Hopefully someone can improve the Stack Exchange article or fight the deletion.

  • 3
    Good catch! I LOL'd when I saw the reference list :) There is too much stuff from the SO blog and affiliated sites itself. Somebody would have to collect some reliable third-party sources... – Pekka Jan 9 '11 at 10:17
  • If the article is deleted, it can be shortened to a section in the Stack Overflow article. – badp Jan 9 '11 at 10:49

We believe that some questions need to be deleted, and that not all Stack Exchange proposals ought to be accepted. We should understand that the Wikipedia community thinks that some articles ought to be deleted.

If you disagree that this article should be deleted, it's ok to argue the case against it, but keep in mind that it's not a numbers-based vote. Merely stuffing a ballot won't work - well-crafted informative arguments, or improving the referencing in the article, is more useful.

  • As a Wikipedian and a Stacker: hell yeah. – Tom Morris May 13 '11 at 14:04

While I can't edit that article conscientiously (obvious conflict of interest, after all), I can say its pretty lack luster.

Problems off the top of my head...

It's about the Stack Exchange network, but makes no real reference to stackexchange.com.

The Stack Exchange 1.0 section lacks references to any sites (MathOverflow.net would probably be the exemplar there), and focuses almost entirely on pricing. This is doubly weird, as nobody was ever charged to my knowledge (although prices were published).

The 2.0 section is very out of date, with no site references (Ask Ubuntu might be an interesting discussion, and should be cite-able).

I'll skip over the Criticisms section, again because of conflict of interests.

Don't really think Site Creation is worthwhile as written. It should probably be tossed, or greatly simplified and rolled into the 2.0 section.

References are probably the biggest problem: 20 of the current references are straight from the sites, the blogs, or Jeff and Joel. I'd suggest removing the references to questions/answers/site-proposals as those probably don't qualify as reliable sources.

As for new references... well, get googling I guess.

An obvious one, that may be integratable*:
http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/25/stack-overflow-hits-10m-uniques-boldly-goes-where-no-qa-site-has-gone-before/ (as much as I've come to dislike TechCrunch, personally)

*I say may, as adding references for references sake would be very bad.

As Andrew said, efforts are much better spent improving the article rather than trying to sway any deletion vote.

Anybody looking to improve the article should probably familiarize themselves with Wikipedia's deletion guidelines. If I understand correctly, improvements would need to be done with the next 48 hours or so.

  • 2
    Good points about the references. The massive proportion of "self-references" was probably what triggered the deletion in the first place. – Pekka Jan 9 '11 at 11:47
  • That said, the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experts-Exchange isn't much better but has managed to survive. I agree though, improving the article and getting better references would help. – Kev Jan 9 '11 at 13:16
  • @Kev - The quality of another (even related) article isn't held as relevant to the deletion of an article. I think that's wikipedia policy, if not it just kind of makes sense from a "don't try to boil the ocean" POV. That said, I'd love to see the article improved, I just can't do it myself for "good faith" reasons. – Kevin Montrose Jan 9 '11 at 13:27
  • 1
    True, and that's what I find frustrating about WP. Someone has a bee in their bonnet but quite happily let first level linked articles used for comparison slip past without applying the same measure of quality to the article they're criticising. – Kev Jan 9 '11 at 13:44
  • 2
    Multiple third-party mentions from notable sources will help, even if the article is a shambles. I know that Google and Lifehacker have talked about Stack Overflow; getting those references in there will help. – ale Jan 9 '11 at 14:03
  • @Al Everett - by all means, go for it. I'm 95% sure an SO employee shouldn't even participate on the discussion page, much less edit the article itself. NPOV just isn't credible in that case. – Kevin Montrose Jan 9 '11 at 14:25
  • @Kevin: Wikipedia has conflict of interest guidelines here – Andrew Grimm Jan 9 '11 at 20:35
  • 1
    @pekka @andrew @kevin looks like it's been saved. Yay. – Kev Jan 19 '11 at 10:06

You must log in to answer this question.

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