Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:49, 4 December 2012

Template:Findsourcesnotice

Requested editor intervention

Requested editor intervention about the criticism section

Criticism section

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

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 http://tex.stackexchange.com/ in wikipedia, better stop deleting reliable sources with criticism about stackoverflow or this issue will be escalated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.170.90.111 (talk) 21:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers!

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

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/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 Georgopl (talk • contribs) 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 Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages 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. Georgopl (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. Georgopl (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 meta.stackoverflow.com 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. Georgopl (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[REDACTED] talk page rant in a Criticism section on the page on Misplaced Pages? 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. Misplaced Pages is not a place for rants. Express your grievances to Stack Exchange Network directly not by making it's Misplaced Pages 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 meta.stackoverflow.com 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. Georgopl (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

by the way reddit has critism section, it is just named differently, Same with 4chan. Georgopl (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". Google the username, see the twitter account, get the website from there, 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.

ManishEarth 08:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Reliability of the article in general

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

Merging Server Fault into this page

I think that Server Fault is going to struggle to survive on its own. It has no secondary sources, is fairly "unloved" - there's very little on that page that doesn't apply to all Stack Exchange sites. I think it could be merged without losing any information. Anyone have any thoughts? -- Fluteflute 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 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

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

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 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)