51

Here on Meta a lot is being discussed about how users should behave on Main. There are discussions about what is off-topic and what isn't, what kind of content deserves votes of whichever kind and what edits to questions and answers should and shouldn't contain.

The result of these discussions are answers that are voted on: people post their views, other people vote on these views, and all is well.

But how can we classify the outcome of such discussions? Are they "rules", "guidelines" or just food for thought for whoever happens to read them? Is the outcome ever persisted or enforced in any way?

The reason I'm asking is that I've pointed out to some user that inline code isn't meant to be used to highlight random terms, but only for that: inline code. They didn't agree, because there are no rules about that. The Meta discussions I pointed them to also didn't matter according to them, because (paraphrased) "Those questions are answered by users, not by moderators". Of course this question is more broadly applicable than to just a little formatting issue.

So I guess my question is two-fold: why do we discuss anyway, and when and how does a finished discussion become a "norm"?

Or rather: given an univocal outcome of a Meta discussion, can we address "violators" by pointing to said discussion?

| |
  • 13
    Well, users are a form of moderators, and meta posts are treated as a precedent for actions on main. We should be explaining that to users who don't understand. Re the inline code: you can always edit it out, and if the OP rolls it back flag for a content lock from a mod. – JAL Jun 10 '16 at 12:59
  • 1
    @JAL " and meta posts are treated as a precedent for actions on main" - yeah I'm kind of looking for a moderator stating that. I couldn't find anywhere that this is actually the case. – CodeCaster Jun 10 '16 at 13:16
  • Are you asking mainly about things actually tagged discussion? Or are you also concerned with feature-requests? – ryanyuyu Jun 10 '16 at 13:24
  • 1
    @ryan why would feature requests matter? Feature requests are about things that have to be implemented by the SE developers. I'm talking about things that users do. – CodeCaster Jun 10 '16 at 13:26
  • 12
    Meta is a bit like the USA government. When the president is a democrat then the congress has a republican majority. Or the other way around. It ensures it is as ineffective as possible and everybody has something to like. Reaching a consensus on the use of back ticks just isn't possible. All you can do is use persuasion, point out how often he's seen a regular web site or magazine or book that prints words with a dull gray background. – Hans Passant Jun 10 '16 at 14:57
  • 3
    @HansPassant I think you mean "something to hate". – user3995702 Jun 10 '16 at 15:54
  • 1
    That isn't a good analogy, and even the history alluded to with an always partisan congress is inaccurate. Although, that is probably why it was placed as a quip in a comment than as an answer to this question. – Travis J Jun 10 '16 at 19:06
  • 31
    This is off topic for meta.stackoverflow.com. Please use meta.meta.stackoverflow.com. – woz Jun 10 '16 at 20:02
  • 2
    @woz: I think that is what the tag "meta" is for. – Peter Mortensen Jun 10 '16 at 20:18
  • 1
    @PeterMortensen oh, that's very meta. – woz Jun 10 '16 at 20:23
  • Just in case you were worried, there are absolutely no moderators who endorse or are even okay with the use of inline code formatting on random words. – Cody Gray Jun 11 '16 at 9:54
  • 1
    "What weight do Meta discussions have?" - The weight that we give them. My guess: the average weight of a Meta discussion is around 5 (on a scale between 1 and 10). :) – Trilarion Jun 11 '16 at 10:09
  • My first though was 21 (half way to the answer), but 5 sounds plausible. Should be an answer :) – Alexei Levenkov Jun 11 '16 at 15:57
  • Asking the meaning of "Meta" within Meta? Sounds like we need a meta-meta – HimBromBeere Jun 13 '16 at 11:57
25

Why do we discuss anyway?

I believe most of the people on meta participate in order to improve Stack Overflow. As a bonus, we get to share our opinions, have our voices heard, and earn badges. It's easier to answer questions about the social dynamics of maintaining and moderating the community than to answer rigorous technical questions.

When and how does a finished discussion become a "norm"?

This may sound tautological, but things become norms when a lot of people behave according to the rules discussed. As far as I can tell, the success of turning upvoted meta opinions into norms is mixed. For example, meta has been successful in maintaining Stack Overflow's "Be nice" policy, as well as being harder on plagiarism. It has not had as much success with discussions with mixed opinions. For example, the split opinions about what a "trivial edit" is and how to review them have not lead to unilateral, consistent reviewing of suggested edits.

Is the outcome ever persisted or enforced in any way?

I believe discussions are enforced to varying degrees. One obvious way they are enforced are when the meta users take the advice to heart and act on it. Our moderators and community managers are another way to enforce results of meta discussions. Often, diamond mods will tailor their moderation according to suggestions from meta.

given an univocal outcome of a Meta discussion, can we address "violators" by pointing to said discussion?

Yes, it's perfectly fine to point users to meta discussions. This is a good way to inform users of the community standards. That doesn't mean that they'll succumb to peer pressure follow our advice. Some people don't care about the overall community standards and practices or even about really becoming part of the community. If they ignore community consensus (reached via meta), they are subject to community moderation, which can include diamond mod intervention/flags in extreme cases.

Addressing the other user's argument that a meta discussion is invalid if non-moderators answer:

  • We the community elect our moderators. In the same way, we create more rules via meta discussion because the community has agreed.
  • Sometimes meta users with upvoted answers to discussions are later elected as moderators. Likewise, sometimes moderators step down. Think of all of Bill's great answers that no longer have the extra diamond.
  • One of the things that makes Stack Overflow still work is that we are all moderators. Even though we may not have diamonds, we still have moderation powers through the reputation/privilege system. This is very much by design. The tour mentions: "At the highest levels [of reputation], you'll have access to special moderation tools. You'll be able to work alongside our community moderators to keep the site focused and helpful."

TL;DR

Meta discussions have as much weight as we the community are willing to act on them, either directly or via our elected moderators.

| |
  • "For example, the split opinions about what a "trivial edit" is and how to review them has been split in opinion" - exactly, so what happens to your edit depends on who reads it, and there's nobody who can do anything about that. So what use had discussing that? In other words: are we free to ignore the outcome of Meta discussions, or act contradictory to it, because we don't agree? – CodeCaster Jun 10 '16 at 13:48
  • Not much in that case because the community was divided. But we discuss things to try to find community consensus. If/when it's found we do often act on it. Sometimes it just doesn't work out without community manager intervention. But that's why we discuss. To make sure that our actions are in line with the community. – ryanyuyu Jun 10 '16 at 13:50
  • @CodeCaster I guess a lot of discussion is more of a guideline. But often moderators (other users or diamond mods) will call people out for going against well-established guidelines. – ryanyuyu Jun 10 '16 at 13:57
  • 2
    Yes, the social adoption of norms is rather organic. It's hard to say exactly when and how a finished discussion becomes a norm in every case (some discussions that involve system changes are easier to measure this way). – TylerH Jun 10 '16 at 14:03
14

Meta is murder.

Yes, you read that right. Murder. I mean it. If enough productive work is replaced by navelgazing meta-work, then people will be killed. Or at least, the community will be.
Jeff Atwood SO Co-Founder

Want to have a discussion about using inline formatting versus code formatting for emphasis? That's fine. Just don't have it on the post where the formatting was used or else every post would turn into a disconnected series of discussions about meta topics as opposed to actual programming related issues.

That is what a meta discussion facilitates; a centralized place to discuss. The weight of the discussion is simply related to the topic at hand. If the topic is petty, the weight is petty. For example, code formatting. No one is going to get banned for using code formatting in an answer, and no post is going to get removed for it either. Really, if edit wars is how you want to spend your time then you should seriously reconsider your use of the site.

If a topic irks you, and there is community consensus, then there is no problem taking the community agreed upon advice or solution - however, it is essentially just guidance. If it is regarding editing format, then edit it with a note about the consensus and move on - but if it gets rolled back that is essentially the end of it unless a Moderator thinks that project namespace is so problematic that the post needs to be locked (or whatever the emphasized word is).

The real tool to meta discussions is honing in on features that work and help users. Gathering a consensus on how to move forward on a feature or what progress would even look like in certain scenarios (be it feature or community work) is very important. This is also where the real weight is, and where rules or automated features come from.

| |
  • 3
    Tempting to downvote because of project namespace. Essentially you're saying discussion on Meta is mere opium to keep people happy who want to vent? I mean we have weekly discussions about whether you should answer low-quality questions, hundreds of upvotes are spent on said discussions, the talkers are happy and the behavior on Main doesn't change one bit. Could it be that you're right, and that it is all in vain? – CodeCaster Jun 10 '16 at 19:25
  • we discuss it, sure, but no one ever actually provides an actionable solution to the problem. – Kevin B Jun 10 '16 at 19:27
  • @KevinB - Never? – Travis J Jun 10 '16 at 19:30
  • 1
    @CodeCaster - Atwood certainly would agree with the angle on venting. Meta facilitates features though as well, provides support from the team, and fixes bugs. So it isn't all hot air - just the weekly discussions about low-quality posts. Here is some food for thought: if there is a discussion about the same topic, but it involves completely different people discussing, was it a duplicate? – Travis J Jun 10 '16 at 19:33
  • 5
    @Kevin but why? Travis addresses my question, and confirms my suspicions: discussions are to keep the talkers happy, and nothing fundamentally really ever changes because of it. The gradual shift we experience over time might be fueled by discussions, but there's never one discussion you can point to and say: yes, that's the one that directed a policy change. – CodeCaster Jun 10 '16 at 20:09
0

It's a little bit of a weird system, the meta.

We have guidance in form of recommendations and outcomes for specific issues (like posts raised or problems raised) which people then go on to defer to for their next actions.

Unless a moderator has to step in, which, ideally, is in as few cases as possible, the action of a single user is judged by the other users. These other users may use meta precedent as reason for their judgement, or refer to it.

Moderators and CMs tend to use highly upvoted meta consensus as bar for decisions too, so in a weird way, meta discussions have a part in making the rules.

But, as always, and despite how many times pressed on it, anything is open to re-discussion and re-examination, and common sense should always be applied. This is a site full of highly intelligent people, and such a decentral rule enforcement system wouldn't work if most of us weren't out to make the site better.

| |
  • I'm not really talking about "common sense" issues. I'm talking about the case where something could go either way, and either way might make sense, but that the community, through voting, has "decided" that "we" want it only one particular way. – CodeCaster Jun 10 '16 at 13:22
  • 1
    well... if it's something that can go either way, and it was contested (for example, +50 to -30), you can expect people to enforce in on either side, since there was a decently sized group of people on both sides. Just because 20 more people decided to upvote doesn't mean the community decided. At the end of the day, it's still going to come to a judgement call by each individual user. The only exception is when said discussion results in something major, like a close reason being changed/removed/replaced. – Kevin B Jun 10 '16 at 15:11
  • This is a site full of highly intelligent people I had a feeling a didn't belong here... – SierraOscar Jun 10 '16 at 20:17
  • 1
    What is "CM" an abbreviation for? – Peter Mortensen Jun 10 '16 at 20:20
  • 1
    Community Manager – Travis J Jun 10 '16 at 20:21
  • "despite how many times pressed on it, anything is open to re-discussion and re-examination" - Really? The system as it is doesn't really like re-discussions, mostly tries to avoid them by closing duplicates of canonical, eternally valid decisions of the past. But of course being intelligent people there is almost always a way to re-discuss anything. So, you're right, but one needs to overcome a few hurdles for that. – Trilarion Jun 11 '16 at 10:14
  • @Trilarion If enough people agree, discussions that were had once are had again, or come to a different conclusion. – mag Jun 11 '16 at 10:57
  • @Trilarion if post (one META or SO) shows that previous answers/discussion did not address particular aspect of the question or new evidence/version/whatever come up it is perfectly fine to ask exactly the same question again. What is frowned up is lack of indication why OP expect different answer incompatible with previous versions of the question. – Alexei Levenkov Jun 11 '16 at 16:08
  • @AlexeiLevenkov What you say seems to directly contradict the statement from this answer: "despite how many times pressed on it, anything is open to re-discussion and re-examination". Don't you agree? – Trilarion Jun 11 '16 at 16:38
  • @Trilarion I'm not sure where you found contradiction. You are free to start discussion again on any topic as long as you follow official rules about not asking exact duplicates. – Alexei Levenkov Jun 11 '16 at 17:03
  • @AlexeiLevenkov I'm free to start a discussion, but it may not last long, so what is the freedom to start anything worth then. It's okay. I think the contradiction is obvious and your statements as well as the ones from Magisch are mutually exclusive but others may see it differently. – Trilarion Jun 12 '16 at 8:27

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .
https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/325924/what-weight-do-meta-discussions-have
meta.stackoverflow.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2020-50
183394
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:DUVCWKEFY4KNPUTIW6GWT3QYABRS6DHD
<urn:uuid:4e419411-1b69-4d53-9e7c-0b3ff239026c>
2020-12-01T06:15:12Z
151.101.65.69
text/html
sha1:S5XJF6ZJ5AHSUA4ED4CL3HNNWLJPPN2Z
<urn:uuid:ee94348b-bbaf-46cd-91e9-43a32340614c>
https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/325924/what-weight-do-meta-discussions-have
response
<urn:uuid:f915cf5a-025f-48ef-8bb0-f9fee56ac453>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2020-50
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for November/December 2020
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-25.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.17 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.2-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/