Talk:Stack Exchange Network

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Requested editor intervention[edit]

Requested editor intervention about the criticism section

Criticism section[edit]

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)

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)

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

That I once mentioned 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)

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 (talk) 09:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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)

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 (talk) 18:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

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


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

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)

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)

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

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)

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 ( 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)
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)
Sources 42-63 are eleven (11) sources, not two (2) as claimed. A number of them are in fact within the stack-exchange network. These sources, discuss the matter and provide both support and criticism for the disputed matter. As such it falls under : self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yparjis (talkcontribs) 12:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Perfectly acceptable. The non-blog posts were just questions from the site's feedback forum; angry user comments belong on the feedback forum, not on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vector to air grievances.--Sirtaptap (talk) 23:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
on this claim about 90% of the article should be removed. Yparjis (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
The general description of the site is perfectly acceptable for a basic article. Your personal grievances with the site are not.--Sirtaptap (talk) 03:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
You are being offensive, I have not, and your claims are unfounded, nor they matter. The purpose of the section was to extend the view on the network of sites, and if you take a look around wikipedia, you will see that criticism sections are quite common. You have deleted the entire section on the basis the sources are blogs but you have not responded above that they are in fact self-sources. If I am wrong, I would really be happy to back-down. I'll restore the section, and try to improve the sources, within time permiting. Please don't go ahead removing it again without responding to the claim. In the worst case some parts of it may have to be improved, and some blog-sources removed. Yparjis (talk) 10:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I have taken a close look, on the sources in the page. In fact all of them are either websites, blogs, blogs on stack-exchange networks, or from which makes them all either non-verifiable sources or self-sources. If the claim for deleting the criticism section stands then the entirety of the sources are invalid, and the entire article needs the same rule applied. I favor that the article should remain, with the criticism section. Otherwise substantial pruning needs be performed in all sections, on claims based on non-verifiable content. Yparjis (talk) 10:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
You're the only one that's written the section. It's clearly a pet project of yours. All of the "sources" are angry user feedback. Angry user emails/support calls/ect would not be considered notable for other resources. Do you think I could cite a wikipedia talk page rant in a Criticism section on the page on Wikipedia? It's absurd. And Critcism sections appear to be quite rare (and short, if they exist) for similar web sites. Even 4chan doesn't have a criticism section, nor does reddit, Slashdot, Qoura ect. Wikipedia is not a place for rants. Express your grievances to Stack Exchange Network directly not by making it's Wikipedia article a laundry list of your personal problems with it.--Sirtaptap (talk) 21:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
please stop being offensive and try to be constructive. I am certainly trying to document something that I find interesting, but it is none of your business to judge me. If you check closely you will see that I have contributed to the entirety of the article. Some of the sources are part of the which states to be "This site is intended for bugs, features, and discussion of Stack Overflow and the Stack Exchange Q&A engine. ... " certainly not support, and since the site is part of the StackExchange network these source may well be considered as verifiable. The purpose of the criticism section is to document criticism nor to support nor to verify if it is justifiable. Since, you seem to point out these other websites that do not have a criticism section, I'll try to extend this pet project of mine. For the time being I am quite busy with some other pet projects of mine. Until, then please keep your cool, I do not appreciate being offended. You are free to improve the article, but not vandalize or delete what is verifiable, not based on you likeliness of the subject. Yparjis (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
by the way reddit has critism section, it is just named differently, Same with 4chan. Yparjis (talk) 22:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I am removing this section, there have been enough arguments for that above. The entire section has been written by a single "disgruntled user". find the SE user g24l--the current profile says:

Please delete this account. I have no further interest in participating in this community. Thanks a bunch

A lot of the criticism there is founded, but a lot of it is referencing comments on blog posts. Also, the size of it goes against WP:UNDUE. It would be better if someone who is not at odds with the network wrote this section (I may do so when I get time).

Disclaimer: I am an avid user of the SE network.

ManishEarthTalkStalk 08:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not removing any of these unfounded accusations, ofcourse i do not admit to any. How do you connect g24l with Yparjis? In what sense do you correlate people that are in no way related? also shouldn't this profile be deleted since it has a delete clause ? did SE just set this up? are you really a moderator? I am escalating this issue. Does wikipedia safeguard privacy policies? 22:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yparjis (talkcontribs)

i would appreciate it it if you could explain, how this article is ok to exist on wikipedia, with numerous blog sources, 29, 30, 34, 39, 50,... and I am being cyber bullied for documenting what the founder of SE has stated. Even the previous changes you had made , your comments were supportive of SE . Do you even know the meaning of the word unbiased? Yparjis (talk) 00:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I am going to rewrite the section myself. Or let someone else rewrite it, but currently it is against WP:UNDUE, [[WP:NEUTRAL, and WP:RELY. SE did _not_ set this up, I noticed this section and took action as an editor of Wikipedia (not in my capacity as Chem.SE moderator). I do agree that my rewriting may be against WP:NEUTRAL as well, I plan to put it up for review later (I also shall ask at WP:VPP for clarification on this). Profile deletion only happens if you follow the instructions under "contact us" (there's a form for account deletion somewhere there). Re: connecting the two: your reply seems to just confirm that the two are connected. Re: Criticism of Wikipedia: Again, read WP:UNDUE. There are lots of pages on Wikipedia, a large Criticism page isn't undue weight. On the other hand, there are very few pages about SE on Wikipedia. The current Criticism section takes up half of the page on the network, that is clearly a lot of undue weight. Due to WP:3RR, I'm not reverting your revert (though you've already broken 3RR in the past, looking at the history of this article). Re:privacy policy: Yes, Wikipedia safeguards it, your IP address and email aren't visible to me--which is what the privacy policy states. Wikipedia neither cares about nor controls one user looking up the other via publicly available resources. Re:blog sources: You are citing comments on blogs in multiple places. ManishEarthTalkStalk 06:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Just a comment to Yparjis above; Two of the references have been taken down, so I'm unable to check. As for the others, neither Haaretz or UPI is ablog as far as I can tell; and referencing the CAMERA letter is fine in the given context. But the article you reference also contains a huge number of other references, most of which are reliable. This is unlike the criticism section in this article, which is mostly referenced using SO threads and various blogposts. I've had a little chat with User:Manishearth on IRC, and he'll rewrite the section in a sandbox, and get feedback from others in order to keep it as neutral and free from COI as possible. The objective here isn't to whitewash SO, but to rewrite the criticism section and base it on reliable sources. Bjelleklang - talk 10:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome to rewrite the section, and contribute to other parts of this article. The criticism section is larger than the rest because I have not found the time yet to grow it. You are welcome to go ahead and do it yourself. Someone should remove the links above to websites that are unrelated to the content. I expect an apology, not an explanation. Only content is to be judged here, and wikipedia does have a system for that.

Your claims are unfounded and only coincidental, but in any case even if true, the process for SE to delete an account is to place a word Todelete , and state the reason at the description. Thus the pointed profile should have been deleted. moreover, it does not support that the user has been deleted by a disgruntled user. Does everyone that deletes his account in some website has some issue with the website ? This is an unfounded claim.

As you can notice I do not admit any connection with the profile, and I do not deny any because the point is to judge the content. I would appreciate if you could keep this discussion up to wikipedia expected standards. Moreover, I expect to keep talking to grown up mature unbiased people.

Regarding the content, which has been written a couple if years ago, it is largelly outdated, and should be brought up to date. Deleting the entirety of the content until a rewrite is however, completely unjustifed. Even ManishEarth tried to edit partially, to support SE which he admits to have some affinity to, but finally after no being able to back his claim, went cyber bullying on me. That is unacceptable.

Contributors spend valuable time to put content just for the hobby of it. It is diminshing to be treated like this. I accept criticism of what I have written, but I can never understand such a personal attack that was largelly uncalled for. I would appreciate a formal apology, and removal of the links above. Yparjis (talk) 13:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Re:todelete No, that's outdated. There's a form for it now, at [1]. At no point in time did just placing "todelete" get it deleted. You had to notify the higher ups somehow, IIRC.
Re: "Only content is to be judged here" -- We need to ensure that the article is written from a neutral point of view. A disgruntled user writing a criticism article seems like a rant (I do agree that blanking it was not the best course of action given my affiliation). So, Wikipedia's policies (specifically WP:NPOV), do involve making conclusions based on the knowledge of a user's identity. I am _not_ calling you that disgruntled user, I just mentioned that you two _may_ be the same--it certainly looks that way to me. If you are not, I humbly apologize. I am _not_ removing the links however (unless Bjelleklang feels it necessary).
Re: Cyber bullying -- Seriously?
ManishEarthTalkStalk 09:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

You are linking to for a profile that is on SE. Something is not right , and you should pay more attention to details. Moreover, You are not NPOV since you have admitted to be an avid user of SE . I have not which makes me more NPOV than you. You cannot prove that i am a disgruntled user in any way. Thus you can only judge from content. finaly, linking to content of people that cannot be verifiably connected to my profile is only being done to intimidate me from maintaining this page. I will not tolerate such behaviour. Whatever way it looks to you, I do not care but I accept your apology. You should work constructively, if you are interested in this article to enhance the sections that may need to grow, instead of removing what you do not like due to your likeness to SE . That would be welcome. (talk) 02:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


As nobody else had gotten around to it yet, I started a new draft of the criticism section here: Stack Exchange Network/Criticism draft. Please participate, and remember WP:RS. Bjelleklang - talk 19:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I went over the section using the draft, and removed a bunch of sources that doesn't stand a chance passing WP:RS. The number of refs went from 21 to 6, and those six are kept only because they _might_ be in line with WP:SPS. As most of the section didn't contain any valid references, I removed it from the article. Do not just restore it, but find proper sources first; use the draft and discuss the changes. I'm not opposed to having a criticism section on SO, but we can't have one without sufficient reliable sources. Using forums, SO threads, non-notable blogs and random comments as sources are not acceptable. Bjelleklang - talk 21:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
It is weird that these 6 sources are not WP:SPS but WP:RS . The rest 15 are WP:SPS . I think it is only appropriate to apply this WP:NPOV about WP:SPS and WP:RS onto the entirety of this article. Yparjis (talk) 23:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
I've never said that they are to be considered reliable sources, only that they _might_ be used. And after further checking, I'm not so sure they can. All of them are from just around the time when SO launched, and they may not be an indication of criticism that's still valid. For all we know, they criticize what might have been early problems which are now solved. My gut feeling is still that the entire section should go until we can find some sources that are truly reliable. And please indent your replies, it makes the discussion a lot easier to follow :) Bjelleklang - talk 08:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Okay, it's been a week now, and no newer sources has been found from my side. Anyone else? As it might not even be valid any longer, I'm removing the criticism section until we can find better sources. Currently we're basing the criticism of a site launched in mid-september 2008 on blogs published in mid-september-mid-november 2008, and that's not really a good thing. If anyone objects, please find better sources _before_ reverting. Bjelleklang - talk 13:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I suppose you could be a bit more patient with finding sources. You should not undo the merged section. What kind of resources would be valid for you? maybe a TIMES magazine article? get real, SE is not that big. These sources are sufficiently for the type of article that is being documented. I sincerely hope it becomes better and there is. This section will stay however, and I would sincerely appreciate if you would stop acting like CYBER police. In case you want to discuss sources, you should stop acting as you do. Thank you, I am undoing and adding sources now. BTW I never agreed to working this out in the sandbox. This was a well documented article before you attacked with your knife and chopped to pieces. If you want to do you own work in the Sandbox, then do so, and invite me to take a look at it. I suppose you do understand the extent of the word CONSENSUS. Yparjis (talk) 21:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
A week should be more than enough if the criticism still is valid. I asked for a second opinion on  #wikipedia-en-help, and the user who responded removed the section again, and said he'd post a note here later on. You are currently the only editor here who says these sources are sufficient, and you are the _only_ user who has fought to keep the section, despite the fact that others have tried to trim it down or remove it for the past six months. While I'm not against having a criticism section, a basic requirement is having reliable references. The only references in the section dated from two months after site launch, so the criticism they mention might not even be valid today.
The sandbox was an attempt on my part in order to trim it down. You didn't protest, other than when I removed content. You didn't come up with better sources, even though I called for that in this edit a week ago. As for the rest of the article, my edits have been to the criticism section, and nothing else. You speak of consensus, yet you are the only one who so far have more or less refused to listen to at least 5 other users as far as I can tell, who have all tried to remove the section. I've tried discussing the sources with you, but you haven't come up with a single additional source to address my issues. If you don't and still insist on having the section I see no other solution than to take this to WP:DRN. Bjelleklang - talk 22:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I do not think you tried hard to trim it. I did with little effort. Did you notice that i wrote on the sandbox and the talk page? probably not. All other five users have not contributed in any way to this article as i have ( not just the criticism section ) . This page is 4th in the relative google search. Yet, only 5 people have contested the content and 3 have been somehow affiliated to SE . Please, do not get me wrong, you may do as you like, just do not kill the section all together. If you think that WP:DRN is appropriate just go ahead. FYI consensus means that everybody comes to agreement, obviously we are not at consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Google ranks doesn't matter here. I've read through the discussions on talk, and I only see one editor who has admitted to being affiliated with SE/SO. Anyway, the link to Spolskys blog is good, and should be incorporated into the article similar to what User:Dreamyshade describes below. It's not indicative of general criticism, but it does indicate a negative trend which Spolsky is trying to mitigate. The other link has little relevance, and the remainder of the section is still not supported by good sources. For what it's worth, it's been more than six months since User:Sirtaptap pointed out the same flaws with the references as I have, yet little has happened. I have opened a case on here in order get some outside views on this to settle the question on these sources once and for all. Bjelleklang - talk 09:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Oh, sorry about not getting to it earlier. I'm extremely busy this week (and the next--something turned up), but I may pitch in whenever I get time... Just one question: Is the current draft still against WP:UNDUE? If so, how is that fixed? My original draft plan was to scrap the sections and have pruned, sourced, content in a bulleted list. But I'm not too sure... ManishEarthTalkStalk 09:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The following is just an essay (not a policy or guideline), but I agree with it: Wikipedia:Criticism#Avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies - "Criticism" sections tend to be a form of Wikipedia:Content forking. Instead, it could be useful for this article to include a "Features" section including a neutral description of Stack Exchange's voting system, with details about its important features and their effects, both positive and negative. The best-sourced parts of the existing section could be integrated into this new section. Dreamyshade (talk) 22:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

From the discussion above and the situation, there are some comments I wish to make. First, it doesn't seem to me that the criticism section contains good courses. There's some pointing to the official website, one from the founder of the place (perhaps the better one of this lot) and some blogs. There is however one fairly good source, the cnet article. There seems to me that there's a whole lot of OR and personal feelings in this. Let's tackle sentence by sentence:
  • Stack Exchange Network has been criticised for its voting, reputation, and ban system, and user antagonism. - by whom? where?
  • The founder Joel Spolsky recently invited on his blog to make the site a "welcoming, friendly place" - sure, but how is that relevant to an encyclopedic article on the subject?
  • while continuing parenting users with a "how to be civil" indication - parenting is a loaded term in this case to say the least, and civility policies and guidelines are the norm not the exception on websites with a community
  • Critics argue that up-voting does not always promote the best answer. Questions are commonly answered fast without focusing on quality or correctness, to boost reputation. It is telling that the source beings with "Tomorrow, Stack Overflow is scheduled to go public.".
  • Finally, the reputation system may be not robust to user collusion the article merely raises a theoretical possibility
  • Questions can be closed once five votes have been cast from a group of users that have gained this privilege. not criticism, could be a pro, could be a con, and surely the source doesn't state that it is a point of criticism
  • Moderators can close any question without requirements, invalidating the voting system. A user has the right to try to persuade the voters for the contrary, however this remains difficult, since the subsequent judgement is to be carried out by those who have carried out the first and therefore it remains biased. Unsourced, standard practice in the industry
  • Judgements upon the closure of questions are not always delivered with the same criteria That's a statement of fact true for anything and linking to some blog post saying "The mods closed my topic but not his topic!!" is hardly source or proof of a widespread situation.
  • and this can lead to user dissatisfaction, nor are always in accordance with the community. Unsourced.
Honestly as you can see from the above there's no good sources for any of this honestly and I fail to see why the user is so bent on getting it thru that he revert-wars instead of discussing it here or engage on the WP:DRN discussion. With the sources available, it seems clear to me that no criticism section should be in this article. Snowolf How can I help? 13:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Snowwolf, this page is under WP:DRN already. Should you notice, that I am open to anyone willing to edit the section from a WP:NPOV. However, the action of deleting the section may imply that you are not WP:NPOV. I do not have the time for a point-by-point rebuttal. However, I hold that you agree that some of the sources are valid (e.g. cnet, and the founder's parenting comment). You are welcome to improve the Criticism section by revising wording or language closer to your liking an possibly improve it. However, deleting it is unacceptable and I will revert it. Finally, Please do try to hit the talk page before trying to attack the article by hitting the delete button. It does not show any kind of respect for other people's work. Yparjis (talk) 00:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I revised the article so that now the main part is based on reasonably reliable sources, with minimal referencing to primary sources. I split the lead to create a "Site features" section, so any additional reasonably-sourced criticism can be integrated into that section. I tried to include both positive and negative details from the sources I found. This article could also include a "Competitors" section summarizing existing comparisons of Stack Exchange to Quora, Yahoo! Answers, etc., to help with balancing the article toward neutral point of view. Dreamyshade (talk) 15:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

As I've been working on this, I found a couple sources that I'm not sure what to do with. Is this "ACM Web Science Conference 2011 Workshop" poster abstract a reasonable source for claims about the StackExchange moderation system? And here's a Wired article about the patents subsite, but it seems to only make sense to discuss that if we also find sources to support discussing other notable subsites as well. Dreamyshade (talk) 04:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello Dreamyshade! That was quite a nice find that you unearthed, via the ACM. The reason that it isn't so suitable here, for moderation (or criticism material), I don't believe, is that it is specifically about Biostar, the bio-informatics Q&A site. True, it uses the same platform as StackExchange, and acknowledges that. But it is run entirely separately from SE, just like the Operations Research related website that runs SE's um "platform". In the context of moderation in particular, it doesn't have much relevance. Inclusion elsewhere in the article would be good. The Wired article is a great find! It is current, unlike most of the other references. --FeralOink (talk) 22:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, that's a good point about the focus of the ACM article being on Biostar. I recently added the Wired link as a reference for mentioning the patents subsite (#21). Dreamyshade (talk) 03:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Reliability of the article in general[edit]

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)

That's the old "up and coming next big thing!" fallacy. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
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)
Hello, NCSS! This article has plenty of issues. Nearly all of the references are for Coding Horror, Jeff Atwood's blog, or sites affiliated with Stack Exchange. For an article of this length, which really isn't terribly lengthy, I don't see why we need so very many citations to references from the same three or four sources. In fact, there are other sources of information, but before I take time to work on this article, I want to ensure that I am not further muddying the waters. It is obvious that there has been debate for a long time about this. I like Stack Exchange, and believe it to be useful. The Wikipedia article for it, or rather, Stack Overflow, attracts an inordinate amount of attention, both good and bad. To me, it seems more worthwhile than another insipid television game show or daytime drama article, but that isn't my decision to make.
Any suggestions? I realize now that you posted this in June 2011. I will hope that others might read my thoughts on this matter, in case you are not especially focused on Stack Overflow after so much time has passed. --FeralOink (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Are you referring to the Stack Exchange Network article or the Stack Overflow article? I recently revised Stack Exchange Network to base it on independent sources, and I think it's in decent shape now, but Stack Overflow still needs a lot of referencing improvement. I believe that adding better references to Stack Overflow would be welcomed, and I'd be willing to help dig up useful sources. Dreamyshade (talk) 03:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that is exactly what I meant to say. Stack Overflow needs work, while Stack Exchange Network is in much better shape. Sorry about that mix-up! --FeralOink (talk) 23:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Merging Server Fault into this page[edit]

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)

I completely agree. Go for it. NCSS (talk) 21:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
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)
I think it would... Article definitely needs more images. NCSS (talk) 01:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Pasting big templates into the History section[edit]

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

Biased lead[edit]

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)

Agreed jthetzel (talk) 00:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
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)
I think it is definitely looking better, but the introduction still needs some work. NCSS (talk) 01:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I also think the language should be a bit more universal, the general public may not get what an upvote is. Basically I am saying they use too much of their lingo here. NCSS (talk) 19:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Another thing. Why does the last line need four sources? It's kind of odd, that makes it seem overly important. NCSS (talk) 19:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)