| ▲ | zahlman 2 days ago | |
> because he wanted to remove lighthearted content from the site as he thought it clashed with SO's mission of educating people and advancing their skills[3]. No; he wanted to remove discussion and socialization, because it clashed with SO's mission of presenting useful information without parsing through others' discussion. https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2950 https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/19665 https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/92107 https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/131009 > In other words, StackOverflow cut off one of its history-making parts because it had an incomplete and simplistic view of useful. How does this in any way demonstrate that the view of usefulness was "incomplete" or "simplistic"? How is the deleted content "useful"? > I think it might be possible to draw a line from their understanding of communities and societal dynamics to the downfall of StackOverflow after the emergence of AI[5]. What downfall? Before you point at any of the incoming-question-rate statistics: why should they be interpreted as representing a "downfall"? That is, why is it actually bad if fewer questions are asked? Before you answer that, keep in mind that Stack Overflow already has more than three times as many publicly visible questions about programming as Wikipedia has articles about literally anything notable. | ||
| ▲ | robertlagrant 2 days ago | parent [-] | |
> why should they be interpreted as representing a "downfall"? I agree, but also SO has certainly gone through ups and downs. It does feel as though it's now in a terminal "down" having invested its limited resources in things lots of the dedicated members didn't seem to want, instead of basic improvements to moderation and to chat features. | ||