Question

1. When writing about Stack Exchange, or citing from Stack Exchange, in research papers, citations, bibliographies, etc.: Is there a Common Convention or Etiquette suggested when referring to Stack Exchange questions and users?

2. Is there an official Stack Exchange guide, (a URL), regarding "Common Conventions", or "Etiquette" that may help clarify this, and other similar questions?

Note:

#1 is explicitly answered below. However, in view of the comments, and questions, the "implicit" answer to #2 seems to be "No".

Why:

This would be very helpful -- given the wiki, and the fact that Stack is being cited formally, (Citing Stack Overflow discussions).

Note:

Another stack user also noted the importance of generalizations - affirming that "Stack Etiquette", (Stack Link) -- but they did not include a citation to a general etiquette "Thread".

Related:

1. Other Stack sites, (Stack Link)? (Stacks? Exchanges?)
2. Other Questions? (Threads?)

OP's? Commenters? Questioners? Exchangers? Stackers? Editors?

Wikipedia Example

Wikipedia refers to its users, and users refer to each other as Wikipedians.

Although in practice, "Editors" seems to take precedence.

Question

1. When writing about Stack Exchange, or citing from Stack Exchange, in research papers, citations, bibliographies, etc.: Is there a Common Convention or Etiquette suggested when referring to Stack Exchange questions and users?

2. Is there an official Stack Exchange guide, (a URL), regarding "Common Conventions", or "Etiquette" that may help clarify this, and other similar questions?

Note:

#1 is explicitly answered below. However, in view of the comments, and questions, the "implicit" answer to #2 seems to be "No".

Why:

This would be very helpful -- given the wiki, and the fact that Stack is being cited formally, (Citing Stack Overflow discussions).

Note:

Another stack user also noted the importance of generalizations - affirming that "Stack Etiquette", (Stack Link) -- but they did not include a citation to a general etiquette "Thread".

Related:

1. Other Stack sites, (Stack Link)? (Stacks? Exchanges?)
2. Other Questions? (Threads?)

OP's? Commenters? Questioners? Exchangers? Stackers? Editors?

Wikipedia Example

Wikipedia refers to its users, and users refer to each other as Wikipedians.

Although in practice, "Editors" seems to take precedence.

Question

1. When writing about Stack Exchange, or citing from Stack Exchange: Is there a Common Convention or Etiquette suggested when referring to Stack Exchange questions and users?

2. Is there an official Stack Exchange guide, (a URL), regarding "Common Conventions", or "Etiquette" that may help clarify this, and other similar questions?

Note:

#1 is explicitly answered below. However, in view of the comments, and questions, the "implicit" answer to #2 seems to be "No".

Why:

This would be very helpful -- given the wiki, and the fact that Stack is being cited formally, (Citing Stack Overflow discussions).

Quick Example:

A trivial example, highlighted placeholders where an answer would go.

Blogging and "Dialogue" formats on the Internet are presently insufficient, and inadequately support the role of logic in online communities--which is becoming more and more valued.

Within the Stack Exchange Community, it is difficult to decide how much moderation should apply to users' discussions: moderation of the quality of the answers--and arguably more important--validation of the questions.

In these communities, would enabling Stack Exchange users and moderators in this regard be constructive? Where they could efficiently and succinctly review and raise objections to the validity of questions which exemplify fallacies, such as: "Loaded Questions", "Complex Questions", "Begging the Question", etc.

Consequently, Users often become embroiled in endless discussion, and ambiguous answers-especially in more philosophical discussions. Oftentimes, objections raised by commenters are dismissed, even requests for references and authorities.

Note:

Another stack user also noted the importance of generalizations - affirming that "Stack Etiquette", (Stack Link) -- but they did not include a citation to a general etiquette "Thread".

Related:

1. Other Stack sites, (Stack Link)? (Stacks? Exchanges?)
2. Other Questions? (Threads?)

OP's? Commenters? Questioners? Exchangers? Stackers? Editors?

Wikipedia Example

Wikipedia refers to its users, and users refer to each other as Wikipedians.

Although in practice, "Editors" seems to take precedence.

Question

1. When writing about Stack Exchange, or citing from Stack Exchange, in research papers, citations, bibliographies, etc.: Is there a Common Convention or Etiquette suggested when referring to Stack Exchange questions and users?

2. Is there an official Stack Exchange guide, (a URL), regarding "Common Conventions", or "Etiquette" that may help clarify this, and other similar questions?

Note:

#1 is explicitly answered below. However, in view of the comments, and questions, the "implicit" answer to #2 seems to be "No".

Why:

This would be very helpful -- given the wiki, and the fact that Stack is being cited formally, (Citing Stack Overflow discussions).

Note:

Another stack user also noted the importance of generalizations - affirming that "Stack Etiquette", (Stack Link) -- but they did not include a citation to a general etiquette "Thread".

Related:

1. Other Stack sites, (Stack Link)? (Stacks? Exchanges?)
2. Other Questions? (Threads?)

OP's? Commenters? Questioners? Exchangers? Stackers? Editors?

Wikipedia Example

Wikipedia refers to its users, and users refer to each other as Wikipedians.

Although in practice, "Editors" seems to take precedence.

Question

1. When writing about Stack Exchange, or citing from Stack Exchange: Is there a Common Convention or Etiquette suggested when referring to Stack Exchange questions and users?

2. Is there an official Stack Exchange guide, (a URL), regarding "Common Conventions", or "Etiquette" that may help clarify this, and other similar questions?

Note:

#1 is explicitly answered below. However, in view of the comments, and questions, the "implicit" answer to #2 seems to be "No".

Why:

This would be very helpful -- given the wiki, and the fact that Stack is being cited formally, (Citing Stack Overflow discussions).

Quick Example:

A trivial example, highlighted placeholders where an answer would go.

Blogging and "Dialogue" formats on the Internet are presently insufficient, and inadequately support the role of logic in online communities--which is becoming more and more valued.

Within the Stack Exchange Community, it is difficult to decide how much moderation should apply to users' discussions: moderation of the quality of the answers--and arguably more important--validation of the questions.

In these communities, would enabling Stack Exchange users and moderators in this regard be constructive? Where they could efficiently and succinctly review and raise objections to the validity of questions which exemplify fallacies, such as: "Loaded Questions", "Complex Questions", "Begging the Question", etc.

Consequently, Users often become embroiled in endless discussion, and ambiguous answers-especially in more philosophical discussions. Oftentimes, objections raised by commenters are dismissed, even requests for references and authorities.

Note:

Another stack user also noted the importance of generalizations - affirming that "Stack Etiquette", (Stack Link) -- but they did not include a citation to a general etiquette "Thread".

Related:

1. Other Stack sites, (Stack Link)? (Stacks? Exchanges?)
2. Other Questions? (Threads?)

OP's? Commenters? Questioners? Exchangers? Stackers? Editors?

Wikipedia Example

Wikipedia refers to its users, and users refer to each other as Wikipedians.

Although in practice, "Editors" seems to take precedence.

Question

1. When writing about Stack Exchange, or citing from Stack Exchange: Is there a Common Convention or Etiquette suggested when referring to Stack Exchange questions and users?

2. Is there an official Stack Exchange guide, (a URL), regarding "Common Conventions", or "Etiquette" that may help clarify this, and other similar questions?

Note:

#1 is explicitly answered below. However, in view of the comments, and questions, the "implicit" answer to #2 seems to be "No".

Why:

This would be very helpful -- given the wiki, and the fact that Stack is being cited formally, (Citing Stack Overflow discussions).

Quick Example:

A trivial example, highlighted placeholders where an answer would go.

Blogging and "Dialogue" formats on the Internet are presently insufficient, and inadequately support the role of logic in online communities--which is becoming more and more valued.

Within the Stack Exchange Community, it is difficult to decide how much moderation should apply to users' discussions: moderation of the quality of the answers--and arguably more important--validation of the questions.

In these communities, would enabling Stack Exchange users and moderators in this regard be constructive? Where they could efficiently and succinctly review and raise objections to the validity of questions which exemplify fallacies, such as: "Loaded Questions", "Complex Questions", "Begging the Question", etc.

Consequently, Users often become embroiled in endless discussion, and ambiguous answers-especially in more philosophical discussions. Oftentimes, objections raised by commenters are dismissed, even requests for references and authorities.

Note:

Another stack user also noted the importance of generalizations - affirming that "Stack Etiquette", (Stack Link) -- but they did not include a citation to a general etiquette "Thread".

Related:

1. Other Stack sites, (Stack Link)? (Stacks? Exchanges?)
2. Other Questions? (Threads?)

OP's? Commenters? Questioners? Exchangers? Stackers? Editors?

Wikipedia Example

Wikipedia refers to its users, and users refer to each other as Wikipedians.

Although in practice, "Editors" seems to take precedence.