Talk:Stack Overflow

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Websites / Computing  (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.
 

Criticism[edit]

The criticism entry has been erased from Stack_Exchange and Stack_Exchange_Network several times, although it is heavily founded, several StackOverflow users and sister sites host's are lobbying for it to be erased, please request admin intervention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.216.50.218 (talkcontribs87.216.50.218 WHOIS) 19 January 2011

I am surprised there is no criticism section. In my opinion the second highest ranking tag - Java has only ok contributors above 20k score, no stellar, great or notable programmers, no JVM engineers either. Comparing it to C# where some of the .Net designers actively participate indirectly supports bias. That's a personal opinion and it's not sourced. Bestsss (talk) 17:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I have been maintaining the criticism section of the SE section and I have been intimidated by avid users of SE and SO numerous times, who happen to be well standing users in wikipedia as well. If anyone is interested to help support the articles, I would appreciate the support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yparjis (talkcontribs) 00:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

While I don't disagree with the Criticism section, citing a couple semi-anonymous forums falls pretty short of Wikipedia's standards. There must be some better references. Also, not sure how removing content deemed to irrelevant to the site's purpose is a criticism. (Full disclosure: I'm a Server Fault Moderator) ChristopherTStone (talk) 02:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I removed the criticism section. The only citations present were links to the same blog post. I am sure there are valid criticisms of the site, their approach, and the community. However, the section as it stood was not salvageable; encyclopedic exploration of the subject requires less emotion, objective language, and better sources. 75.119.90.35 (talk) 16:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Seems fair. Really wasn't anything encyclopedic there. --Stormie (talk) 23:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Criticisms to Stack_Overflow and Stack_Exchange abound in Internet. Not having a criticism section in the Wikipedia article makes the article biased (in favour of Stack_Overflow and Stak-Exchange), which is unacceptable for an encyclopedic article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.197.213.188 (talk) 12:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

As of May 2009, Notability is in Question[edit]

This article uses primary sources and overall does not meet the guidelines set forth in WP:GNG. I did some searching for a short bit and it's currently difficult to remedy this problem, simply because there is not enough extensive and independent coverage of the material herein, at least that I could find. Your assistance in making this article notable is welcomed. CaptainMorgan (talk) 09:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a go over the next week or so. dottydotdot (talk) 20:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
OK-I don't really have much time to weave into the passage-so please, anyone do it for me!
From ReadWriteWeb, in December 2008 they received 3million visitors-ReadWriteWeb which makes it pretty notable.
I also have this link about it [1].
I'll see what others I can get as well. dottydotdot (talk) 16:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I think it is notable enough, but the primary page? How about stack overflow the programming bug? Or at least the disambiguation page as the default?203.129.33.32 (talk) 04:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Stack Overflow and Stack overflow are diferent articles, so this one it's not “default”. Svick (talk) 22:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I've improved this article and added several independent references. David Condrey (talk) 04:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Article Name[edit]

Please guys reconsider the name of this article. "Stack Overflow" is not a good name as it is just differs in case with the original term: "Stack overflow". This page should be either named "Stack Overflow (Website)" or "stackoverflow.com". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.235.227.10 (talk) 08:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

According to my reading of WP:TITLE, Stack Overflow is the best title for this article. It does not clash with Stack overflow, Stack buffer overflow or Stack overflow (disambiguation). — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  18:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with LinguistAtLarge; there's no problem with the current name. --Jonik (talk) 18:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Letter case is a poor way to disambiguate discrete topics. Any search engine could tell you that. In a few cases the use of common nouns as proper nouns causes a collision. The titles of affected articles should make this more obvious, not less so. I support moving this to “…(web site)” as proposed above. ⤺ms.⁴⁵ 15:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I am also a proponent of adding (Website) to the title. That way, it is clear what the content of the article is about just from reading the title text. A change in capitalization isn't very noticeable and there exists too many inconsistencies with what capitalization entails. Some titles are all caps even if they would not treated the same way in the middle of a sentence. --Dbmikus (talk) 03:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Notability[edit]

I removed the {{prod}} template, because I think that SO is notable site. Some independent online sources I found that mention it:

Svick (talk) 12:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I fully agree with Svick on this. Stack Overflow is already extremely popular among programmers, and it has only been gaining momentum, so I am quite certain that, at this point, attempts to get the article deleted are doomed. --Jonik (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Move sister sites to a separate page?[edit]

I'm not sure that the Stack Overflow page is the best place to talk about the sister sites. Could we either:

  • Move the sister sites to a separate page and refer to them briefly in this article (with a link to the new page)
  • Or move the sister sites to the Stackexchange page, again with a brief reference and a link

It just feels like a better fit. --TdwrighT 10:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Partisanship section recuringly censored by MICROSOFT vendors[edit]

The page has been 'protected' to actually prevent well-known information to be published regarding the MICROSOFT bias of Stackoverflow.

The text below has been censored by (check the IP addresses) companies like Amadeus SAS (France) who is a preeminent MICROSOFT partner (top level MSFT directors come from Amadeus):


In addition to use IIS and ASP.Net Stackoverflow is a MICROSOFT partner, receiving revenues from MICROSOFT advertising. This is creating a very oriented ambiance where everything that is not benefiting MICROSOFT is systematically dismissed or censored by 'super-users' who have full-power to edit or delete the posts and accounts of other users.

All the Stackoverflow 'super-users' (> 50k reputation) who censor posts and accounts are MICROSOFT C# developpers and book authors about C#, flagging anything that outdoes C# as 'SPAM' -and arguing that discussing IIS and C# is legitimate and informative but that discussing a (much faster) Free Web server using full ANSI_C scripts is "obvious advertising" (citation missing after the user account and all its posts have been censored).

The most obvious consequence of this filtering strategy is that C# accounts for many times more questions and replies than any other topic[1].

But it also makes Stackoverflow a much less interesting Q&A site as the technical level of its contributors is reflecting the Web site's sponsor agenda, discouraging anything that promotes efficiency[2] to better sell solutions designed to underperform in order to sell more hardware (which in turn benefits to MICROSOFT as Windows Server licenses are sold bundled with hardware)[3].


—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.76.67.129 (talk) 12:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://stackoverflow.com/tags | C# dominates all othre Stackoverflow Tags... for a reason
  2. ^ http://g-wan.com/imgs/promoting_inefficiency.gif | Stackoverflow promoting inefficiency
  3. ^ http://g-wan.com/en_doj.html | The U.S. DoJ ruled that making MICROSOFT .Net benchmaks illegal harms end-users
The reason your additions have been deleted is because your sources don't support your claims at all. Where is any reference to marking non-C# questions as spam? How are responses to one question indication of (what you claim is) more general issue? The third reference doesn't even mention SO. All this is just your opinion. You are entitled to have it, but Wikipedia is not a place to publish it. Svick (talk) 13:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
BTW, one of your claims is provably false. I have looked at the profiles of the top 5 users on SO (many more have >50k reputation) and two of them (Alex Martelli and cletus) don't seem to be particularly interested in C#. Svick (talk) 13:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

As explained (but you obviously are not interested in the facts) ALL the posts (and the user accounts) have been CENSORED on ACCUSATIONS of ADVERTISING -so NO REFERENCE IS AVAILABLE BECAUSE OF STACKOVERFLOW CENSORSHIP. And, despite this issue being the most recent, you moved it at the BOTTOM of the page (because it is a bit more a pain than 'notability issues'). Many Stackoverflow super-users are regularly claiming that they have no ties with MSFT to avoid abeing accused of any bias. There are evidences (were you ready to consider any) that super-users MAKE BLATTANT LIES regarding what they do, like SAM SAFFRON (a moderator and C# developement Satckoverflow contributor) who claimed during a conflict that he is a RUBY developer while in fact he works as a C# developer. The fact that you are FAKING to be willing to investigate this issue is raising the question of the neutrality of Wikipedia moderators... 83.77.19.243 (talk) 09:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

What is needed is not an evidence that this is happening, but a reliable source discussing this issue. And that could be available if this was actually happening.
I moved this thread to the bottom, because that's the way discussions are organized here (see WP:TOPPOST).
I don't care where or on what position these people work, because that is irrelevant. What's relevant here is how they act on SO, i.e. what kind of questions do they answer.
Also, I am no “moderator”. I am just an ordinary editor like yourself.
Svick (talk) 17:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

You are "only an Ordinary user" -of course. With a Wikipedia "User" page and the ability to lock-up (sorry, "Protect") a page against a properly documented MICROSOFT-BIAS (I provided links to Stackoverflow pages that illustrate the points -but you are only busy proving me wrong, not considering the references) that has been CENSORED by MICROSOFT 'Strategic Partners' (like AMADEUS SAS France, look at the IP addresses that CENSORED the article, caliming that it was vandalism while this is merely INFORMATION - the MSFT bias is well-known and obvious, given the obsequious Stackoverflow coverage on MICROSOFT.COM). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.202.109.107 (talk) 05:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Your main point is that SO is censored and you didn't provide any reference for that. Just the fat that Microsoft technologies are among the most popular there doesn't prove that. Maybe C# programmers like to use the site more than, say, Linux/C developers? Or maybe C# is actually popular? Svick (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

This is complete nonsense. As a web developer I use exclusively non-MS technologies. As a desktop developer I use C# and the .NET framework. I have equal success getting answers about the non-MS stuff as I do the MS stuff. So what if the site owners take microsoft money? (If they even do that is...) Firstly, the site is effectively run and managed by the community. Secondly, what would they stand to gain by eliminating questions about the competition? Take your conspiracy theories elsewhere. TdwrighT 10:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Criticism (October 2011)[edit]

Criticism continues to be erased by Stack_Exchange moderators and employees citing no known notable figures having directed the criticism despite numerous claims from individuals in the community including issues being debated on their own website . [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uberholden (talkcontribs) 05:46, 24 October 2011

There's no lobbying. You're adding the section of another community - Super User as evident from the screenshot. Stack Overflow community is significantly different from Super User. And your bias in adding the notice is evident from the fact that you've added the "Criticism" the moment you were suspended from Super User. SathyaBhat (talk) 14:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
As you list yourself as a StackOverflow moderator on your profile, I hardly consider you an unbiased source. Moderators from your community have been erasing criticism long before today. Crticism sections are quite common and the tone of this one somewhat balanced and sourced directly from one of the founders of the website in question.
I'm not a Stack Overflow moderator. SathyaBhat (talk) 15:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
The reversals are not done by Stack Overflow Moderators nor Stack Overflow employees. The section was added once you acknowledged a suspension and adds no value to the entry and it has already been confirmed that a blog entry is not a reliable source to quote. Furthermore, Super User is not Stack Overflow, and is simply a part of the network itself. I cannot see how adding a whole section on suspension adds any value to the Wikipedia article, or what is achieved by adding it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiagoZA (talkcontribs)
I'm a moderator of a StackExchange site (but not StackOverflow) and I consider the fact that this criticism was added by a banned member immediately after having been banned to be the ultimate red flag. It's like adding criticism to a page about traffic law because you got a ticket. An individual doesn't necessarily represent public opinion and if you've been banned from a StackExchange site, chances are you don't represent the opinion of the entire userbase. Enmaku (talk) 16:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Disagree, because that's like saying Rosa Parks wasn't entitle to have her opinion on things immediately after she was kicked off a buss. Would her opinions have been easier to digest if she'd taken some time to calm down first? Indubitably. But the fact that the above fellow is angry doesn't mean that he doesn't mean he doesn't have the right to an opinion, under the current context and scope of wikipedia. If people weren't allowed to write while they were angry, then some important subjects would receive almost no coverage. I'm sorry that you were having trouble with the above fellow, and genuinely hope that you are able to sort it out with him.
What evidence do you have that the entry has been added by a banned member? This discussion page about criticism has been modified over 2 years (since Dec. 2010) for a variety of issues ranging from censorship, microsoft bias & user suspensions. It's nothing new and I find the insistence of an lone "enraged" user weak. While the entry in question is poorly written, and its motives *possibly* questionable? Wikipedia does not dismiss criticism. A brief search on google turned up more than a few thousand critics. What is more worrying is the concerted efforts of Stackoverflow to remove criticism for almost 2 years and the zeal with which their moderators pursue it.
Agreed. Personally, I think that people wouldn't be taking the argument to Wikipedia if they were just a bit more forthcoming about tolerating, or even encouraging this sort of discussion on their own website
The problem is more that the 'criticism' is simply a description of perfectly normal community moderator tools. There is nothing remotely notable about that section. As soon as WP adds a similar "Criticism" section to the Wikipedia article itself, I'll buy that it's reasonable. Somehow I doubt that will happen. Actually... I'm going to edit out all of the rumor-mongering junk, and let's see if the section still stands on merits. -- Kiru

That's simply absurd. I'm also Stackoverflow moderator ( a part of StackExchange ), the user made several obscene comments on SuperUser and added more than a 100+ questions which were flagged as spam by myself and several others and then left mean and disparaging comments about each one of us. His IP has been banned and his account completely erased. He is now lashing out creating exaggerated wikipedia entries. He is angry and nothing he says should be believed or read. Jeff and I are morally outraged that he could insinuate our actions as anything less than genuine or twist our words. We had valid reasons for banning him as mentioned before, he is a bad apple. I'm also a moderator for Stackexchange and have preemptively banned him so he will not threaten our community further. If anyone here is a Wikipedia moderator, I would ask that he be banned here as well before he and his bot-net get out of control. We at Stackoverflow only ban users for very specific criteria and all of what he wrote on wikipedia was blatantly false and cannot be believed.

Thank you for posting, and for volunteering the information that you are in fact a Stack Moderator. I'm sorry you're having trouble with the disgruntled guy but I, for the record, find it somewhat troubling that that you've taken the effort not only to ban him from your own site, but then to follow him over to W-Pedia to continue to hash it out with him. Wouldn't you suppose that he wouldn't be (ranting?) here if you gave him a voice on your own site? The fact that you're also requesting Wikipedia to ban him exemplies what he is claiming to be a problem. Without wishing to sound biased, there can be little doubt in my mind that the site currently has management problems, and for this reason I can only ask that you treat the Uberholden with just a bit more respect. Also, I'd like to emphasize the point that this article could benefit from an expanded criticism section. The criticism should be drawn from the most reliable sources available. If blogs are the most reliable sources, then we should use the most reliable blogs. Good luck with your web site administration efforts -- I think that Stack has a lot of potential if people could get past a bit of the growing pains.
Haha... "growing pains". You do realize that SO has more active contributors than WP at this point, right? The (supposed) SO mod "followed him over to WP" when he was essentially vandalizing the article on their site, which you don't seem to feel is a problem. You are extraordinarily biased, and it shows. I've made an effort to remove the obvious bias and misleading (non- and mis-sourced) statements from the article, but left everything that could be sourced... and it's suddenly not very interesting. It suddenly bears a striking resemblance to the moderation policies at WP. -- Kiru
Thank you for making the changes. You brought up the issue of SO vandalism. Just to be clear, my goal is to remain more or less neutral on this issue. While I wouldn't want anyone to read something that I wrote and feel that I've encouraged vandalism of your website, I'm not in any position to ask people not to vandalize your website either, no matter how much you would prefer that they didn't. Minimally I can promise you that I will not personally vandalize SO, if that serves as any consolation. I also apologize that you're having trouble with Wikipedias editing policies. Certainly I wouldn't suggest that our policies here are perfect. At any rate, you might want to be careful about accusing WP editors as being biased. We are here to help you and even if we were found to be biased, it wouldn't change things for you the way that I suspect that you think it will. In any event, how about the addition of a controversies section to the article? This would bring it into closer alignment with other technologies. Thanks again and I hope that we have the opportunity to collaborate on other articles.
Hmm, I think we might have miscommunicated somewhere. I was referring to the edits on this page as "vandalism." Perhaps a bit strong, but considering the misleading use of source material (as well as outright fabrications) in the original version of this section, I'm tempted not to temper that judgement. I don't actually have any problem with WP's policies, but was just attempting to explain that SO policies are remarkably similar to the WP policies, as well as matching nearly all other reasonable online communities. Because of that, I'm not convinced that a factual explanation of these policies is sufficiently notable for a section in this article. That's more of a "does this really help the article?" argument, as opposed to any other concern. Kiruwa (talk) 20:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
No problem. We can sort it out. And actually, I'm tempted to agree with you. I tend to think that much of Wikipedia would be a lot better if most of our editors were a bit more given to self-reflection. Given that consensus, I attempted to go first and to add some comments about the Wikipedia Article that called for expanded criticism...but actually, there seems to be a lot more criticism included in the article since the last time that I read it. Tell me, what further criticism do you think should appear in the Wikipedia article? If it's reasonable, I'll cheerfully call for its inclusion.

Refs[edit]

  1. ^ "Stackoverflow Criticism". 2009. Retrieved 14 December 2009. 

Suspension Section[edit]

I see no notability whatsoever in this section; thousands of websites have bans/suspensions of this sort and it's not central to the website's function, nor is it novel or otherwise of note. Suggest removing the section completely.--Sirtaptap (talk) 04:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Google first, yes--but when you do that many of the results are from forums and other communities. You don't dare ask for further details or clarification when that might lead to your being banned.Pithecanthropus4152 (talk) 21:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Average users don't have a chance on Stackoverflow.
 low-quality questions and answers are blocked. This includes posts from:
   users who can't be bothered to form sentences
   users who don't do the most basic kinds of research themselves
   users who barely even explain what it is they are trying to do

Jidanni (talk) 16:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, Stack Overflow's intended audience is not "average users", it's Programmers (both professional and hobbyists) I agree that there is no notability in this section as the suspensions are well documented on the site, relatively rare, and universally reversible. ChristopherTStone (talk) 02:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Legal status of systematic exclusion of less articulate / intellegent users[edit]

Mention if the systematic exclusion of less articulate / intellegent users might conflict with Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (mental impairment), etc. laws.

See also[edit]

Jidanni (talk) 08:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

The ADA covers employment, public entities, and public accommodations. It does not apply to free contributions to a website; and certainly not when that exclusion is based on the quality of the content by people who have no foreknowledge of the contributor's disability. Also, you misspelled "intelligent". ChristopherTStone (talk) 02:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Stack Apps section[edit]

The section needs rewriting: for years there has been a full read/write API (version 2 now) and the stack apps website is a minimal part of that ecosystem (basically a showcase). API docs are here http://api.stackexchange.com/. Full disclosure: I'm a Stack Exchange employee and moderator. Sklivvz (talk) 11:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Criticism (bis)[edit]

I'm not going to add this to the main article as probably being below WP:RS, but I think that in time more reliable sources will probably appear. Some problems are well known and highly upvoted withing the SO community itself, so they aren't a matter of singular opinion, e.g. [2]. We're already seeing some academic attention paid to SO, although not nearly as much as Wikipedia has seen. JMP EAX (talk) 15:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

This isn't criticism, but I remembered this page also needs to cover how (the inevitable) vote fraud and sockpuppets are dealt with. Point of start [3]. But we need some staff/founder blogs as more RS than that. JMP EAX (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Disagreement over criticism section again[edit]

Hi User:Aldaron, User:Vormeph, and User:Dandv - I see some adding and reverting of a criticism section again, which is a pattern that has been happening with this article since at least 2011, as you can see from this talk page. It would likely be more productive to discuss this section here instead of just adding and reverting it some more. Two things to consider: citing a discussion thread (such as a Reddit thread or Hacker News thread) is not usually considered a strong source (especially not for controversial statements), and sections titled "criticism" tend to be content forks, as described in the essay at WP:CSECTION. Dreamyshade (talk) 06:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

It is required that there be a balanced article covering both sides of the argument. Stack Overflow (SO) is notorious for its cheeky practices that are both patronising and condescending towards users of any kind. There is a real hierarchy that requires an entire beratement of personality to pervert what they describe as 'good answers or good questions'. News articles that dare to publish anything bad about SO risk being sued or flamed by SO fans to the max... or worse. There are many good people in this world who have to live in silence, and I have read their blogs and I am utter proof and anyone can be so by simply going on SO and seeing the correlation between 'downvoted' questions/answers and trolling. Clearly it's a polarising discussion, but it ought to be addressed.

Removing the criticism section is out of the question, and it is unbiased because there are loads of sources out there, and if need be I will even cite questions to show how debilitating SO can be. However, in all fairness, the tone and language of such criticism shall be moderated to ensure it is not defamatory (and indeed, the criticism section is hardly defamatory) thus it is required we gather as much references for the criticism from as many individuals as possible. Vormeph 14:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I am also in favor of a balanced article, and I also know that there are cultural problems with Stack Overflow. But as part of building a high-quality article, we need to stick to Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources (Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources), which usually means not referencing discussion threads. We also should convert the "criticism" section to something more like a "reception" or "community" section, which would cover all the major points about how people feel about Stack Overflow, both positive and negative. Can you dig up some reliable sources that cover perspectives on the Stack Overflow community, to replace the references to individual discussion threads? Dreamyshade (talk) 19:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Requiring a WP:RS to prove that SO has alienated hundreds of users reveals a systemic failure with Wikipedia. You're not going to find this in the mainstream media, because they have no incentive to cover it. Tons of valuable content getting deleted and users leaving in disgust isn't as juicy as a random isolated case of sexism. That doesn't make it any less true, or less painful. On the other hand, if the same blogger who posted a rant against SO somehow got the very same post syndicated by HuffPo, then poof, we have a reliable source. I know, I should take my proposal to Village Pump. No thanks. -- Dandv 00:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I come across many blogs that criticise Stack Overflow's community. It's more than just coincidence because if people are complaining about the community then it's a case that there's merit in what these blogs are pointing out. I agree that the section should also be renamed to 'reception' and that any modifications within the section are checked to ensure sources are accurate. In the meantime, it is safe to flag the said section until either of us find suitable sources. I have not come across any news articles that criticise Stack Overflow's community, and so the only alternative is to appeal to those within the community for what they have experienced. This would very much be anecdotal, but I'll leave the interpretations thereof down to editors superior to me. Thanks for alerting this! Vormeph 22:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vormeph (talkcontribs)
Wikipedia has a lot of systemic issues, some of them on display here, but ignoring the guidelines is a recipe for edit warring and controversy. A reasonable strategy is to read the guidelines carefully and stick to them very carefully, since they tend to have some room for covering niche topics if you use the best available sources with precise writing from a neutral point of view. So: if you dig around, what are the strongest available sources that comment on Stack Overflow's community/atmosphere, both positively and negatively? For example, if you can't find any mainstream news articles or books covering this, who are the most reputable/recognized experts who have commented on this somewhere, even in a self-published source? Limited use of self-published expert sources can be acceptable, for example if you quote the statement as from that particular person.
I googled around a bit and found a journal article titled "Gender, Representation and Online Participation: A Quantitative Study of StackOverflow" (full text PDF), which has some overview comments about negative aspects of Stack Overflow culture. I also found a blog post on Women 2.0, which isn't the strongest reliable source on its own, but the post demonstrates some research, so it could be used in a limited way. This indicates to me that sources are probably available for a reception section, they may just take some research to find. Dreamyshade (talk) 06:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
What I propose is that we list sources of any kind that praise or criticise Stack Overflow in any way. Thus, we can then agree which ones can be appropriate for citation when it comes to compiling an entire section devoted to a new section Reception within this wikipedia article. Here's some sources I got, and they're really interesting reads:
http://michael.richter.name/blogs/awhy-i-no-longer-contribute-to-stackoverflow
http://softwarex-nz.blogspot.co.uk/2008/10/stackoverflow-good-bad-ugly.html
https://sergworks.wordpress.com/2012/09/26/why-stackoverflow-sucks/
https://sergworks.wordpress.com/2012/09/26/why-stackoverflow-sucks/
http://peterkellner.net/2012/11/24/stackoverflow-and-lack-of-transparency/
Now, when it comes to soures, the authors of which I have listed appear genuine in the claims they raise. What I can ascertain is that beause they are mature and as they are developers so knowledgable in the field they are accreditted in, it becomes clear that there is no sign of deception in what they say about Stack Overflow. SO is indeed popular, but there's a hidden reality that very few are willing to address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vormeph (talkcontribs) 18:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Check out the specific guidelines at WP:USERGENERATED and WP:SELFSOURCE for how we can use self-published sources: "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications" and "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, so long as the following criteria are met...It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities)."
In order to work within those guidelines, we need to figure out whether any of those blog authors have had other work published in reliable third-party publications. If they haven't, the extent to which we can use them would be something like "Michael T. Richter, a software developer who was in the top 3% of Stack Overflow contributors in 2013, said that he found the scoring system to reward answering trivial questions, among other problems he saw with the site, which he said frustrated him and contributed to him closing his account." That's an accurate and neutral statement, and it's probably not pushing too hard on the "claims about third parties" guideline, since it's presented as his personal opinion. But if you look at this sentence from the perspective of a reader who is trying to learn about Stack Overflow, it's a bit of an odd thing to read, since there are probably dozens of blog posts by individual software developers who are frustrated with Stack Overflow - are we going to have a whole paragraph listing positive and negative opinions from many individual blog authors? It doesn't quite make sense as a way of building an encyclopedia.
I'm not saying that individual non-"expert" blog authors are unreliable sources of information about their own opinions and thoughts - they are probably writing what they feel, with little motivation to lie - but they aren't usable as "reliable sources" for making broad statements about Stack Overflow. I'd support continuing to collect as many sources as you can here though, to help pick through and figure out whether some are better than others. Dreamyshade (talk) 02:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Vormeph, I appreciate that you made an effort to retitle and rewrite the section, but it needs to stick to the guidelines a lot more closely than this. Since this is a controversial section, a good guideline is for every sentence to be sourced. We also need to avoid "weasel words" (WP:WEASEL) - it's important for each sentence to be as precise and concrete as possible. The strongest source so far is still that journal article titled "Gender, Representation and Online Participation: A Quantitative Study of StackOverflow" (full text PDF), specifically these two sentences: "The focus on gender under-representation in online communities is further motivated by anecdotal observations: it has been suggested that the Q&A website StackOverflow (SO) strongly promotes oneupmanship; fosters flame-wars and the down-voting of individuals; and it is based on earning prizes, reputation and badges, that allow participants to access new features and gain more control on others’ postings. Experience suggests that this results in a lesser participation by female users, who do not engage with the community or use gender-neutral names to be accepted by the mostly male audiences, while male users sometimes masquerade as females believing other (male) users would be less aggressive towards them and their questions." If you paraphrase that research and balance it with a paraphrase of some observations about positive aspects of the site, that could be a start to a reception/community section. Dreamyshade (talk) 21:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Dreamyshade I will study the pdf file and amend the section accordingly. In the meantime, the current section as-is will be removed. Thanks! Vormeph 21:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The Reception section seems to be a rehashed version of the Criticism section that has appeared on and off over this article's lifetime. The first two sentences of the section even explicitly mention the word "criticism." It feels a bit disingenuous to have a Reception section which appears to be a reskinning of a section about Criticism. This makes it appear as if the only reception to the site has been this single negative paper, while most reception (good or bad) simply doesn't meet the standards for Wikipedia. The Reception section should just be called Criticism unless the Reception section can be expanded to have multiple sources. Alternately, since there do not appear to be enough sources for a fully fledged Reception section, it could be renamed to something akin to "Studies done about Stack Overflow" and contain other studies such as this. Info326sk (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@Info326sk: It was agreed to keep the section in question neutral, so long as there's no bias. Sources help, so if you feel that something is worth adding then by all means do so. It is only after it's added that we can decide what to modify. Unfortunately that's how it ought to be; I know full well from personal experience that Stack Overflow has a dodgy community; but original research isn't an acceptable form of reference for that. Vormeph (talk) 03:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey @Dreamyshade:, @Dandv: and everyone else! I think it's time we updated the section in question so that it has more substance. I know Wikipedia always demands reliable sources, but some sources can be held reliable based on their readability and ratings. Leniency should be exercised in which case. It's important to also include valid opinions from actual users of Stack Overflow, rather than derive a conclusion from an objective analysis. By including sources that have opinions from both sides of Stack Overflow, we can leave the conclusion down to the conscience of the reader while still maintaining impartiality as to the nature of the section. Thoughts? Vormeph (talk) 15:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

It makes sense to me to flesh out this section with more perspectives instead of just one reference, but I'm pretty strongly in favor of sticking to the most reliable available sources - for one thing, we will have a much easier time finding consensus if we use strong sources. What sources do you want to bring into this section? Dreamyshade (talk) 20:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
@Dreamyshade: Today, I've added another perspective to Stack Overflow on the Reception section. This new section references: https://www.cs.cornell.edu/home/kleinber/kdd12-qa.pdf which is a case study in academia. It doesn't mention anything about the negative drawbacks of the reputation/voting system, but does provide plenty of logical basis as to why it's a useful system. Vormeph (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)