2 replaced http://meta.politics.stackexchange.com/ with https://politics.meta.stackexchange.com/
source | link

Well, this is the main reason I've proposed a "back it up" rule for answers"back it up" rule for answers, most of the answers you linked to read more like opinion pieces than helpful answers.

Obviously, I have no idea how anyone other than me voted, but I do share your concern that Politics is already starting to show signs of diminishing quality. We are not here to argue our positions, Politics.SE is, or at least tries to be, a useful Q&A site. Answers are supposed to help the asker understand whatever it is they are asking about, and are not supposed to be used as a platform for us to promote our individual ideologies.

I can understand the urge to put your opinions to the test and I'm still undecided on whether we need a hard "back it up" rule or not, but I feel the site has little chance of succeeding if we let it fill up with opinion heavy answers (and allow questions that attract opinion heavy answers survive long enough for those answers to appear). We are still in private beta and I'm afraid the site will quickly turn into a circus once we open the doors to everyone.

Of the nine answers you posted, I think at least five would be more appropriate for their respective authors' blogs than for a Stack Exchange site. I don't know if the "back it up" rule will change things dramatically, or even proposing that a dramatic change right now is necessary, but... let's just say that from my point of view the overall quality is (slowly but steadily) decreasing and that I'm pessimistic about the site's fate.

I have absolutely no intention of participating in a site where it's all about winning an argument, I'm only interested in a site where I can learn something new every day, and having to dig through layers and layers of bias isn't particularly helpful. Or useful. Or even interesting.

If the answers are opinion heavy, you can't really blame voters for voting based on their own opinions, what else should they be voting on?

</rant>

Well, this is the main reason I've proposed a "back it up" rule for answers, most of the answers you linked to read more like opinion pieces than helpful answers.

Obviously, I have no idea how anyone other than me voted, but I do share your concern that Politics is already starting to show signs of diminishing quality. We are not here to argue our positions, Politics.SE is, or at least tries to be, a useful Q&A site. Answers are supposed to help the asker understand whatever it is they are asking about, and are not supposed to be used as a platform for us to promote our individual ideologies.

I can understand the urge to put your opinions to the test and I'm still undecided on whether we need a hard "back it up" rule or not, but I feel the site has little chance of succeeding if we let it fill up with opinion heavy answers (and allow questions that attract opinion heavy answers survive long enough for those answers to appear). We are still in private beta and I'm afraid the site will quickly turn into a circus once we open the doors to everyone.

Of the nine answers you posted, I think at least five would be more appropriate for their respective authors' blogs than for a Stack Exchange site. I don't know if the "back it up" rule will change things dramatically, or even proposing that a dramatic change right now is necessary, but... let's just say that from my point of view the overall quality is (slowly but steadily) decreasing and that I'm pessimistic about the site's fate.

I have absolutely no intention of participating in a site where it's all about winning an argument, I'm only interested in a site where I can learn something new every day, and having to dig through layers and layers of bias isn't particularly helpful. Or useful. Or even interesting.

If the answers are opinion heavy, you can't really blame voters for voting based on their own opinions, what else should they be voting on?

</rant>

Well, this is the main reason I've proposed a "back it up" rule for answers, most of the answers you linked to read more like opinion pieces than helpful answers.

Obviously, I have no idea how anyone other than me voted, but I do share your concern that Politics is already starting to show signs of diminishing quality. We are not here to argue our positions, Politics.SE is, or at least tries to be, a useful Q&A site. Answers are supposed to help the asker understand whatever it is they are asking about, and are not supposed to be used as a platform for us to promote our individual ideologies.

I can understand the urge to put your opinions to the test and I'm still undecided on whether we need a hard "back it up" rule or not, but I feel the site has little chance of succeeding if we let it fill up with opinion heavy answers (and allow questions that attract opinion heavy answers survive long enough for those answers to appear). We are still in private beta and I'm afraid the site will quickly turn into a circus once we open the doors to everyone.

Of the nine answers you posted, I think at least five would be more appropriate for their respective authors' blogs than for a Stack Exchange site. I don't know if the "back it up" rule will change things dramatically, or even proposing that a dramatic change right now is necessary, but... let's just say that from my point of view the overall quality is (slowly but steadily) decreasing and that I'm pessimistic about the site's fate.

I have absolutely no intention of participating in a site where it's all about winning an argument, I'm only interested in a site where I can learn something new every day, and having to dig through layers and layers of bias isn't particularly helpful. Or useful. Or even interesting.

If the answers are opinion heavy, you can't really blame voters for voting based on their own opinions, what else should they be voting on?

</rant>

1
source | link

Well, this is the main reason I've proposed a "back it up" rule for answers, most of the answers you linked to read more like opinion pieces than helpful answers.

Obviously, I have no idea how anyone other than me voted, but I do share your concern that Politics is already starting to show signs of diminishing quality. We are not here to argue our positions, Politics.SE is, or at least tries to be, a useful Q&A site. Answers are supposed to help the asker understand whatever it is they are asking about, and are not supposed to be used as a platform for us to promote our individual ideologies.

I can understand the urge to put your opinions to the test and I'm still undecided on whether we need a hard "back it up" rule or not, but I feel the site has little chance of succeeding if we let it fill up with opinion heavy answers (and allow questions that attract opinion heavy answers survive long enough for those answers to appear). We are still in private beta and I'm afraid the site will quickly turn into a circus once we open the doors to everyone.

Of the nine answers you posted, I think at least five would be more appropriate for their respective authors' blogs than for a Stack Exchange site. I don't know if the "back it up" rule will change things dramatically, or even proposing that a dramatic change right now is necessary, but... let's just say that from my point of view the overall quality is (slowly but steadily) decreasing and that I'm pessimistic about the site's fate.

I have absolutely no intention of participating in a site where it's all about winning an argument, I'm only interested in a site where I can learn something new every day, and having to dig through layers and layers of bias isn't particularly helpful. Or useful. Or even interesting.

If the answers are opinion heavy, you can't really blame voters for voting based on their own opinions, what else should they be voting on?

</rant>