How does this site "make the Internet a better place?" And what can we do to make sure that it does?

Question

Okay, I'll start with some context. I was on vacation last week, and so actually tried to break my SE addiction. :) Over the course of that time, I really missed my beloved Christianity.SE, but this site, honestly, not so much.

We long ago lost one moderator, and while I cannot speak for Yannis, I definitely have to work much more here to keep my commitment. Put another way, I'm not having the fun here that I once did.

If you ask me, How does C.SE make the internet a better place, I can tell you:

1. We deal in facts, but we are free to put them in context.
2. We have fun with each other, even in our answers, but still have scholarship.
3. We really do some real thinking around serious issues.

I truly believe that all three could be true of politics as well. But you know what? I don't see it. In fact, I am actually quite frustrated by this site. I have my grievances (and I'm sure that as a moderator, you have grievances about me.) I'd like to know what those are. Please, as a moderator, feel free to tell me I need to close more questions or leave more open. Tell me I suck - but tell me why. Just tell me what we all can do to make the internet a better place, through this site.

In short, what is worthwhile about politics.se, and what needs to change to make this a better place?

Answer 1

I came here to write a question called "Is this the worst site on Stack Exchange", to which I was clearly expecting the answer "Yes". Fortunately I found this question had been here first. Like AffableGeek, I'm a frequenter of the Christianity site, which you would expect to be mired in argument and backbiting. But the truth is that this site has much more argument, backbiting, pointless discussion, partisan answers and questions asked only to make a point than Christianity - or any of the other sites I frequent. I can supply references for all of those if you insist, but I doubt that anyone who answers here frequently disagrees with me.

Here is what I think Christianity does better than politics, and which I recommend to try to fix this site.

1. Your opinion is your opinion, and don't pretend that it's a fact. This is a rule that has been learned from Wikipedia as well as the Christianity site. In politics everything is an opinion, unless it's a simple procedural thing. If someone asks "Does government spending stimulate the economy?" the correct answer is that some economists believe yes, and some believe no. You may think that one side is correct, but that opinion has no place in a good answer. Citing references makes no difference, because both sides can cite scholarly articles in their support. The only possible approach that makes for a viable site is to give a neutral answer. If you don't like that, then maybe a chat site is a better fit for you than a Q&A site. (Please don't try to debate whether government spending really does stimulate the economy in comments - doing so will show only your inability to master your own argumentative impulses, and possibly be clear indication that this site is in fact doomed).
2. Talk about what people believe, not 'The Truth(tm)'. If a question is asked on which there are differing opinions, state both sides, even if you take one of those sides. Say specifically who believes what. When the Christianity site got started, it took a long time for this to be accepted, and until it did the site was nearly as argumentative as this one. Now its a well-accepted principle. Newcomers sometimes still have trouble with it, but the old hands know to stick to it, and the site is a better place for it. EDIT:I don't of course mean that "this is what I think" is an acceptable answer. It should be a notable set of people.
3. Zero tolerance for arguments in comments. That doesn't mean no criticism, but it needs to be tightly focussed on 'this is not a good answer because', not 'I disagree with this'. For example, if I were to write that "Increased government spending is a necessary way to stimulate a slow economy" (which is a bad, one-sided answer), you should not write "Government spending does not stimulate the economy because...blah blah blah". What you should write is: "This is a bad answer because it only puts one viewpoint". We have no need to argue about who is right.
4. Vote down questions that are only asked to make a point. Sometimes tricky to tell, and we need to be careful with newcomers. But there are plenty of repeat offenders here, and we need to put a stop to it. We can usually tell. For example if an answer is posted and the OP comes straight back and says "no that's not right" then that's a good indicator.

I hope this is helpful. Like AffableGeek, my tolerance for this site is almost at an end.

Answer 2

The thing that this site does well is to encourage supported answers to real questions over against random kevtching about politics. I don't want to change that.

What seems to be missing for me is any feedback on that.

To wit:

1. The User Leaderboard hasn't changed in months, despite the fact that many of our top users are actually gone. This means that voting is a rare, rare thing. I cannot release the stats about votes, though I can assure you that in aggregate, they are rare, and that's bad.

2. Questions seem to be met with an expectation that they suck and should be closed. Only the rarest of gems eludes scorn. I'm not going to say I'm perfect, but I'm a pretty good SE user, and the questions I think are best are usually the ones that are hated most. If somebody who has been here from the beginning is having difficulty getting any sort of traction, imagine how our newest users feel. I'm not saying we should let crap proliferate, but if you can give people a little benefit of the doubt, could I humbly suggest you do? [The whole 'Summer of Love' post actually hits my thoughts pretty well.

3. We are not Skeptics.SE. I'll admit - I passionately hate that site. If we become that site, I'm done. That's not a threat, that's not a "I'm taking my ball and going home", it's simply a statement of fact. The culture sites do best when there is some tension between what you know and what you don't. The skeptics model is "It sucks until proven otherwise." It ends up alienating anybody with anything less than a passionate love of argument. It is not what I want to see in any case. It also discourages participation from all but the annointed few.

   And yet, when I come here, I feel precisely that way.

So, how do we fix this?

1. Rule#1 - Be Nice.

   We are all intelligent people here. If we were robots looking to parse information, then the level of rejection would be understandable. But, we're not. We're people. And people like nice. I'm not saying you need to upvote crap. I'm not saying that comments aren't constructive. Indeed, you've probably noticed I'm very lenient with leaving comments that I probably should delete, and very open about when I think something is on or off topic.

   But, I try to be nice about it. And I'd love to see more people do the same.

2. Vote more.

   If someone makes a point, reward it. I've upvoted stuff I personally disagree with - and even selected answers that are not what I believe, when they show good research. I downvote some, but I much prefer the upvote. Reward it.

3. Answer more

   Right now, our front page has the first 12 questions having only one or zero answers. This is a very, very bad sign. Answer where you can, use facts, but don't be afraid to try. I can and will tell people who are most vociferous in their comments that any fool can knock a thing. It takes some chops to actually build something. Try it some time! If you are leaving "This sucks" comments, I want to see you do better. Please try.

4. Lighten up.

   Stack Exchange makes the world a better place when people can intelligently discuss things - but there is a difference between intelligence and arrogance. Intelligence uses facts to make reasoned arguments. Arrogance says "Oh, if you disagree with me, you shouldn't talk. I value the intelligence of SE. I'd like to see less of the arrogance.

Answer 3

Politics isn't a very active stackexchange, but that's not a problem easily solved. A more significant problem, and one that can be solved, is that of the quality of posts on Politics.

The majority of answers are politics are nothing but stated opinions, and so only receive upvotes and downvotes based on whether people agree with those opinions. Politics doesn't (or, at least, shouldn't) exist only for the purpose of polling its users: answers should ideally answer the question.

Moderators need to enforce higher standards of evidence like they do on Skeptics. Otherwise this site really doesn't make the internet a better place. What value does this site provide if the only answers provided are unsubstantiated opinions? If people provide substantiated, factual answers, then people can learn from it more than just what a random user thinks.

Take a look at this question. It's not a constructive question, in that it asks about Obama's motivations for his counter-terrorism policies. The answers are similarly not constructive. How could they be? None of the answerers could read Obama's mind. So long as these kinds of questions and answers dominate Politics, the site will fail to make the internet a better place.

Answer 4

The community that remains has decided that it would prefer the unrestricted exchange of opinions and discussion. It seems that any attempts to call for references or suggest improvements are chastised. So my opinion is:

This SE currently does not make the internet a better place!

While it is probably technically possible to course correct and make this site a viable SE, is suspect that the reality is that the site would be better off closed, and if the desire is there recreated through the A51 process. There are more broken windows here than there are salvageable window frames. Most of the quality SE posters have already been driven off. The mods have basically given up trying to keep people from shooting up the saloon but rather relegated themselves to dragging the bodies out after.

I suspect that the only thing saving this SE is the fact that there are so few people actually visiting the site that it is not that big of a black eye yet. If we were to grow with out improvement then the powers that be at SE are more likely to take notice and shut us down. This is just my opinion but if I were the decision maker at SE I would shut this down now and avoid the risk.

How can we fix it?

• Change the scope to forbid hypothetical questions on policy effects
• Shut down comment chatter and purge anything that is not obviously a request for improvement, or adding significant value to the question/answer.
• Purge obviously crappy questions rather than allowing them to be rewritten.
• Change the scope to forbid questions on personality and motivation
• Enact a strict citations required policy
• The mods have to be active in providing quality answers to good questions, politely shutting down bad posts, and comment chatter.