Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 158 Stack Exchange communities.

What is meta?
Here's how it works:
  1. Any Stack Exchange user can ask a question
  2. The community provides support, votes on ideas, and reports bugs
  3. Your voice helps shape the way Stack Exchange operates

I just noticed this question where the question was closed, then exploded into discussion in the comments (even with some people who closed it). If a question needs a response, shouldn't it be left open (especially if it gets marked community wiki), or is closing and commenting the right thing to do?

Note: The question has been re-opened, and re-closed again.

share|improve this question

I voted to close it as Subjective and Argumentative... which it is. Then I took some time to demonstrate that it was subjective and argumentative.

Too subtle?

share|improve this answer
Apparently, since @evolve was painfully unaware of the sarcasm. Personally, I think drunk & blindfolded coding should be an event at DevDays. – John Rudy Dec 1 '09 at 17:21

The discussion in the comments seemed to have been about community wikiizing the question because of its open-ended nature. It was closed, then community wikified, then reopened. That's a fairly normal lifecycle for open-ended questions that users try to milk for Internet dollars.

share|improve this answer
MMmmmm, fresh internet dollars... Useful for... absolutely nothing... – Adam Davis Dec 1 '09 at 16:34
I have yet to see a question that was forced into Wiki because a user was deliberately trying to milk it for rep. It was forced into Wiki because the community didn't like the question as posed, or (oh noes!) there was the perception that rep gained by the question was somehow unfair. – Robert Harvey Dec 1 '09 at 16:40
In this case, it was forced CW because some people feel that this makes it ok to use SO as a discussion forum. Ah, but what can you do... (vote to close it again, that's what!) – Shog9 Dec 1 '09 at 16:47
@Shog9: That's what I did. CW doesn't save a question like that -- it's entire premise is argumentative. – John Rudy Dec 1 '09 at 17:19
Work in our field is often argumentative. There are pulls between different styles of work (and play). These things are definitely subjective, and sometimes heated. That doesn't mean they never have an answer, which in this case was a resounding "Use the %^&* framework". I felt the question needed to be answered, even if the answer was "No". – C. Ross Dec 1 '09 at 17:37
@C. Ross: vim is one of the greatest text editors (if not THE greatest text editor) known the man. – JSONBog Dec 1 '09 at 17:41
@C Ross: You can make that argument, and I get where you're coming from, but that doesn't change SO's mission. Worded differently, the question might be valid as CW, something like, "Are frameworks generally more secure or less secure than hand-coding? What are some security-related alternatives?" That might be OK. As written, no. – John Rudy Dec 1 '09 at 17:43
@Gargamel: You ought to know that it's welbogging emacs for the win! – John Rudy Dec 1 '09 at 17:43
@Smurfsnorting Farfulburger: you smurfsnorting farfulburger! Everyone knows that vim is the world's greatest piece of software! :wq – JSONBog Dec 1 '09 at 17:53
@Gargamel: emacs tastes great! – John Rudy Dec 1 '09 at 17:56
@Smurfsnorting: Perhaps I was trying too hard to look past the trolling. I do admit the tone was a bit ... agressive. @Garamel: Vim for people who don't need their text editor to be an Operating System. – C. Ross Dec 1 '09 at 19:22

The biggest problem with this question is that it is truly subjective and argumentative. Some subjectivity is OK, but this question reeks of one designed to spark controversy and extended discussion.

From the FAQ:

Avoid asking questions that are subjective, argumentative, or require extended discussion. This is not a discussion board, this is a place for questions that can be answered!

There have always been some subjective questions around; subjectivity is not the issue. It's the argumentative stance that this question takes:

Are frameworks too vulnerable to exploits? ...

Do the benefits of frameworks outweigh the fact that they basically make your website an open book? ...

Maybe frameworks aren't all they're cracked up to be and they were instead simply a push in order to get more web developers to use best practices and design patterns?

Is there anything shown above which isn't argumentative?

Three of the five reopen votes were folks at the lower end of the close/reopen vote rep spectrum, and one was the OP (who just barely has enough to do so on his own questions). This implies to me some misunderstanding as to why there were five votes to close (all but one from 7,000+ users) in the first place. Interestingly, one of the people who voted to close initially also voted to reopen -- I guess he figured that if it was CW, it was OK.

Ultimately: SO is not a discussion board. SO is not a social network. SO is a Q&A board, with an emphasis on the A -- and there is no true A to this question.

share|improve this answer

Just making a question CW is no justification for keeping it open, why don't people understand that?

share|improve this answer

It's the natural order of things on SO.

If a question is closed, those that oppose the closing may give their 'answer' in the comments to show that even if the question is bad, a good answer might make the whole thing worthwhile.

This has the effect of convincing others to support opening the question, and is simply part of the tug of war as the community decides collectively whether the question is valuable or not.

share|improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

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