Return to Answer

Why don't we encourage generic versions of Meta drama to be questions here? An exact copy/paste of a Meta question wouldn't be appropriate (to specific to a single site or group of people), but we can boil it down to a generic version of events. One generic question that we've had since almost the beginning is about how to handle minority opinions so they aren't stomped out by the majority.

Then there's something that made me a little bit upset. A few days ago, @Phillip asked a question. He asked about a theoretical community. It was put on hold because it was too broad on the first sight. I decided to write a comment to point out the necessary points I'm interested in. He answered those and I voted to reopen that question again because I had enough information to give an answer. However, it disappeared then. I don't know if it was removed by himself or by moderators. But in both cases: Why did that even happen?

The item entered the reopen queue. From there it was voted on and the consensus was to leave it closed.

Why don't we encourage generic versions of Meta drama to be questions here? An exact copy/paste of a Meta question wouldn't be appropriate (to specific to a single site or group of people), but we can boil it down to a generic version of events. One generic question that we've had since almost the beginning is about how to handle minority opinions so they aren't stomped out by the majority.

Then there's something that made me a little bit upset. A few days ago, @Phillip asked a question. He asked about a theoretical community. It was put on hold because it was too broad on the first sight. I decided to write a comment to point out the necessary points I'm interested in. He answered those and I voted to reopen that question again because I had enough information to give an answer. However, it disappeared then. I don't know if it was removed by himself or by moderators. But in both cases: Why did that even happen?

The item entered the reopen queue. From there it was voted on and the consensus was to leave it closed.

I'm not active on Workplace, though I have visited it many times via the Hot Questions posts that appear on the sidebar. The questions have been interesting and educational. One thing I've noticed in those questions (and after a quick glance through their tour) is that they focus on issues within the professional environment, not on building communities. There are certainly areas that could overlap, especially with one of the items in our scope being:

I'm not active on Workplace, though I have visited it many times via the Hot Questions posts that appear on the sidebar. The questions have been interesting and educational. One thing I've noticed in those questions (and after a quick glance through their tour) is that they focus on issues within the professional environment, not on building communities. There are certainly areas that could overlap, especially with one of the items in our scope being:

Yes we are. I agree that this is a flaw. Some non-spammy name dropping around the larger communities wouldn't hurt things around here. We've had discussions about the Stack Exchange bias and about encouraging questions about other networks. My take away from those is that more questions related to more types of communities is a good thing.

Yes we are. I agree that this is a flaw. Some non-spammy name dropping around the larger communities wouldn't hurt things around here. We've had discussions about the Stack Exchange bias and about encouraging questions about other networks. My take away from those is that more questions related to more types of communities is a good thing.