Question summary:

If there is some good proposal for a new Stack Exchange site, but it does not really fit Q and A scheme, is there a possibilty or plan that an alternative scheme is applied? For example, the Area 51 site cannot be Q&A-based, so it uses another engine.

Why bother?
Some knowledge areas, like Academia, Patents, Standards, Open source software, unavoidably require sort of wiki based engine, to accumulate the knowledge, rather than collecting all questions (small and big, interesting and not). So instead of asking "what project/standard solves my problem?" I would just go directly to the solution.

Also it could help to keep data not growing constantly and keep it structured. I understand that it is not the main goal of the Stack Exchange community, so my idea is rather "how to help to create the knowledge base" vs "pass by the knowledge base and throw questions in it".

So for software developement, this could work really good as a platform to determine current needs for defining open standards/solutions, introduce criterias for these needs, and try to make it, not just discuss. So it could link to GitHub for example, when testing of software is needed.


Main goals and benefits of such a site/wiki:

  • Keep important things in one place - knowledge base of existing standards/solutions and its criticisms, vulnerability, downsides
  • Help people find the group of interest, where they can contribute knowledge and experience
  • Proposals and collabortive work on developing IT-related open standards (not directly on-site, i.e. just link to dev.group, i.e. on GitHub and SourceForge), but track the process in form of important excerpts
  • Avoid multiple (duplicated) standards
  • Accelerate improvements/fixes, since hobbiyst works are often better that those from "academia" or corporations sources.
  • Promotion of opened principle - community for community
  • Many other things

So I'd restrict the subjects to important practical areas, which are fundamental for other areas, and touch a wide spectrum of tasks and endusers. Hot topics could for example be "Developing of high productive and high readable programming syntax and dedicated IDE".

As an axample (from area of my interests) consider such a workflow:

Background: I work on developing of my own font format description and rendering system, which is potentially a good candidate for a standard or should replace existing standards, while it is presumably just better, not bloated, OS-independent, open, etc.

Example of workflow:

  • Start proposal in corresponding section (for example "textual information representation") and make overview with technical description.
  • People that are interested/competent in the subject donate to the standard (how exactly, need to think)
  • Good proposals become a standard de facto, in ideal case
  • All have profit

closed as unclear what you're asking by jonsca, Werner, ᔕᖺᘎᕊ, Wrzlprmft, psubsee2003 May 24 '15 at 10:14

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 6
    Sorry but no idea what you're actually suggesting, and how it's related to Stack Exchange. – Shadow The Curly Braced Wizard May 24 '15 at 5:01
  • @ShadowWizard Is it my english, or what is so unclear? I've put an update just to summarize the question. How is it related to SE? Well the main benefit of SE that knowledge is accumulated on one site, and that perfectly fits some areas like Open science, Open standards, but unfortunately Q&A format will not work good for this. – Mikhail V May 24 '15 at 11:06
  • 1
    @MikhailV the confusion is you went overboard explaining the specific idea in too much detail and it resulted in it being very hard to follow. Your update explains the general idea a lot better. To help get this reopened, I'd rewrite the idea question, starting with the general idea and then add a few details about your more specific idea. – psubsee2003 May 24 '15 at 11:22
  • @psubsee2003 thanks – Mikhail V May 24 '15 at 11:36
  • 1
    @MikhailV no your English is very good it was the general idea being unclear. Patrick answer pretty much reflects what I wanted to say as well. :) – Shadow The Curly Braced Wizard May 24 '15 at 13:08

Your proposal doesn't fit in the SE model for questions and answers. Your collaborate working model seems nice, but SE isn't the place for that.

There are several other sites, like Github, SourceForge, etc. that do support this kind of projects. They do not cover the standards section, but in my opinion it takes a lot to do that (look at W3C at the trouble they have to come to a standard).

I think this model isn't useful to SE and goes directly against the philosophy. Therefore I would not want this to be implemented.

  • Thanks for the input, glad that you catch the idea at least. Yes it contradicts with Q&A format, but I wouldnt say it totally against the philosophy, but I understand, it would be too hard to moderate this, and avoid constant war of opinions an so on. Still there is need for such a "unofficial" standards knowledge base, especially for software developement. – Mikhail V May 24 '15 at 11:16

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