1

A long time ago, Shog9 deleted a popularly-linked question here. He then made another post, Why "What Stack Overflow is Not" was deleted, to explain his reasons for deleting the question referenced there. That post was bumped recently, by a user who removed outdated links to a domain that has since begun serving malware (a good edit on its own).

I think that more than a decade after the action referenced in the post was taken, the announcement has run its course of letting users on the site know why it was taken. Much of the content in the answers is no longer considered in scope for this site (being specific to Stack Overflow), and the post definitely meets the definition of the old "too localized" close reason (it's only pertaining to a specific period in time, i.e., the immediate time after the action was taken). I don't really see why it needs to be resurfaced every now and then.

An announcement as to why a question was deleted is useful for users who follow outdated links to the question (in old comments), so it's still useful to have around as a reference as to why it was deleted, but any discussion regarding its deletion is now well into the past. (The deleted question referenced in the announcement is no longer a good fit here as it's specific to Stack Overflow, ending the debate.)

In my opinion, the post should therefore be historically locked. To summarize, it's useful to have around as a reference (it has quite a few votes, views, and inbound links), but doesn't really need to be active. There's also precedent for historically locking similar announcements.

Should it be historically locked (once it and all answers have been edited to remove/change links that have since become dead or malicious)?

Improve this question
13
  • I trust Shog to know what he was doing. His knowledge about Meta, about SE, and about the people forming them is unchallenged. I have no desire to challenge it myself, by reversing one of his actions.
    – Shadow Wizard
    Commented Oct 17, 2022 at 10:47
  • Just delete it, there's no real value there.
    – Kevin B
    Commented Oct 17, 2022 at 15:03
  • 2
    @KevinB It's still useful as a reference to inform users why they should not merely link to pages without providing an explanation.
    – Sonic the Anonymous Hedgehog
    Commented Oct 17, 2022 at 15:37
  • 5
    @ShadowTheKidWizard How does this post ask for his action to be reversed? Where am I asking for the post he deleted to be undeleted? This is asking for the announcement to be locked.
    – Sonic the Anonymous Hedgehog
    Commented Oct 17, 2022 at 15:37
  • That's quite well covered here: meta.stackexchange.com/help/how-to-answer I don't think we should be relying on 10 year old posts for providing community guidelines, particular ones that are solely there to explain why a post most people can't see was deleted 10 years ago.
    – Kevin B
    Commented Oct 17, 2022 at 15:38
  • 2
    @KevinB Link to pages as in, provide a bare link in a comment to a help center page or off-site link (e.g. something on idownvotedbecau.se) without explaining why that's applicable.
    – Sonic the Anonymous Hedgehog
    Commented Oct 17, 2022 at 15:40
  • same difference, tbh. If additional guidance should exist, it should exist in the help center or on a FAQ, not an old unrelated post
    – Kevin B
    Commented Oct 17, 2022 at 15:50
  • 1
    What's the benefit to locking it here? The bumping was to 'fix' an issue and things are going as designed if folks iterate peacefully to a solution. Its not attracting crap, and in theory it gives us something to point at if similar issues happen. Its not very obsolete and link-rot fixing isn't something that's ever finished.
    – Journeyman Geek
    Commented Oct 26, 2022 at 0:42
  • 1
    @JourneymanGeek As I just edited in, there's past precedent for locking similar types of questions. I don't see why it needs to be resurfaced every so often, and discussion about whether the question it's talking about should be deleted is now completely obsolete. In my view, all the problems with it should be fixed at once, then it should be locked to prevent persistent resurfacing in the future. (I should also add that in the specific example I linked, the question was locked before the MSO-MSE split and SO-specific questions becoming off-topic.)
    – Sonic the Anonymous Hedgehog
    Commented Oct 26, 2022 at 0:56
  • 1
    Also, with regards to link rot, per the historical locking FAQ, the only case where link rot would need to be fixed on such a post is if a link has since become harmful (e.g., started serving malware), and other links can remain as is. There's only one such domain linked in the post, whathaveyoutried.com, that's of that variety, and no other external links (outside the network) in the post.
    – Sonic the Anonymous Hedgehog
    Commented Oct 26, 2022 at 0:57
  • Internal links can rot too.
    – Journeyman Geek
    Commented Oct 26, 2022 at 1:02
  • 1
    @JourneymanGeek But they won't start serving malware or doing other bad things (unless they are to one of several sandbox answers used to test freezing vulnerabilities, of which there aren't any in that post).
    – Sonic the Anonymous Hedgehog
    Commented Oct 26, 2022 at 1:04
  • It took me half an hour to understand the title and its multiple layers of quotations
    – stickynotememo
    Commented Oct 26, 2022 at 4:22

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
1

TL;DR: I don't think it should be locked.

Now I'll explain.

The wording for the lock is as so:

Historical significance
Lock this post if it’s off-topic but has historical significance.

The intent of the lock was probably for stuff from the 'old' days, when we were still figuring out what was on topic and not, and there were popular posts that were off topic and for some reason we were disinclined to delete them.

Is Why "What Stack Overflow is Not" was deleted of historical significance? Certainly.

Is it off topic? Certainly not. It's a meta² question in its most classic form, explaining a decision to delete a post that many posts linked to.

A broader question would then be of relevance - would the current and future moderation teams have similar issues in the future?

As negative as "What X Is Not" sounds, the intentions were good: a set of answers to common misconceptions on the purpose of Stack Overflow, directed at new users, written and edited with an eye toward clarity and brevity.

It was a nice idea; my hat's off to those who were willing to try it. Unfortunately, it was also fundamentally misguided.

It also ends with:

If you see this practice (comments that link without bothering to explain why or relate it to the specific post) happening with other links (for instance, https://idownvotedbecau.se/), please flag them.

Which I is still relevant advice.

Are we potentially going to find ourselves finding ideas with good intentions at heart, and unintended effects at hand? Certainly. Even if the exact situation shouldn't happen again, there are going to be situations where we may need to make similar decisions.

Considering the 'intent' and not the 'wording' of the request - I also don't see any appropriate locking reasons as per what's available to us. I'm also unclear of the benefit to locking the post outside preserving the original wording of that post. It's not about the exact links. It's about the intent of the referred post (as a single source to link to people), its unintended/unwanted effects (lazy/mean comments) and the action taken.

As such, I don't see the benefit of a lock to keep things 'static'.

While it's a post relating to a localized situation, it's a meta on meta explaining a decision made, which is always worth documenting. As such, it would have been unwise (and a misunderstanding of the intent of the close reason) to close the post as too localized since many meta posts do relate to decisions made in a specific situation, documented and shared both for the present and for the future.

It doesn't just explain why the post on what Stack Overflow was deleted. It explains why it's a bad idea (always relevant) and the effects it had. As such it has broader value should a similar question come up in future and is still relevant past the specific situation.

Improve this answer
5
  • 1
    Keep in mind that there are two options for historical locks: the original one, and a new "obsolete" one that has the same effects but doesn't mark the post as off-topic. Also, locking a question instead of deleting it means that the content in it is still valuable to retain.
    – Sonic the Anonymous Hedgehog
    Commented Oct 26, 2022 at 1:22
  • I'm looking at the reasons I have now and copied the wording from there on the post.
    – Journeyman Geek
    Commented Oct 26, 2022 at 1:23
  • 1
    There isn't an option to lock as "obsolete"?
    – Sonic the Anonymous Hedgehog
    Commented Oct 26, 2022 at 1:24
  • "This post is marked obsolete because the content is out of date. It is not currently accepting new interactions" - But its not out of date as per my answer.
    – Journeyman Geek
    Commented Oct 26, 2022 at 1:31
  • 1
    There is, by the way, precedent for locking similar announcements. That question is the announcement for deprecating Stack Overflow's [homework] tag, and contains quite a bit of info as to why similar tags shouldn't be (re)created. The question was historically locked after a period of time. I should also add that the question was still on-topic at the time it was locked as it was locked a year before the MSO-MSE split.
    – Sonic the Anonymous Hedgehog
    Commented Nov 14, 2022 at 21:40
0

That post was bumped recently, by a user who removed outdated links to a domain that has since begun serving malware (a good edit on its own).

My issue with this is historical accuracy the whathaveyoutried.com has been substituted for the idownvotedbecau.se address. I tried checking the Wayback Machine but the only link I found for the original address HTTP 302 forwards to a personal blog on another domain.

I think it's important that the link (thus the address as it's spelled) be preserved as it was back then. I'm unsure what the best option for this would be?

Other than that I'm in favor of applying an historical lock.

Improve this answer
7
  • That personal blog is exactly what it is. It's even written there clearly: Update: I’ve pointed the domain whathaveyoutried.com to this post..
    – Shadow Wizard
    Commented Oct 17, 2022 at 15:20
  • This is the edit I was referring to. I then later reinstated the sentences with archive links.
    – Sonic the Anonymous Hedgehog
    Commented Oct 17, 2022 at 15:35
  • @SonictheAnonymousHedgehog I don't see your OP mentioning an answer anywhere, what I said explicitly is the question has been changed from this revision which is not accurate.
    – bad_coder
    Commented Oct 17, 2022 at 15:50
  • I said the post was bumped. Editing either the question or one of its answers will bump the entire post. I then also just said an edit was made, not feeling the need to point out it was an answer as I didn't see why it was explicitly relevant in the point I was trying to make. I don't have an issue with replacing the link if it's to be historically locked; I just don't want my quote to be twisted to refer to my question edit rather than the answer edit, seeming like l I'm referring to myself in the third person, making it sound disingenuous.
    – Sonic the Anonymous Hedgehog
    Commented Oct 17, 2022 at 15:56
  • @SonictheAnonymousHedgehog the funny thing about this thread are Shadow and KevinB's arguments which seem like non-sequitur's to the matter at hand. So reiterating, the link's address should be kept accurate (perhaps with a footnote) because the exact address as it was back then is mentioned textually elsewhere (here and on MSO) and both addresses have different meanings.
    – bad_coder
    Commented Oct 17, 2022 at 16:00
  • @bad_coder it's a very bad idea to leave links to malware on purpose, it can't be justified.
    – Shadow Wizard
    Commented Oct 17, 2022 at 16:01
  • And more arguments @ShadowTheKidWizard disable the link by removing the protocol and pointing it to the Wayback Machine, with a footnote or parenthesis explaining the change if needed.
    – bad_coder
    Commented Oct 17, 2022 at 16:04

You must log in to answer this question.

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