Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Welcome to Codidact Meta!

Codidact Meta is the meta-discussion site for the Codidact community network and the Codidact software. Whether you have bug reports or feature requests, support questions or rule discussions that touch the whole network – this is the site for you.

Comments on How discussions work in Codidact?

Parent

How discussions work in Codidact?

+2
−0

Stack Overflow was created on the premise of having questions and answers without the chitchat and other common problems well-known in Internet discussion forums. The founders learned they still need a place where to have feedback from "community" and after several months they made a clone of the question-and-answer site to replace the original website used for gathering community input which lead to creating their "Meta" and at some point to introduce the use of meta tags: discussion, bug, support, and feature request.

That might work well enough for some time but as the "community" become more diverse "Meta" become a mess. I.E.:

  1. It's unclear the meaning of upvotes and downvotes. Some claimed that they mean agreement / disagreement respectively despite that the SO / Stack Exchange docs mention that meaning applies only to feature requests.
  2. There isn't a shared understanding of the meaning of "consensus". Some claim that a post having a lot of upvotes means that there is community consensus, while others claim that to have consensus is required that all community members agree on something.
  3. Several problems become worse due to groupthink. Some pro-tempore, community moderators, and community managers do reject to handle a situation just to avoid making mad a few community members.
  4. ...

What measures are being taken in Codidact to avoid that Meta become a mess?

What measures are being taken to handle community wicked problems?


From Wikipedia (1)

Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome.

From Wikipedia (2)

In planning and policy, a wicked problem is a problem that is difficult or impossible to solve because of incomplete, contradictory, and changing requirements that are often difficult to recognize. It refers to an idea or problem that cannot be fixed, where there is no single solution to the problem; and "wicked" denotes resistance to resolution, rather than evil.[1] Another definition is "a problem whose social complexity means that it has no determinable stopping point".[2] Moreover, because of complex interdependencies, the effort to solve one aspect of a wicked problem may reveal or create other problems. Due to their complexity, wicked problems are often characterized by organized irresponsibility.

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

0 comment threads

Post
+3
−0
  1. Votes on meta should mean agreement or disagreement with whatever the post is proposing.

    Corolary: That means meta votes should not count towards rep. It is not "bad" to disagree with someone. We expect some range of opinions within a community. Users shouldn't be penalized or rewarded for saying something unpopular or popular.

    Unfortunately the current system seems to still count votes in meta towards rep. That should be changed (if it hasn't already, not sure).

  2. Consensus means that most, preferably more than just a majority, agree. Requiring everyone to agree is unworkable and silly.
  3. We can't worry about "group think". Individuals think for themselves. Users need to feel comfortable expressing unpopular views on meta, as long as they are expressed respectfully and constructively. If a few people agree with something only because others do too, there is nothing we can do about it, and no way to measure it in the first place.
History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

3 comment threads

We should have disabled meta rep from the start but didn't. We can turn it off for any community that... (3 comments)
I don't see Meta votes as only expressing agreement/disagreement (1 comment)
Voting help article on Meta might need to be updated. (1 comment)
We should have disabled meta rep from the start but didn't. We can turn it off for any community that...
Monica Cellio‭ wrote over 1 year ago

We should have disabled meta rep from the start but didn't. We can turn it off for any community that wants that. Rep would be recalculated.

Olin Lathrop‭ wrote over 1 year ago

Just do it. As you say, that should have been the default anyway. Having to discuss this on meta on every site will just add noise, take a long time, and sometimes never reach a clear consensus. If you just do it and explain after the fact, I doubt there will be much drama. Think of this it as a bug fix instead of a feature change.

Monica Cellio‭ wrote over 1 year ago

I've just made the rounds of community Metas to offer this option.