4

Disclosure: I shamelessly copied a post made by Alenanno on Meta.Russian.SE

Update: seems like polls are no longer in trend, so instead of poll we now have a discussion

I'd like to create a single question, thus putting most resource questions off topic from now on, in the Main Site, using the structure Alenanno used in the Chinese one.

The question is: do you want it?

Resource questions are going to be closed anyway in case they are too broad, since this is the standard rule, but if we made this question, we'd have a compromise.

So, let the discussion begin!


Update: схоже що за 4 роки опитування вийшли з моди, тепер замість опитування маємо дискуссію

Я хотів би створити одне питання, яке зробить більшість питань про ресурси оффтопіком на основному сайті, використовуючи структуру, яку використав(ла) Alenanno на сайті про Китайську мову.

Питання таке: чи ми хочемо цього?

Більшість питань про ресурси будуть закриватися в разі якщо вони надто широкі (too broad), оскільки це стандартне правило, але якщо ми зробимо цей загальне питання у нас буде компроміс.

Най розпочнеться дискусія!

  • (Also I'd made bold the "a single question" text to emphasize that we're talking about a wide list, not about concrete narrow questions — but it's on your choice, of course.) – Sasha Feb 10 '17 at 13:10
  • How it is related to meta.ukrainian.stackexchange.com/questions/30/… ? Is voting there considered as ended? Because in case of "no" there, this question doesn't make sense. – Nash Bridges Feb 10 '17 at 13:19
  • @NashBridges To my mind the ideal case is: there is a big post with all known resources, but when someone asks "Hey, I saw that big post, and visited sites listed there but I need X (e.g. X = "news in Ukrainian with English subtitles") which is not listed there. Does anyone know such resource?" - that question is not closed right away as off-topic. – Artemix Feb 10 '17 at 13:26
  • @NashBridges, in case of "no" there — this question really doesn't make sense. But in case on "yes" there — this question does make sense. Because, for example, I am for allowing concrete resource-asking questions on the Main site, but against dithering the Main Site with community-related stuff like personal-opinion over-comprehensive lists. At least, until we prepare some very good and very objective list within meta (then it can be rethought for a specific case). – Sasha Feb 10 '17 at 13:27
  • Thanks, guys, now it is clear for me. Probably, the question should be updated to mention all possible outcomes after voting on both questions. – Nash Bridges Feb 10 '17 at 13:32
  • 2
    Artemix, I removed the multiple polling-style answers you posted in favor of an open discussion. If you have thoughts on the issue yourself, feel free to post it as an answer, but it is generally better to let everyone have a voice in meta to express their own opinions rather pre-posting all sides of the conversation yourself. It's not difficult to infer what the community wants from the conversation while allowing for the possibility that there's an issue we have not considered. Polling is generally not a good substitute for discussion. Thanks. – Robert Cartaino Feb 10 '17 at 14:57
  • 1
    @Sasha Do you have an access to your comment under "No" vote? Could you post it as an answer? Here it is just in case you can't see it anymore: "I am for allowing concrete resource-asking questions on the Main site, but against dithering the Main Site with community-related stuff like personal-opinion over-comprehensive lists. At least, until we prepare some very good and very objective list within the Meta Site first (then it can be rethought, considering exact state of the list condition, whether it should be published in the Main Site). IMHO." – Artemix Feb 10 '17 at 15:35
  • @Artemix, and what about that topic? Maybe we should drop it and discuss everything here? (As not everyone will understand the difference and relation between them without clarification.) (And, besides that, that topic is still a voting.) Or we shouldn't? – Sasha Feb 10 '17 at 16:34
  • 1
    @Sasha Написав там щоб йшли сюди :) Не видалив, бо сказали "вам можуть заборонити ставити нові питання". – Artemix Feb 10 '17 at 16:46
6

So, now we have a discussion. I will collect all my reasons in favor of one post on main site here.

I think that the post with the collection of the learning/reference resources needs to be on the main site. The site is for Ukrainian learning enthusiasts and I think said enthusiasts are interested in having good list of such resources. Meta site is for discussions, not for learning Ukrainian language and it's should not be the place for off-topic questions. So, either such list is on-topic and should be on main site, or it is off-topic and it should be nowhere.

Also, having such big community-wiki post on the main site we'll have the tool to close the questions that are "too broad" like "Give me a list of online dictionaries" - the StackExchange sites have "Close as duplicate" button with automatic field "The question has already an answer [there]". Otherwise we'll have to close the answer as "too broad" and manually add a comment "look for an answer on Meta".

To my mind the ideal case is: there is a big post with all known resources, but when someone asks "Hey, I saw that big post, and visited sites listed there but I need X (e.g. X = "news in Ukrainian with English subtitles") which is not listed there. Does anyone know such resource?" - that question is not closed right away as off-topic.

  • 1
    I've supported this answer. I believe such post will be useful both for users (I don't know of comprehensive actively supported list of such resources) and main site (it is quite probable that it will be the most visited question). // Я підтримав цю відповідь. Я вважаю, що такий пост буде корисним як користувачам (я не знаю докладного й активно підтримуваного списку таких ресурсів), так і основному сайту (цілком можливо, що це буте найвідвідуванішим питанням). – Kyrylo Yatsenko Feb 10 '17 at 17:46
  • Згоден щодо останнього твердження - доречі кількість відвідувачів сайту важлива на етапі бети. – Artemix Feb 10 '17 at 18:04
2

I've experienced having resources on meta for Japanese.SE (1, 2). While I'm appreciative of having it there rather than not at all, I found it a bit cold and unfriendly.

It basically deprecates these kinds of questions, almost like exiling them, without banning them outright. You don't get any reputation for asking or answering such questions, there's very little connection between the main site and meta (no "Similar Questions" or "Linked Questions"), and even the colour scheme is unfriendly, being in grayscale rather than in colour. Also, meta tends to be for hard-core stack exchange enthusiasts, rather than casual users.

If we really want to keep it separate from the main part of the website, rather than putting them in meta.ukrainian.stackexchange.com, we could consider making a subdomain such as learning.ukrainian.stackexchange.com . This would require some work from the creators of the Stack Exchange software, but it's a change that may be useful for many Stack Exchange websites.

  • Based on how stackexchange team tries to minimize extra resources required without losing quality, I think additional subdomain suggestion (to all existing sites) won't make them happy. – Artemix Feb 13 '17 at 11:27
2

Sorry, that it took too long. I actually planned this edit long ago, but simply forgot.

As I see, more than a week passed and the Artemix's answer is still the most popular, while my still has 0 votes. Thus the opinion of the community is obvious. Therefore, I recall my "vote". I am no more against having Community Wiki with the list of resources on the Main Site.

Just a few last words, why I did not want to have it on the Main Site. I consider the Main Site as our "face" and the Meta as our "local forum" (though it's publicly accessible and indexed too), therefore I expect Main to satisfy much higher quality standards. And my personal impression is that such categorized link-lists are quite hard to maintain (e.g. we already have a separate unmerged unchecked answer there). Therefore I myself won't create such a question on the main site (because I'm sure I'll be unable to maintain it clean enough per my own opinion) — but I am no more against somebody else creating a new question and moving everything there. I.e. if major part of the current community considers it's as a good idea and wants to try — I don't want to prevent them.

My old answer is below:

My opinion is the following:

  • I'm not against concrete questions a-la “are there some online/offline resources that […]?”.
  • I'm not against maintaining some comprehensive, possibly opinion-based lists on the meta.
  • But I think that we should keep some "quality standards" for the main site. Everything on the main site should fit Q&A format, per my opinion, questions should be concrete (i.e. answerable, not a-la “list me all stars in the universe”). Therefore I think such a list is not for main.

If after some time we'll see that the list on the meta is good, we may think about publishing it on the main.

But I am not sure that it's possible to maintain such things in a good state. It's a dump of various links collected in an opinion-based style, entered by conflicting users, possibly unchecked for a long time (i.e. obsolete), possibly misinforming users (e.g. posing unreliable sites as authoritative or the opposite), possibly badly categorized. With having it growing within the meta we can see what it turns into and more ways to fix its problems. For example, we could later decide to split in into several various questions with a bit different purposes (e.g. authoritative sites, non-authoritative sites and limited-access sites). Or, if two users can't reach an agreement about the best way for something, it can be forked into two equivalent but differently-categorized lists — to see in practice which way is better. IMHO, we should first see how it goes and whether it will be ok at all.

(Now it looks relatively pretty, because it's only 2 days old, was edited only by 1 user and contains only a few links. Who knows what a monster it'll turn later into, or maybe we'll want to re-architecture it at all.)

I.e. I want things in the main area to look good. But at the early stages we don't know whether the list will be good and whether it'll be maintained at all (i.e. at some point of time it can stop being maintained due to decreased usefulness and increased complexity).

Additionally I feel a bit psychologically uncomfortable about creating in main area a stuff that a regular user isn't allowed to create. Rules should be same for all. We should show example to novice users, not "tease" them.

But that's just my opinion. Of course I'll have nothing against, if community finally choses another way.

  • Aren't you contradicting yourself? You are not against the same data ("possibly unchecked…", "possibly misinforming…"), it's just this data would be split among several concrete questions. – Nash Bridges Feb 11 '17 at 11:08
  • @NashBridges, I think, no. In a concrete questions (answer for which has, for example, 5 links) answerer's attention and diligence are spread onto 5 links. In broad question (answer for which has, for example, 100 links) answerer's attention and diligence are spread onto 100 links. Each link gets less attention and diligence. That's why concrete questions are better — smaller part is subject area is covered, but quality is higher. – Sasha Feb 12 '17 at 0:32

You must log in to answer this question.

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