I've seen that several of recent questions, which are generic, are attracting answers that strictly follows the Stack Exchange paradigm. I'm not saying that the answer is inherently bad, but gives the impression that this site only will get you answers that complies with the SE policies, which may or may not be able to apply to OP specific situation.

What should be done with those?

| |
  • 1
    Do we really need an official policy for this? They are answers, after all. If they're incomplete, vote or comment to that effect. More complete answers will tend to be better answers and rise to the top. – Air Jul 29 '14 at 23:00

The problem here is that most people are coming from Stack Exchange so there will a bias towards questions and answers that follow "our" rules.

One way to combat this is to publicise the site on other platforms so we can encourage non-Stack Exchange users to ask (and hopefully) answer questions.

Another thing would be to edit questions so that they are as platform agnostic as possible. This should encourage other users to answer in the, not exactly theoretical, but general case.

Using non-SE terminology for actions and processes can help as well - this would require editing answers as well as questions. This could be difficult, but should be possible in most cases.

Of all these I think the first is probably the most important. The sooner we can get more non-SE people on board the more useful the site will become and the danger of it falling into an SE rut lessened. Ultimately if we're too SE centric then there's a danger that we won't make it out as a site.

| |

I think it's important for us to report the source of our knowledge/experience. For many of us, right now, that means SE. But I'm trying to separate declaring that from assuming it; for example, in an answer today I referred to a category of features that a site might have, saying something like "for example, chat on SE", but I wrote about the category, not the specific. To the extent that we can do that early (establishing the meme) I think we should.

Sometimes people will talk about SE- or IRC- or Wikipedia-specific stuff; that can't be helped. But let's try to monitor ourselves so we set the right tone.

| |

Many users here have a background as a moderator for a Stack Exchange site. We are a Stack Exchange site. That is the reason for bias right now. We need to expand and encourage more generic moderation theory questions that are applicable to users regardless of what they moderate.

We need users that have different backgrounds. SE is very open with their moderation and Meta sites. SE is also very big. Smaller sites with different moderation policies will provide a broader range of input. Uses from different platforms also user different terminology (reputation vs karma, upvotes vs likes).

I have advocated for specific questions related to how platforms work. But, that can't be exclusive to one platform (SE, in this case). We need that broader range of input and moderators from those other platforms. To do that, we may need to approach moderators on other platforms and see if they'd be willing to contribute here.

| |

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .