Timeline for answer to What does the public really need from us? by Mithical
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
Post Revisions
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 4, 2025 at 7:47 | comment | added | Mithical | People have lots of needs that they're often not aware of, @Slate. We know, for instance, that people have needs for social interaction, for physical touch, for exercise - but many people never meet those needs, and it has negative effects that they're not aware what the causes are. The needs here are intellectual stimulation and accuracy of information - needs that people don't seem to be as aware of, but that not meeting has significant negative effects. It's not just about getting information fast; the specific way in which we do it is just as important. | |
| Feb 3, 2025 at 23:52 | comment | added | Slate StaffMod | But part of that "need" question would also implicitly challenge whether better onboarding is really the right solution to what we're facing. Obviously it's a part of it, don't get me wrong - I mean, if it would have helped the model 14 years ago, it will probably still help today. But if Q&A in its current form is not "what people need," then better onboarding to this form of the network is not a solution to the underlying problem. It's certainly helped many people, myself included, but your answer makes me wonder whether it's time to reevaluate. | |
| Feb 3, 2025 at 23:49 | comment | added | Slate StaffMod | It's sort of a question of aim, then. Is the aim "host this specific Q&A network," or is it "get information into people's hands as quickly and efficiently as possible"? If it's the latter and not the former, it admits the need to rethink how we have gone about specializing in this content type. If it's the former, then we're locked in, come hell or high water. | |
| Feb 3, 2025 at 23:48 | comment | added | Slate StaffMod | One framing challenge I'd offer. When you say that "more and more people are never realizing that they have [that need]," I'd probably say that if they never realize they have it, then it's probably not a need. A desire, maybe something tha would improve their life even. But a need? This is an important distinction, because I totally buy what you were saying if this specialized content type was once a need. But if no one is realizing they need it anymore, then I'd be forced to wonder whether it's the need we think it is, in its current form. | |
| Jan 28, 2025 at 22:21 | comment | added | NoDataDumpNoContribution | The section about why Wikipedia isn't that good may be not so strong. After all Wikipedia is still very big and growing and they found out about the issues you mention in the end and Wikipedia is still drawing a lot of traffic, very probably a much larger amount of traffic than SE. Wikipedia might still be a strong contender in the public knowledge generation area. It's also a larger target for misinformation campaigns. | |
| Jan 28, 2025 at 22:18 | comment | added | NoDataDumpNoContribution | So people lost interest in high quality information, forgot that SO existed and/or had bad experiences here and this can be changed by better marketing and onboarding. People still need SE, they only don't know it. I hope I summarized this answer not totally wrong. As for practical things, which could be done, we could maybe extend the staging ground and put out advertisement for stage ground reviewers there that are really extra nice and patient, like they would be with a friend. I wonder though if all possible changes one could made really make a big enough difference in the end. | |
| Jan 28, 2025 at 18:48 | history | answered | Mithical | CC BY-SA 4.0 |