This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Stack Overflow article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
While the issue has received some news coverage, and should likely be mentioned in some fashion, the phrasing of the current section is not at all neutral. The inclusion of external links in body text is also inappropriate (especially when one of those is a link to the removed moderator's blog). Furthermore, as the issue is also a recent development/current event, it remains to be seen whether the incident even has any lasting impact, or what the aftermath of the incident will ultimately be. And finally: the fact that the incident centers around a particular individual means we should be very careful what we say and how we say it, per WP:BLP.
I'd suggest deleting the section and waiting to add it (or see if it should be added) until the situation works itself out one way or another, rather than trying to present a one-sided perspective of a developing situation. V2Blast ( talk) 08:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Google is using StackOverflow to creep up on job applicants via Hire with Google ATS:
Research candidates automatically with Google Search Google Search provides more background on a candidate by automatically surfacing links to their profiles from sites like LinkedIn®, GitHub, Behance, Stack Overflow, US Patent Database, and others... Source: https://hire.google.com/applicant-tracking-system/
No time to research RS for this~now, but let us add it here if you find them. Zezen ( talk) 16:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
.
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. Per WP:CITEVAR. |
Please add the following to the History section:
Please add this to the Statistics section:
Thank you!
Wikidelrey (
talk)
01:08, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
References
Citation style
|
---|
In the example above there are three URL's provided with the claim statements, but these URL's have not been placed using Citation Style 1, which is the style predominantly used by the Stack Overflow article. Using this style, the WikiFormatted text should resemble the following:
In the example above the references have been formatted according to Citation Style 1, which shows the author, the source's name, date, etc., all information which is lost when only the links are provided. As Wikipedia is a volunteer project, edit requests such as yours are generally expected to have this formatting done before the request is submitted for review. |
Notes
References
Guideline: It is normal practice to defer to the style used by the first major contributor or adopted by the consensus of editors already working on the page, unless a change in consensus has been achieved. If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it.
Part of an edit requested by an editor with a conflict of interest has been implemented. Please see the reply section below for additional information about this request. |
Apologies about the formatting issues, they have been updated below.
Please add the following to the History section:
Please add this to the Statistics section:
Thank you!
Wikidelrey (
talk)
23:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
References
Below you will see where proposals from your request have been quoted with reviewer decisions and feedback inserted underneath, either accepting, declining or otherwise commenting upon your proposal(s). Please read the enclosed notes within the proposal review section below for information on each request.
Spintendo
00:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Proposal review 26-FEB-2020
|
---|
|
I disagree with the inclusion of " A few months later, Teresa Dietrich joined Stack Overflow as its new chief product officer. " Except for the very largest and most famous companies, including other than CEO as part of the article is excessive detail. DGG ( talk ) 08:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
I wasn't/am not sure how to use the talk page, that's why I didn't the last time, but hopefully this is the correct usage.
There's two sentences that reference the Maryland study. The first: "Stack Overflow has been criticized for the proliferation of poor programming and development practices, specifically by encouraging developers to prioritize basic functionality at the expense of other features like security." isn't supported at all from the article. Is there another citation? And additionally, there's nothing wrong, in a blank context, with "basic functionality", and there's nothing inherently correct about making every line of code as secure as it can be. Is locking myself in the bathroom of a locked house better or safer? This sentence should be removed.
The second sentence: "A study from the University of Maryland found that Android developers that used only Stack Overflow as their programming resource tended to write more insecure code than those who used only the official Android developer documentation from Google." Like I alluded to above, less secure how? I'll leave that be and accept it as fact based on the study's parameters. Note though, that 73% of the subjects said Android development was not their primary job, so that should really say "non-Android developers that used Stack Overflow".
But here's why that critique doesn't belong on this stub any more than saying on the WebMD stub, "people who only use WebMD have a higher likelihood of dying than those who go only to a doctor." If a study was done, it would undoubtedly bear that statement out as fact. A doctor's duty, like an authoritative document on a subject carries the responsibility of being predictive and to help guide, if not direct the conversation and context. A Q & A format, by its nature wouldn't perform well if it needed to consider any and all ancillary principles or concerns. To do that would cut right into, and negate, many of the benefits of the Q & A format. So, if it says anything, it should say, "a study concluded that official language reference documents tend to be better suited to encompass other beneficial but ancillary programming considerations that would not ordinarily be included in the answer of Stack Overflow's focused Q & A format."
Anyway, those two lines have been there, in error, for a couple years and I don't care if it stays, but I happened to see it, and it's wrong and misguided. If wiki feels it should be kept, at the very least the first sentence should be removed and they not be called "Android developers". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.200.15.39 ( talk) 01:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
a laboratory user study with 54 student and professional Android developers. - The first sentence is debatable since it can't be directly referenced to any part of this paper, and in absence of direct sourcing I'd be okay with omitting it. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 02:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
I've deleted the following: "has received general praise for its architecture of handling questions and answers as they are regulated by the community. [1] Its"
The link is to a 2012 conference proceedings
Its abstract says: "Our investigation considers the dynamics of the community activity that shapes the set of answers, both how answers and voters arrive over time and how this influences the eventual outcome."
At no point does this research article on the architecture mention any (let alone, general) praise for it.
Perhaps there is a more current peer-reviewed article that does?
92.133.136.64 ( talk) 10:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
References
It doesn't seem to be a fitting section imho. -- 3nt3nt31ch31nw0hn3r ( talk) 00:39, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 05:36, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
An impartial editor has reviewed the proposed edit(s) and asked the editor with a conflict of interest to go ahead and make the suggested changes. |
Can something about the moderator strike be added here please? I'd be willing to add it myself, but would like a confirmation from someone uninvolved that it's WP:DUE to add. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:00, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Is it OK that the two pages Stack Overflow vs Stack overflow differ only in character case? I found that confusing, didn't you? Wouldn't be better for both to have clarification in parentheses in the title like most other pages do? Maxim Masiutin ( talk) 10:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Stack Overflow article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
While the issue has received some news coverage, and should likely be mentioned in some fashion, the phrasing of the current section is not at all neutral. The inclusion of external links in body text is also inappropriate (especially when one of those is a link to the removed moderator's blog). Furthermore, as the issue is also a recent development/current event, it remains to be seen whether the incident even has any lasting impact, or what the aftermath of the incident will ultimately be. And finally: the fact that the incident centers around a particular individual means we should be very careful what we say and how we say it, per WP:BLP.
I'd suggest deleting the section and waiting to add it (or see if it should be added) until the situation works itself out one way or another, rather than trying to present a one-sided perspective of a developing situation. V2Blast ( talk) 08:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Google is using StackOverflow to creep up on job applicants via Hire with Google ATS:
Research candidates automatically with Google Search Google Search provides more background on a candidate by automatically surfacing links to their profiles from sites like LinkedIn®, GitHub, Behance, Stack Overflow, US Patent Database, and others... Source: https://hire.google.com/applicant-tracking-system/
No time to research RS for this~now, but let us add it here if you find them. Zezen ( talk) 16:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
.
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. Per WP:CITEVAR. |
Please add the following to the History section:
Please add this to the Statistics section:
Thank you!
Wikidelrey (
talk)
01:08, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
References
Citation style
|
---|
In the example above there are three URL's provided with the claim statements, but these URL's have not been placed using Citation Style 1, which is the style predominantly used by the Stack Overflow article. Using this style, the WikiFormatted text should resemble the following:
In the example above the references have been formatted according to Citation Style 1, which shows the author, the source's name, date, etc., all information which is lost when only the links are provided. As Wikipedia is a volunteer project, edit requests such as yours are generally expected to have this formatting done before the request is submitted for review. |
Notes
References
Guideline: It is normal practice to defer to the style used by the first major contributor or adopted by the consensus of editors already working on the page, unless a change in consensus has been achieved. If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it.
Part of an edit requested by an editor with a conflict of interest has been implemented. Please see the reply section below for additional information about this request. |
Apologies about the formatting issues, they have been updated below.
Please add the following to the History section:
Please add this to the Statistics section:
Thank you!
Wikidelrey (
talk)
23:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
References
Below you will see where proposals from your request have been quoted with reviewer decisions and feedback inserted underneath, either accepting, declining or otherwise commenting upon your proposal(s). Please read the enclosed notes within the proposal review section below for information on each request.
Spintendo
00:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Proposal review 26-FEB-2020
|
---|
|
I disagree with the inclusion of " A few months later, Teresa Dietrich joined Stack Overflow as its new chief product officer. " Except for the very largest and most famous companies, including other than CEO as part of the article is excessive detail. DGG ( talk ) 08:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
I wasn't/am not sure how to use the talk page, that's why I didn't the last time, but hopefully this is the correct usage.
There's two sentences that reference the Maryland study. The first: "Stack Overflow has been criticized for the proliferation of poor programming and development practices, specifically by encouraging developers to prioritize basic functionality at the expense of other features like security." isn't supported at all from the article. Is there another citation? And additionally, there's nothing wrong, in a blank context, with "basic functionality", and there's nothing inherently correct about making every line of code as secure as it can be. Is locking myself in the bathroom of a locked house better or safer? This sentence should be removed.
The second sentence: "A study from the University of Maryland found that Android developers that used only Stack Overflow as their programming resource tended to write more insecure code than those who used only the official Android developer documentation from Google." Like I alluded to above, less secure how? I'll leave that be and accept it as fact based on the study's parameters. Note though, that 73% of the subjects said Android development was not their primary job, so that should really say "non-Android developers that used Stack Overflow".
But here's why that critique doesn't belong on this stub any more than saying on the WebMD stub, "people who only use WebMD have a higher likelihood of dying than those who go only to a doctor." If a study was done, it would undoubtedly bear that statement out as fact. A doctor's duty, like an authoritative document on a subject carries the responsibility of being predictive and to help guide, if not direct the conversation and context. A Q & A format, by its nature wouldn't perform well if it needed to consider any and all ancillary principles or concerns. To do that would cut right into, and negate, many of the benefits of the Q & A format. So, if it says anything, it should say, "a study concluded that official language reference documents tend to be better suited to encompass other beneficial but ancillary programming considerations that would not ordinarily be included in the answer of Stack Overflow's focused Q & A format."
Anyway, those two lines have been there, in error, for a couple years and I don't care if it stays, but I happened to see it, and it's wrong and misguided. If wiki feels it should be kept, at the very least the first sentence should be removed and they not be called "Android developers". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.200.15.39 ( talk) 01:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
a laboratory user study with 54 student and professional Android developers. - The first sentence is debatable since it can't be directly referenced to any part of this paper, and in absence of direct sourcing I'd be okay with omitting it. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 02:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
I've deleted the following: "has received general praise for its architecture of handling questions and answers as they are regulated by the community. [1] Its"
The link is to a 2012 conference proceedings
Its abstract says: "Our investigation considers the dynamics of the community activity that shapes the set of answers, both how answers and voters arrive over time and how this influences the eventual outcome."
At no point does this research article on the architecture mention any (let alone, general) praise for it.
Perhaps there is a more current peer-reviewed article that does?
92.133.136.64 ( talk) 10:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
References
It doesn't seem to be a fitting section imho. -- 3nt3nt31ch31nw0hn3r ( talk) 00:39, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 05:36, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
An impartial editor has reviewed the proposed edit(s) and asked the editor with a conflict of interest to go ahead and make the suggested changes. |
Can something about the moderator strike be added here please? I'd be willing to add it myself, but would like a confirmation from someone uninvolved that it's WP:DUE to add. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:00, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Is it OK that the two pages Stack Overflow vs Stack overflow differ only in character case? I found that confusing, didn't you? Wouldn't be better for both to have clarification in parentheses in the title like most other pages do? Maxim Masiutin ( talk) 10:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)