As a follow-up to an earlier question of mine, there was some ambiguity in reference to what the actual mission of Stack Overflow is.

I'm not looking to debate the matter nor am I looking to nitpick. I just want a clear and unambiguous definition to what it is.

If we know and understand what it is, then we are better equipped as curators and [pseudo-]moderators to help with the site and to help achieve its ultimate goals. Without it, we're stuck with going in an unclear and uncertain direction.

  • 10
    It seems quite clear to me: "Stack Overflow is a question and answer site for professional and enthusiast programmers. It's built and run by you as part of the Stack Exchange network of Q&A sites. With your help, we're working together to build a library of detailed answers to every question about programming." Taken right from the tour page, also known as "about". – Cody Gray Mar 29 at 19:38
  • 20
    @CodyGray: Yet there's enough ambiguity that an employee came out and said something different. Instead of going through that song and dance again, let's just get this whole thing disambiguated once and for all. – Makoto Mar 29 at 19:44
  • 7
    They...didn't really. It's just a flourish of language, imprecisely using what appear to be synonyms in order to make nice prose for a blog. Don't read too much into it. – Cody Gray Mar 29 at 19:44
  • 11
    @CodyGray Catija disagrees with that designation. That, along with other SE employees mentioning missions, is likely the impetus behind this question. – fbueckert Mar 29 at 19:45
  • 8
    No disagreement there. Beginner questions have always been allowed on Stack Overflow, and that doesn't contradict with the statement I quoted. You can't "build a library of detailed answers to every question about programming" if you exclude beginner questions. Furthermore, since there's no brightline for what is "beginner" and what is "expert", it just leads to pointless arguments. That's not how we determine what is a good, on-topic question. We have a different set of standards, more focused on how the question is presented, which are much less ambiguous. @fbu – Cody Gray Mar 29 at 19:47
  • 14
    @CodyGray That said, attempts to pin down what, exactly, "everyone who codes" means, led to a sprawling conversation which showed just how different, "enthusiast and professional programmers" conflicts with, "everyone who codes". Clearing up what, exactly, we're trying to do would be most useful to everybody. – fbueckert Mar 29 at 19:50
  • 10
    So...the disagreement is whether we should cater to hobbyist programmers who aren’t very enthusiastic about it? I don’t know about you, but I think that’s extremely silly. Why does it matter? What does the enthusiasm level of a prospective asker about programming change about the way we run the site? – Cody Gray Mar 29 at 20:06
  • 5
    @CodyGray: Once we actually know what kind of mission they want for the site, then we can get into the weeds and nitpick. Until then, anything like that is pretty premature. – Makoto Mar 29 at 20:16
  • 6
    @CodyGray: I don't doubt I might be nitpicking, but if we're having decisions and features implemented or proposed based on a specific definition that the community isn't completely in the know about, then that only serves to fester more dissent and angst. All I'm really trying to do is to put an end to any ambiguity. Then, if there is a disconnect, both sides could at least work to resolve that. – Makoto Mar 29 at 20:34
  • 14
    The mission of the former executive management team was somewhat obvious. They got a year from the investors to fix the SO problems but failed miserably. So they were sent packing, what's next is anybody's guess. – Hans Passant Mar 29 at 21:06
  • 10
    @CodyGray: I've got a few things to dash off to so I'll think on this a bit more thoroughly, but a hot-take would be motivation. My motivation to continue curation on this site is directly tied to my desire to see this site be the best resource available for developers. The motivation I see in Abby's post is more about coders helping coders and education, which is incidental and a direct side-effect, but not the focus. If we're the best resource available for developers, education follows suit without question. If we're focusing on helping developers, what will become of quality? – Makoto Mar 29 at 21:07
  • 9
    @CodyGray: "Coders helping coders" is too broad a phrase to use to define the situation with users asking us to help them with their debugging problem. I know that this was explicitly called out as something not desired, but that only fuels the ambiguity. Being clear about it makes things easier. While the two interpretations I have aren't mutually exclusive, a slant can occur if we're more focused on helping developers and not really putting quality more at the forefront of our goals. – Makoto Mar 29 at 21:09
  • 19
    You already know the answer to this question. You also know that there's no way in heck that SO the company is ever going to come out and publicly admit it, because that would drive off the users who actually give a damn about this site - and who, coincidentally, are the only thing preventing it becoming yet another Experts Exchange. All we've ever got, and all we're ever going to get, are the same old half-truths and plausible denials that an abusive husband uses to keep his wife chained to him. – Ian Kemp Mar 29 at 22:54
  • 23
    Clear and unambiguous: The mission of StackOverflow (Incorporated) is to maximize shareholder investment. Period. The mission of StackOverflow(.com) is to "... to build a library of detailed answers to every question about programming." To the extent that there is tension between those 2 missions, I'll give you 3 guesses to figure out which way that tension is going to resolve. – Mark Benningfield Mar 30 at 3:31
  • 9
    One might as well bring this up: this answer here has only stirred the pot, and we're still feeling chewed up on the subject because of it. If an SO employee shows up with such a controversial statement, it's fairly easy to question the side the company's on. – E_net4 Mar 30 at 11:38

The mission is right there in the tour:


Or, to use Abby's particular wording, which as far as I can see is meant to express the same thing:

The mission of Stack Overflow is to help coders help each other become better coders by sharing their knowledge with one another.

That hasn't changed, and to such extent as anyone tries to change it, we - the established community who care about this mission - should resist. Ultimately, the site cannot thrive without us and we can defy any attempt from above to change the site's direction in a way that is incompatible with the mission as we see it.

But I think you're tilting at windmills if you perceive hairboat's answer to you two days ago as such an attempt. Nothing in it is incompatible with the established mission written in the help center. It is perfectly coherent to simultaneously think all three of the following things:

  1. Our fundamental mission is to create and maintain a library of knowledge
  2. Programmers of any level of experience and commitment to the craft are welcome to contribute to that mission, so long as their contributions are good
  3. Our current culture is scaring off the next generation of coders who would otherwise become valuable contributors, as well as some undefined set of "other coders who aren't served well by Stack Overflow today" (presumably the women and ethnic minorities we've previously been told we alienate), and that's a big problem that we need to solve

Unlike Abby, I don't agree with point 3. But her belief in it does not mean she views the site's mission differently from the rest of us. Thinking we should be nicer to newbies is not inherently at odds with our core mission, as Abby makes sure to state herself, explicitly, in the penultimate paragraph her answer. Lord knows I am no supporter of the Welcome Wagon, but not every single expression of the belief that we should be more inclusive automatically represents a betrayal of the site's core mission, and we shouldn't be acting like it does.

  • 12
    'but not every single expression of the belief that we should be more inclusive automatically represents a betrayal of the site's core mission, and we shouldn't be acting like it does.' - Absolutely, however, it does seem that any of the outwards correspondence that SO has to the public (the blog or Twitter) seems to involve berating / talking down on the current state of the site or its contributors, yet, on the meta answers that we get, the tune changes significantly and we get the age old song and dance 'We know we've been bad at communicating and we're working on that...'. – Script47 Mar 30 at 20:37
  • 1
    I don't think these two definitions express the same thing. The first one strongly reflects how I see stackoverflow.com, while the second one seems to describe sites like hackerrank, r/learnprogramming etc. – Gabriel Apr 26 at 18:50

We are here to build content that will stand the test of time.

Stack Overflow was built to facilitate that endeavor. Management is in place to keep it online. That is the way the world works.

I know you aren't interested in debating what the mission statement is, but the interpretation of how to accomplish the goal seems to be the crux of the issue here; which is to say, the mission statement is clear, the degree to which each distinct action we as a community take contributes is not.

The how of building this "repository of knowledge" is where we seem to get confused sometimes.

Part of creating content that stands the test of time is ensuring that the knowledge being shared is of value to future visitors, and an aspect of that often overlooked by people not familiar with the goals here is that not every question should be answered.

The goal of Stack Overflow is not "answer my question" but "let's collaboratively build an artifact that will benefit future coders". -Atwood

Curating the questions which are not helping build the library and are not helping future visitors is an important distinction which is implied but not often covered explicitly in the mission statement or in related content put out by official sources.

Content curation is very important. It ensures that the material a future visitor sees is high quality. Creation and curation go hand in hand. However, there is an important distinction: curating can never create. At the point where we are removing more quality content in the name of curation than we are creating quality content then we have failed.

[Stack Overflow] is a place where a busy programmer can invest a few minutes with as little friction as possible, and get something tangible from the community in return. -Atwood

The balance between creating content and curating it is a delicate balance. While there does need to be barriers in place to protect the site from being overrun by low quality, there also needs to be a way for high quality to be encouraged.

That there is an overlap here in both directions -- in that sometimes low quality is accidentally encouraged, and that sometimes high quality content is removed -- is only natural. So long as we stay range bound to a balance we will continue to abide by the mission statement of Stack Overflow.

You must log in to answer this question.

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