Return to Question

The following question: If you're gonna talk Politics, you must respect those who disagree mirrors my sentiment way more eloquently. But I'm looking for less of a discussion and more of a clear-cut answer I can use to explain something good on the internet to my jaded friends.

Recently Internet rage and trolling has reached new levels of relevance in people's lives. But Stack Exchange remained untouched (as far as I can see). Questions that on politicised topics could kick up flamewars elsewhere were still met with thoughtful and respectful answers and comments. There is oversight and regulation by peers and advanced members that enables the content to remain relevant to the question asked. The system also appears to stimulate a respectful attitude towards people that get the facts wrong trying their best to answer questions.

The incentivised peer review system is meant to improve the quality of the knowledge being shared and generated, but some may feel their point of view is being "suppressed" by it. On the internet that could be a reason for a system to be discredited when it reaches mainstream popularity. This might not be an issue when the topic is software development, but now that we have SE sites for politics and religions, this might become an issue.

I ask this also because I'm interested in the potential of gamification systems to incentivise constructive interaction.

The following question: If you're gonna talk Politics, you must respect those who disagree mirrors my sentiment way more eloquently. But I'm looking for less of a discussion and more of a clear-cut answer I can use to explain something good on the internet to my jaded friends.

Recently Internet rage and trolling has reached new levels of relevance in people's lives. But Stack Exchange remained untouched (as far as I can see). Questions that on politicised topics could kick up flamewars elsewhere were still met with thoughtful and respectful answers and comments. There is oversight and regulation by peers and advanced members that enables the content to remain relevant to the question asked. The system also appears to stimulate a respectful attitude towards people that get the facts wrong trying their best to answer questions.

The incentivised peer review system is meant to improve the quality of the knowledge being shared and generated, but some may feel their point of view is being "suppressed" by it. On the internet that could be a reason for a system to be discredited when it reaches mainstream popularity. This might not be an issue when the topic is software development, but now that we have SE sites for politics and religions, this might become an issue.

I ask this also because I'm interested in the potential of gamification systems to incentivise constructive interaction.

Recently Internet rage and trolling has reached new levels of relevance in people's lives. But Stack Exchange remained untouched (as far as I can see). Questions that on politicised topics could kick up flamewars elsewhere were still met with thoughtful and respectful answers and comments. There is oversight and regulation by peers and advanced members that enables the content to remain relevant to the question asked. The system also appears to stimulate a respectful attitude towards people that get the facts wrong trying their best to answer questions.

The incentivised peer review system is meant to improve the quality of the knowledge being shared and generated, but some may feel their point of view is being "suppressed" by it. On the internet that could be a reason for a system to be discredited when it reaches mainstream popularity. This might not be an issue when the topic is software development, but now that we have SE sites for politics and religions, this might become an issue.

I ask this because I'm interested in the potential of gamification systems to incentivise constructive interaction.

The following question: If you're gonna talk Politics, you must respect those who disagree mirrors my sentiment way more eloquently. But I'm looking for less of a discussion and more of a clear-cut answer I can use to explain something good on the internet to my jaded friends.

Recently Internet rage and trolling has reached new levels of relevance in people's lives. But Stack Exchange remained untouched (as far as I can see). Questions that on politicised topics could kick up flamewars elsewhere were still met with thoughtful and respectful answers and comments. There is oversight and regulation by peers and advanced members that enables the content to remain relevant to the question asked. The system also appears to stimulate a respectful attitude towards people that get the facts wrong trying their best to answer questions.

The incentivised peer review system is meant to improve the quality of the knowledge being shared and generated, but some may feel their point of view is being "suppressed" by it. On the internet that could be a reason for a system to be discredited when it reaches mainstream popularity. This might not be an issue when the topic is software development, but now that we have SE sites for politics and religions, this might become an issue.

I ask this also because I'm interested in the potential of gamification systems to incentivise constructive interaction.

Recently Internet rage and trolling has reached new levels of relevance in people's lives. But Stack Exchange remained untouched (as far as I can see). Questions that on politicised topics could kick up flamewars elsewhere were still met with thoughtful and respectful answers and comments. There is oversight and regulation by peers and advanced members that enables the content to remain relevant to the question asked. The system also appears to stimulate a respectful attitude towards people that get the facts wrong trying their best to answer questions.

The incentivised peer review system is meant to improve the quality of the knowledge being shared and generated, but some may feel their point of view is being "oppressed" by it. On the internet that could be a reason for a system to be discredited when it reaches mainstream popularity. This might not be an issue when the topic is software development, but now that we have SE sites for politics and religions, this might become an issue.

I ask this because I'm interested in the potential of gamification systems to incentivise constructive interaction.

Recently Internet rage and trolling has reached new levels of relevance in people's lives. But Stack Exchange remained untouched (as far as I can see). Questions that on politicised topics could kick up flamewars elsewhere were still met with thoughtful and respectful answers and comments. There is oversight and regulation by peers and advanced members that enables the content to remain relevant to the question asked. The system also appears to stimulate a respectful attitude towards people that get the facts wrong trying their best to answer questions.

The incentivised peer review system is meant to improve the quality of the knowledge being shared and generated, but some may feel their point of view is being "suppressed" by it. On the internet that could be a reason for a system to be discredited when it reaches mainstream popularity. This might not be an issue when the topic is software development, but now that we have SE sites for politics and religions, this might become an issue.

I ask this because I'm interested in the potential of gamification systems to incentivise constructive interaction.