet, it's a place to be nice to people who flagrantly refuse to...
It's a bad message to all of the long-time members: "you're wrong, SO isn't a place for the highest-quality questions on the internet, it's a place to be nice to people who flagrantly refuse to read rules". This meta post has that feedback.
disclaimer, not a long time member. I think maybe the message here isn't 'you're wrong', it's 'you guys are kind of dicks sometimes, please be nicer'. I think programmers frequently have a problem...
It's a bad message to all of the long-time members: "you're wrong,"
disclaimer, not a long time member. I think maybe the message here isn't 'you're wrong', it's 'you guys are kind of dicks sometimes, please be nicer'.
I think programmers frequently have a problem with associating being a dick with being right. It's totally unnecessary. Look at Linus -- he's a huge dick sometimes. He's smart as hell, but he really doesn't need to be a dick in order to be smart. The same applies to everyone on stack overflow, and I think that's probably why this CoC was created.
Totally not a problem, it's important to get feedback from both sides, and that's usually the half that's missing from SO.meta posts. I agree - I'd wager that among programmers, there is a higher...
not a long time member
Totally not a problem, it's important to get feedback from both sides, and that's usually the half that's missing from SO.meta posts.
I agree - I'd wager that among programmers, there is a higher percentage of people who feel the need to be right. In a number of SO.meta posts over the years, high-rep users have stated that they're not trying to be mean, they're just jaded - after asking the 500th person to include a code example of what they're talking about, they don't bother with being overly nice about it, as it's easy to quickly write "You need to add a [mcve]."
One thing I think could help is SE putting some engineering time into their new CoC and adding some sort of quick-response dropdown. Yeah, they wouldn't be very genuine, but they could be nicer versions of the common repsonses for mcve's, x-y's, etc.
I definitely understand this perspective, and I don't think most people try to be dicks on purpose. But just because someone is jaded doesn't mean being a jerk is suddenly okay. That said, I don't...
they're not trying to be mean, they're just jaded
I definitely understand this perspective, and I don't think most people try to be dicks on purpose. But just because someone is jaded doesn't mean being a jerk is suddenly okay.
That said, I don't think something along the lines of "You need to do X" is necessarily rude, it's simply to the point. I would be surprised if those sort of statements are getting flagged as against this CoC, and if that's the case I think StackOverflow should take a closer look at what's considered unfriendly. Keep in mind though, it's very easy for the terse and simple statements to appear mean to the reader and for the author to throw in some jabs.
Agreed: the 500th person doesn't deserve to be snapped at just because they're the 500th. Apparently there are enough comments being removed for people to notice, though now that they're gone, we...
Agreed: the 500th person doesn't deserve to be snapped at just because they're the 500th. Apparently there are enough comments being removed for people to notice, though now that they're gone, we have to take their owners' point of view on why so there's at least some bias there.
very easy for the terse and simple statements to appear mean
This is really important, and something that I see as more important than trying to mold actually mean people. SO is a site for "professional programmers;" which lends to the shorter, terser statements (which can tie into being jaded, definitely). It reminds me of one of the discussion here on Tildes actually: Can we try to talk like normal people?. There a lot of good opinions there from both sides. Terse and simple is interpreted really different from person to person. Here we have nice big textareas to write out comments; on SO they're just little inputs.
Exactly, where experienced programmers are used to incredibly straightforward language, someone new to programming (i.e., someone asking a beginner question) might take it more personally and find...
Terse and simple is interpreted really different from person to person.
Exactly, where experienced programmers are used to incredibly straightforward language, someone new to programming (i.e., someone asking a beginner question) might take it more personally and find themselves turned away from the site, or worse, programming entirely.
If Stack Overflow was able to provide more concrete examples of what's considered 'unfriendly' and good, 'nicer' alternatives, I think that would go a long way towards getting people to not be jerks. When in doubt, it's probably better to be overly detailed, especially with programmers!
People will always be around to rip into others; short of repeatedly banning from from everything under the sun, there's no real way to prevent this. SO has established a high level of required...
People will always be around to rip into others; short of repeatedly banning from from everything under the sun, there's no real way to prevent this. SO has established a high level of required quality for questions and answers. If an incoming question doesn't meet those standards, there are people, for good or for ill, who are going to jump on it. SO.meta and mod flags have been the place where the people who're just being mean have been called out / reported in the past.
I don't see positive changes the new CoC bring other than to make a blanket statement to the rest of the internet that "we're better now!" as the userbase hasn't changed.
There are toxic users and gatekeepers everywhere; the nature of anonymous users. In the case of SO, gatekeeping is sometimes a positive force, in removing content that has little hope of being at...
There are toxic users and gatekeepers everywhere; the nature of anonymous users. In the case of SO, gatekeeping is sometimes a positive force, in removing content that has little hope of being at the level that the site thrives at. There are questions that come in that need a bit of work, and that's a good opportunity to help those users and those questions to get good answers. There are also a large number of questions where the poster has no interest in improving their question, only getting the answer that they want and getting out.
All of the examples in the "dos and don'ts" have helpful "do" examples that are polite, and a "don't" examples that I've seen before in SO and are impolite and unhelpful. There is nothing there...
All of the examples in the "dos and don'ts" have helpful "do" examples that are polite, and a "don't" examples that I've seen before in SO and are impolite and unhelpful.
There is nothing there saying you should forgo correctness for niceness. Instead, they make it clear that you can be both correct and nice at the same time.
False positive duplicates, edits that don't fit the original purpose of the poster are problems that happen way too often in SO. Neither of these things fit the goal of answering questions well.
...and it fails at that because of the vicious amount of gatekeeping and modding and closing and redirecting. It's not uncommon to ask a question and get your question sent to a different site,...
is to answer questions,
...and it fails at that because of the vicious amount of gatekeeping and modding and closing and redirecting.
It's not uncommon to ask a question and get your question sent to a different site, and for that site to send it to a different site, and for that site to send it back to the first.
Some of the SE sites a just really hostile to people asking well formed questions. Even SE staff described the process of asking a question on Parenting as "exhausting". When your own staff call it exhausting you know something's wrong.
I think the nice thing about this code of conduct is that it provides specific examples of common negative language and provides ways to say the same thing but nicer. Other than that it seems pretty straightforward, basically just "hey don't be a dick". This can probably help everyone from new users to existing users if they have trouble not being a dick.
I was very active on SO when it first began, but I got so tired of the pettiness and one-upmanship that I stopped participating.
Yup, there's definitely plenty of that to go around. I've read a couple of discussions on reddit about SO and how close votes are a huge turnoff for new users - they ask a question and come back 15 minutes later and their question is closed. The main opinion in that reddit thread was that close votes are just a way for people to get their names into an official-looking shaded box on questions.
I wonder how much of the one-upping comes from permissions being tied to rep. If permissions were dolled out on a case-by-case basis (ignoring the huge overhead from that), I wonder if people wouldn't be so eager to edit/close/delete.
Of course, I have no evidence to back up my claim, but IMHO it's just the typical problem of a bunch of nerds all trying to prove to everybody else that they're the smartest person there.
Has anyone else read SE's new CoC? What are your thoughts? If you were a new user to one of the sites, would this help you? What about a long-time existing member?
I love it. It's simple, has clear examples, and unlike with Github's Code of Conduct mishap a few years back (when they explicitly wrote in that any "privileged" groups were not important and wouldn't receive the same enforcement), the explanation of what constitutes bigotry is fair, broad, and holds everyone's behavior to the same standard no matter who they're interacting with.
Sometimes I think toxicity can be a feature, but I think for the broadest audience a learning environment shouldn't have it. I think this CoC very effectively says "If you're going to be toxic, stop, hit the back button, and just ignore it." Maybe this can save me some time in the future when I'm 5-deep into SO questions and having to scroll past the funny douche with the Google comment when I've got a deadline.
Definitely - their definitions of name-calling, bigotry, and harassment are clear and don't flagrantly leave out huge groups of people because they don't align with some political goal. That's my favorite part of the CoC, because it's simple and sensible.
The part above, the no "unfriendly language" part is the part I don't agree with, this "forced friendliness" for the sake of being a "welcoming place."
I think a lot of this will come down to enforcement, I couldn't call it at all until we see how they actually enforce it once it's at a steady state. Could be unpleasant whilst they try and curb previously acceptable behavior.
That said the volunteer aspect is a double edged sword. On the one hand no one is paying you to answer this question so why should take lots of effort to be nice?
On the other hand, no one is paying you to answer this question. Nothing stops you just walking away. So perhaps stack overflow will have different more friendly people do more of the grunt work in simple questions. Perhaps they will find more stupid questions just to unanswered. I don't really see why that's a problem if that's what the site owners want?
As a long-time member, I think it's ridiculous from several points:
The point of SO (and other as-serious sites like English.SE) is to answer questions, not make people feel happy and smart. If SO was about making people feel happy instead, then it wouldn't be the incredible resource that it is today - it'd just be another forum. SO's place in the world is being that treasure trove of knowledge, that first link on Google, that place for quick lookups to unlock programmers as they go about their day at work and at home. Anything shy of that wealth of knowledge and it's no more than a random programming forum.
I suppose I don't understand how they're alienating anyone with this, I didn't see anything in there that could possibly be read as exclusionary. Is there something specific you have a problem with?
It's a bad message to all of the long-time members: "you're wrong, SO isn't a place for the highest-quality questions on the internet, it's a place to be nice to people who flagrantly refuse to read rules". This meta post has that feedback.
Edit: moved quote
disclaimer, not a long time member. I think maybe the message here isn't 'you're wrong', it's 'you guys are kind of dicks sometimes, please be nicer'.
I think programmers frequently have a problem with associating being a dick with being right. It's totally unnecessary. Look at Linus -- he's a huge dick sometimes. He's smart as hell, but he really doesn't need to be a dick in order to be smart. The same applies to everyone on stack overflow, and I think that's probably why this CoC was created.
Totally not a problem, it's important to get feedback from both sides, and that's usually the half that's missing from SO.meta posts.
I agree - I'd wager that among programmers, there is a higher percentage of people who feel the need to be right. In a number of SO.meta posts over the years, high-rep users have stated that they're not trying to be mean, they're just jaded - after asking the 500th person to include a code example of what they're talking about, they don't bother with being overly nice about it, as it's easy to quickly write "You need to add a [mcve]."
One thing I think could help is SE putting some engineering time into their new CoC and adding some sort of quick-response dropdown. Yeah, they wouldn't be very genuine, but they could be nicer versions of the common repsonses for mcve's, x-y's, etc.
I definitely understand this perspective, and I don't think most people try to be dicks on purpose. But just because someone is jaded doesn't mean being a jerk is suddenly okay.
That said, I don't think something along the lines of "You need to do X" is necessarily rude, it's simply to the point. I would be surprised if those sort of statements are getting flagged as against this CoC, and if that's the case I think StackOverflow should take a closer look at what's considered unfriendly. Keep in mind though, it's very easy for the terse and simple statements to appear mean to the reader and for the author to throw in some jabs.
Agreed: the 500th person doesn't deserve to be snapped at just because they're the 500th. Apparently there are enough comments being removed for people to notice, though now that they're gone, we have to take their owners' point of view on why so there's at least some bias there.
This is really important, and something that I see as more important than trying to mold actually mean people. SO is a site for "professional programmers;" which lends to the shorter, terser statements (which can tie into being jaded, definitely). It reminds me of one of the discussion here on Tildes actually: Can we try to talk like normal people?. There a lot of good opinions there from both sides. Terse and simple is interpreted really different from person to person. Here we have nice big textareas to write out comments; on SO they're just little inputs.
Exactly, where experienced programmers are used to incredibly straightforward language, someone new to programming (i.e., someone asking a beginner question) might take it more personally and find themselves turned away from the site, or worse, programming entirely.
If Stack Overflow was able to provide more concrete examples of what's considered 'unfriendly' and good, 'nicer' alternatives, I think that would go a long way towards getting people to not be jerks. When in doubt, it's probably better to be overly detailed, especially with programmers!
Definitely! If they want to migrate their community, I think it'd be good to show, not just tell. In fact, a couple hundred people agree.
People will always be around to rip into others; short of repeatedly banning from from everything under the sun, there's no real way to prevent this. SO has established a high level of required quality for questions and answers. If an incoming question doesn't meet those standards, there are people, for good or for ill, who are going to jump on it. SO.meta and mod flags have been the place where the people who're just being mean have been called out / reported in the past.
I don't see positive changes the new CoC bring other than to make a blanket statement to the rest of the internet that "we're better now!" as the userbase hasn't changed.
Edit: clarity
There are toxic users and gatekeepers everywhere; the nature of anonymous users. In the case of SO, gatekeeping is sometimes a positive force, in removing content that has little hope of being at the level that the site thrives at. There are questions that come in that need a bit of work, and that's a good opportunity to help those users and those questions to get good answers. There are also a large number of questions where the poster has no interest in improving their question, only getting the answer that they want and getting out.
All of the examples in the "dos and don'ts" have helpful "do" examples that are polite, and a "don't" examples that I've seen before in SO and are impolite and unhelpful.
There is nothing there saying you should forgo correctness for niceness. Instead, they make it clear that you can be both correct and nice at the same time.
False positive duplicates, edits that don't fit the original purpose of the poster are problems that happen way too often in SO. Neither of these things fit the goal of answering questions well.
...and it fails at that because of the vicious amount of gatekeeping and modding and closing and redirecting.
It's not uncommon to ask a question and get your question sent to a different site, and for that site to send it to a different site, and for that site to send it back to the first.
Some of the SE sites a just really hostile to people asking well formed questions. Even SE staff described the process of asking a question on Parenting as "exhausting". When your own staff call it exhausting you know something's wrong.