Skip to main content
Interpersonal Skills Meta

Return to Answer

added 335 characters in body
Source Link
Cascabel
Cascabel
  • 1.5k
  • 3
  • 11
  • 11

So how would this look?

For process: what Monica describes from Workplace seems good. Essentially, suggest improvements to add support/explanation, if they aren't made, flag to get a post notice added, if that doesn't get anything done, flag again to delete.

For what to address, I've tried to think of some deliberately vague examples. As with everything in life, things may vary depending on details.

So how would this look? I've tried to think of some deliberately vague examples. As with everything in life, things may vary depending on details.

So how would this look?

For process: what Monica describes from Workplace seems good. Essentially, suggest improvements to add support/explanation, if they aren't made, flag to get a post notice added, if that doesn't get anything done, flag again to delete.

For what to address, I've tried to think of some deliberately vague examples. As with everything in life, things may vary depending on details.

added 2481 characters in body
Source Link
Cascabel
Cascabel
  • 1.5k
  • 3
  • 11
  • 11

This is, of course, not an easy thing to do. A lot of the judgments to be made are difficult. And we can always offer guidance before enforcing via deletion. However, I see no way around it, so I think it's a tough path we are forced to follow if we wish the site to flourish.

So how would this look? I've tried to think of some deliberately vague examples. As with everything in life, things may vary depending on details.

  • Probably good: an answer based on direct personal experience, with an explanation that makes it clear this is the case. ("I've dealt with A before, and I've found that doing X helps achieve your goal.")
  • Probably good: an answer based on indirect personal experience, which is clearly applicable/extensible to the case at hand. ("I haven't seen precisely A, but I have seen B, and I've found that doing X helps achieve your goal.")
  • Probably bad: an answer that provides arguments but not experience, especially if it reaches a conclusion that differs strongly from those based on experience. ("Obviously if someone wants A, they also want B, and so you should do X.")
  • Probably bad: an answer based on opinion/belief. ("It's just common sense that you should do X.")

We should also keep in mind the context and potential for harm when flagging. If people's feelings are getting hurt, that's a sign we should be increasingly cautious about unsupported answers. On the other hand, if it's a low-stakes situation that no one has direct experience with and people are tossing out potentially useful ideas, we can probably be a bit more flexible.

And this is about mitigating an issue, so getting even catching even 50% of the bigger problems is already a good start, and could even be effective about shifting the general site attitude and expectations about answers. We don't have to try to hunt down every last instance (especially on older questions), and we don't have to try to apply this strictly in cases that are extremely unclear.

To take a step back, I think that it's really valuable for us to provide guidance and support for the moderators here. They're the ones who are ultimately going to have to handle our flags, and in some cases delete upvoted answers. In order to do that, they need to have meta posts/policies to stand on, and they need to be able to look forward to support when they're inevitably challenged.

If we agree about this path, it may be that we eventually need to discuss some specific examples to help get this started, and we will likely need to discuss some after the fact when challenged. If and when we do so, let's approach it carefully. We do not want to put people on trial for their answers.

This is, of course, not an easy thing to do. A lot of the judgments to be made are difficult. However, I see no way around it, so I think it's a tough path we are forced to follow if we wish the site to flourish.

This is, of course, not an easy thing to do. A lot of the judgments to be made are difficult. And we can always offer guidance before enforcing via deletion. However, I see no way around it, so I think it's a tough path we are forced to follow if we wish the site to flourish.

So how would this look? I've tried to think of some deliberately vague examples. As with everything in life, things may vary depending on details.

  • Probably good: an answer based on direct personal experience, with an explanation that makes it clear this is the case. ("I've dealt with A before, and I've found that doing X helps achieve your goal.")
  • Probably good: an answer based on indirect personal experience, which is clearly applicable/extensible to the case at hand. ("I haven't seen precisely A, but I have seen B, and I've found that doing X helps achieve your goal.")
  • Probably bad: an answer that provides arguments but not experience, especially if it reaches a conclusion that differs strongly from those based on experience. ("Obviously if someone wants A, they also want B, and so you should do X.")
  • Probably bad: an answer based on opinion/belief. ("It's just common sense that you should do X.")

We should also keep in mind the context and potential for harm when flagging. If people's feelings are getting hurt, that's a sign we should be increasingly cautious about unsupported answers. On the other hand, if it's a low-stakes situation that no one has direct experience with and people are tossing out potentially useful ideas, we can probably be a bit more flexible.

And this is about mitigating an issue, so getting even catching even 50% of the bigger problems is already a good start, and could even be effective about shifting the general site attitude and expectations about answers. We don't have to try to hunt down every last instance (especially on older questions), and we don't have to try to apply this strictly in cases that are extremely unclear.

To take a step back, I think that it's really valuable for us to provide guidance and support for the moderators here. They're the ones who are ultimately going to have to handle our flags, and in some cases delete upvoted answers. In order to do that, they need to have meta posts/policies to stand on, and they need to be able to look forward to support when they're inevitably challenged.

If we agree about this path, it may be that we eventually need to discuss some specific examples to help get this started, and we will likely need to discuss some after the fact when challenged. If and when we do so, let's approach it carefully. We do not want to put people on trial for their answers.

Source Link
Cascabel
Cascabel
  • 1.5k
  • 3
  • 11
  • 11

Yes, this is a problem. It may be difficult to decide in exactly which cases it's "bad", but there are definitely answers without the necessary experience or knowledge to support them. (I don't think it's helpful to hunt for examples here; it feels a bit too close to name-calling.)

This is completely unsurprising. Sure, it's rare for people to knowingly post bad answers, but we often don't know what we don't know. As long as people are allowed to post confidently clueless answers, they will do so. And as long as those answers are present, the sufficiently convincing ones will gather upvotes - there will be other people who have similar gaps in experience or knowledge.

Realistically, I think the only solution is to actually enforce the back it up policy, e.g. with deletion of answers. There is ample precedent across the network for going beyond "not an answer" deletion. From the network-wide FAQ on deletion (in the "What are the criteria for deletion?" section, after covering "not an answer" and such):

These are general guidelines; some communities in the network may uphold more specific reasons to delete posts or not. For example, on Puzzling.SE, answers to a puzzle without explanation are subject to deletion, and some technical sites will delete answers which are not only wrong but also harmful when tried.

This is, of course, not an easy thing to do. A lot of the judgments to be made are difficult. However, I see no way around it, so I think it's a tough path we are forced to follow if we wish the site to flourish.