This is a serious question. As this is the Software Engineering Meta Stack Exchange, please approach the answer from that point of view. Specifically, if the answer is "Yes", how do we produce automated algorithms sophisticated enough to gauge the quality of a humourous post or comment?
Humour is not always about fun or scoring popularity. As a genre of literature, humour has been a conduit for important change throughout history: Mark Twain's "Huckleberry Finn" is the classic example of this for Canadians, but I am sure there are others[*]. Humour, at its best, requires people to see meaning in what they are doing, and gently brings them to realize that they may be overlooking something.
However in an era where automated algorithms rate the quality of a text, is there any place for humour? Are there examples where humour has improved the quality of a post? Or is humor just too ambiguous and too divisive to serve a legitimate purpose?
This is a serious question. It is an important question. There is no double-entendre in this post. I ask only that people post a clear yes or no answer. You may also post two answers, one for yes and one for no.
- Answer yes if you think humor has a place here no matter how small.
- Answer no if there is absolutely no place for it.
I am not being sarcastic, so please no down-votes. No up-votes for that matter either. Also please limit comments on this question, but feel free to edit the question to help generate high-quality responses.
[*] Other influential comedic writers can be found on Ranker