Skip to main content
Meta Stack Exchange

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

64
  • 179
    To sum it up: everything that prevents users from getting their answer for free is considered as "toxic" by them. They want your time for free and our rules don't matter to them, so answer or be called "toxic".
    – Tom
    Commented Jan 23, 2020 at 12:12
  • 151
    That word has been thrown around so much that it almost has no meaning behind it. People think SO is a support desk and because their needs are not met, they deem the site to be "toxic" or "unsatisfactory". It's a fundamental failing by SE to communicate clearly to new users about what this site IS NOT. At this point, "toxic" is that which goes against me.
    – Script47
    Commented Jan 23, 2020 at 12:47
  • 12
    We don't really know what people mean when they said unwelcoming. Indeed, it can mean a lot of different things. The statistics about is probably not very useful. We would need additional investigation into what specifically is meant.
    – NoDataDumpNoContribution
    Commented Jan 23, 2020 at 13:07
  • 22
    @Script47 There's an increasing amount of users that simply (and openly) blame the community for not answering their question while it's wildly off-topic. We get accused of the strangest things.
    – Mast
    Commented Jan 23, 2020 at 13:10
  • 14
    We need some clarity, was a comment left? Anonymized, what was the comment? Was the question dved/closed? Well, take all those out of "unwelcoming" because that's how the site is meant to work. As it stands, what classes as "unwelcoming" is this amorphous blob which could be anything from comments, to dvs, to cvs, to misunderstandings, and in some cases actually "toxic" comments. One might say that's an awful lot of work, but, in reality, this is the standard of research that should be applied if folks are changing the whole network based on this feedback.
    – Script47
    Commented Jan 23, 2020 at 13:10
  • 11
    @Script47 Because once you answer it, this is what you have to roll with. It's much more convenient for SE, Inc. to keep up this illusion of "general toxicity" to make it whatever it needs to be at the moment.
    – MechMK1
    Commented Jan 23, 2020 at 13:19
  • 49
    I tried to explain to someone on physics SE yesterday that the site wasn't meant to have us validate new theories, or disprove assertions of others. I even went on to explain that I thought their question could actually be edited so that it was on-topic. Naturally, they accused me and three others (who respectfully pointed out the problems to help fix the question) of "trolling". Sometimes you just can't win.
    – JMac
    Commented Jan 23, 2020 at 14:00
  • 47
    @JMac "Your question is off-topic.", says the 100k rep user, who has been active on the site since Area51. "No, you have no clue", replies the 1 rep user.
    – MechMK1
    Commented Jan 23, 2020 at 14:02
  • 13
    @JMac yes, unfortunately this is the case with many users but the issue is that SE approached this issue as a "welcoming" issue rather than an issue on both sides (some bad apples and some inexperienced users who misunderstand the site) so the people that do contribute feel things closing around them as they are vilified further and further.
    – Script47
    Commented Jan 23, 2020 at 14:03
  • 11
    @MechMK1 It wasn't even "you have no clue". It was more "you're crippling scientific advancement. One day I will show people this and they will see your foolishness once I'm famous for this discovery that will change physics". I never even once said their theory was wrong; just that Physics SE wasn't the site to deal with it. In this case they may have come looking for enemies; but I can't rule out that the person just didn't understand the site and was too caught up in their narrative to see it from the other end.
    – JMac
    Commented Jan 23, 2020 at 14:06
  • 19
    (a) don't give examples => no evidence. (b) give one example => you're unfairly targeting someone. (c) give multiple examples => you're cherry picking. You can't win.
    – Rebecca J. Stones
    Commented Jan 23, 2020 at 14:48
  • 12
    36 more elaborate examples (though, with selection bias).
    – This_is_NOT_a_forum
    Commented Jan 23, 2020 at 21:13
  • 37
    The most toxic thing is how "the community" is portrayed. I'm so tired of this. There is a quote (sometimes attributed to Klaus Kinski, very roughly translated to English here): "When it is seen from below, excellence looks like arrogance". We can assume that what is often called "toxicity" boils down to someone perceiving this sort of "arrogance" here...
    – Marco13
    Commented Jan 24, 2020 at 0:48
  • 8
    The "moderation" done by "high-experience" users is my main problem with SE and leads to a lot of toxicity. Arrogance is a very critical problem! And I do think it's arrogance, not excellence, as @Marco suggested. I have seen dozens of questions which were absolutely valid, maybe not on point, but a valid question. And I saw so many of them being downvoted/closed/whatever by those said users, because they seem to not even try to understand the asking user and offer him help.
    – Kevin
    Commented Feb 3, 2020 at 12:46
  • 10
    You can find good examples for the toxicity in the comments and answers here. It's always "new users are lazy and stubborn" vs "high-rep users are misusing their privileges". It's frustrating to read the discussion here where many people deny even the possibility that it could be perceived toxic. This discussion is going on for years and I don't see any progress.
    – Christian Strempfer
    Commented Apr 19, 2020 at 6:31