Add history to citation expectations meta post

Question

In the meta post What are the citation expectations of answers on IPS SE I noticed that the post was not as friendly as I would have liked in the perspective of new users, and I wanted to improve the experience for new users who are learning about site policies and how to make a good answer and question.

I would like to propose adding more information about the history of the "Back It Up!" policy to the post, so that new users who are directed to the post can understand the history and understand better why they are being asked to read the meta post and how they can improve their answer.

What should we include in that history portion?

Answer 1

I do like the idea of giving a bit more background to that entry, especially after reading concerns that in its present state, it may look to newcomers like a single mod was dictating policy without community input.

At the same time, it's meant to serve as a FAQ entry, which means it should be clean and to the point, without extra "fluff", like a help center page.

Since there's already been a lot written on meta about the backup policy, I propose adding links to key posts in a "Further Reading" section at the end. That way, users who just want to know how to edit their answer get that info up front, but users who read the whole post and are still interested have some pointers.

Proposed text:

Further Reading

Although the text above was adapted from RPG's FAQ, the IPS community has had extensive discussions on our own meta which led to our policy of requiring backup in answers. If you'd like to learn more, the following posts give some more context:

• How do I write a good answer? - The main answer FAQ, which includes an entry on "Expertise, not opinion".
• Can we start enforcing the "back it up" policy? - This marks when the community began to actually delete answers without backup, and links to many related discussions.
• Should we encourage writing from experience? - A relatively early discussion, which also includes a great explanation of how to write an experience-based answer.

There are of course many more discussions, please comment if you have suggestions for other/different posts to link! I'm aiming for a set that covers the main points, isn't overwhelmingly long, and is well-linked enough to be a good starting point for anyone interested in a Complete History of Backup Policy on IPS.

I'm not sure actually writing such a history would be of interest to anyone outside of us meta regulars, to be honest - if someone else thinks it would be a fun project, I won't stop you ;) but I think linking to past discussions is sufficient to demonstrate that this policy was indeed shaped by the community and the idea has been around in some form or another since the beginning. As a bonus, it also gives users good examples of how to start discussions about site policy in a constructive way (which is the main reason we locked it in the first place: so that people who want to argue that site policy should change do so in the correct way, making a meta post, instead of leaving comments on a FAQ entry).

Answer 2

I know a lot of users (mostly new ones but also some old ones) are wondering why we have such a strict backup policy and what is the point of it. So, having a meta post that would explain why would definitively be a good idea to me.

However, I don't think adding it directly to the post you linked would be a good idea. This post is already really long and some users might not appreciate having to read this "unnecessary" information before getting to the part that really interests them (which is: "what kind of backup do I need to add to my answer").

What I would suggest doing instead is creating a separate meta question and answer about the reason and the history of our backup policy and linking it at the beginning of What are the citation expectations of answers on IPS Stack Exchange?. That way, if someone wants to know more, they can. And if they don't, they don't need to read through.

Answer 3

I'll chime in here, seeing as how I kicked this particular hornet's nest.

You could just unlock the post.

I know I may be a hopeless idealist, but it's been my impression that SE policy is almost never carved in stone. Being a user driven platform, user input ought to be valued. Rules can and should be challenged, and through those challenges come a sort of slow painful refining.

At this point someone is saying "well, those who want to challenge policy should just post a new question and do it that way" and, admittedly that's an option. But it's an option for those who are "in the know" about how things work these days. And... well... for some of us who've been kicking around the network for a few years, that's not the way it used to work.

I fully support the back-it-up policy. This isn't really about that specific piece of policy. It's more about the procedure of how policy is made, maintained, and refined over time.

To be blunt, a question written, answered, protected, and featured by a single person, doesn't say "community driven." Nor does it say that this policy is open to improvement over time.

I applaud Tinkeringbell's effort to create a resource when it was sorely needed. She does a lot of heavy lifting that ought to be done by the community. But, it creates an optics problem. And again, I may be completely mistaken about how the SE model is intended to work.

In my mind, one of the greatest things about SE, was that we didn't hide how the sausage was made. And because everyone knew how the sausage was made, they became familiar with the recipe and were invited to tweak adjust, or even suggest that the recipe be thrown out entirely for a better recipe.

I guess I miss the bad old days when anyone and everyone could make a big splash and improve this thing. There were no sacred cows. A blog post , a mod, or even an SE employee's opinion carried little if any more weight than a brand new user who did a little research on the issue.

The process of how you do the thing matters, as much, if not more, than the particular thing you're doing.