The Fall of Stack Overflow
The Fall of Stack Overflow
Over the past one and a half years, Stack Overflow has lost around 50% of its traffic. This decline is similarly reflected in site usage, with approximately a 50% decrease in the number of questions and answers, as well as the number of votes these posts receive. The charts below show the usage repr...
Over the past one and a half years, Stack Overflow has lost around 50% of its traffic. This decline is similarly reflected in site usage, with approximately a 50% decrease in the number of questions and answers, as well as the number of votes these posts receive.
The charts below show the usage represented by a moving average of 49 days.
What happened?
You're viewing a single thread.
One aspect that I've always been unsure about, with Stack Overflow, and even more with sibling sites like Physics Stack Exchange or Cross Validated (stats and probability), is the voting system. In the physics and stats sites, for example, not rarely I saw answers that were accepted and upvoted but actually wrong. The point is that users can end up voting for something that looks right or useful, even if it isn't (probably less the case when it comes to programming?).
Now an obvious reply to this comment is "And how do you know they were wrong, and non-accepted ones right?". That's an excellent question – and that's exactly the point.
In the end the judge about what's correct is only you and your own logical reasoning. In my opinion this kind of sites should get rid of the voting or acceptance system, and simply list the answers, with useful comments and counter-comments under each. When it comes to questions about science and maths, truth is not determined by majority votes or by authorities, but by sound logic and experiment. That's the very basis from which science started. As Galileo put it:
But in the natural sciences, whose conclusions are true and necessary and have nothing to do with human will, one must take care not to place oneself in the defense of error; for here a thousand Demostheneses and a thousand Aristotles would be left in the lurch by every mediocre wit who happened to hit upon the truth for himself.
For example, at some point in history there was probably only one human being on earth who thought "the notion of simultaneity is circular". And at that time point that human being was right, while the majority who thought otherwise were wrong. Our current education system and sites like those reinforce the anti-scientific view that students should study and memorize what "experts" says, and that majorities dictate what's logically correct or not. As Gibson said (1964): "Do we, in our schools and colleges, foster the spirit of inquiry, of skepticism, of adventurous thinking, of acquiring experience and reflecting on it? Or do we place a premium on docility, giving major recognition to the ability of the student to return verbatim in examinations that which he has been fed?"
Alright sorry for the rant and tangent! I feel strongly about this situation.
But it’s not truth that is implied by voting.
Voting determines the sorting precedence. It’s a way of handling the fact that the site contains more content than a person can read. It’s a way of guiding what they should read first given limited time.
That's how I interpret it. My question is if it's generally interpreted that way, or misinterpreted.
I have to agree with this cause I have run into not a couple but many in recent years where when a proper answer is given, the accepted one despite being flawed or not recommended(Python 2->3 changes for example) anymore, it's still the highest voted one. And proper answer is in 3rd or 4th place. And it's where the old r/science shine cause you can properly ask some really specific domain question there and a qualified scientist might just pop up and answer you in detail. ( not that they can't be wrong, just highly unlikely in current understanding of those topics. )
Gibson was correct about much of our education system and Galileo was certainly right about the consequences of overvaluing mediocre wit that merely happened to well-timed. what neither of them had to content with, however, was the internet and how social media can combine the inability to reason critically and mediocre wit with crippling insecurities and anti-social personalities to what should be predictable results.
a least Gibson understood that a technocratic future didn’t imply that people’s lives would necessarily improve.
Science is based on peer review, which means that a scientific opinion will be accepted only if it can convince a sufficient number of other scientists. This is not too different from using an explicit voting system to rank answers.
All scientists accept the possibility that what they currently believe to be true may one day be considered false. Science does not pretend to describe only eternal truths. So it's not a problem if the most popular answer today becomes the least popular answer in the future, or vice versa.
Peer review, as the name says, is review, not "acceptance". At least in principle, its goal is to help you check whether the logic behind your analysis is sound and your experiments have no flaws. That's why one can find articles with completely antithetical results or theses, both peer-reviewed (and I'm not speaking of purchased pseudo peer-review). Unfortunately it has also become a misused political or business tool, that's for sure – see "impact factors", "h-indexes", and similar bulls**t.
Peer review is a general principle that goes beyond the formalities of journal publication.
Even if you never submit your work to a peer-reviewed journal, your scientific claims will be judged by a community of scientific peers. If your work is not accepted by your scientific peers, then you are not contributing to scientific knowledge.
For example, most homeopathic claims are never submitted to journals. They are nevertheless judged by the scientific community, and are not persuasive enough to be accepted as scientific knowledge.
You're simplifying the situation and dynamics of science too much.
If you submit or share a work that contains a logical or experimental error – it says "2+2=5" somewhere – then yes, your work is not accepted, it's wrong, and you should discard it too.
But many works have no (visible) logical flaws and present hypotheses within current experimental errors. They explore or propose, or start from, alternative theses. They may be pursued and considered by a minority, even a very small one, while the majority pursues something else. But this doesn't make them "rejected". In fact, theories followed by minorities periodically have breakthroughs and suddenly win the majority. This is a vital part of scientific progress. Except in the "2+2=5" case, it's a matter of majority/minority, but that does emphatically not mean acceptance/rejection.
On top of that, the relationship between "truth" and "majority" is even more fascinatingly complex. Let me give you an example.
Probably (this is just statistics from personal experience) the vast majority of physicists would tell you that "energy is conserved". A physicist specialized in general relativity, however, would point out that there's a difference between a conserved quantity (somewhat like a fluid) and a balanced quantity. And energy strictly speaking is balanced, not conserved. This fact, however, creates no tension: if you have a simple conversation – 30 min or a couple hours – with a physicist who stated that "energy is conserved", and you explain the precise difference, show the equations, examine references together etc, that physicist will understand the clarification and simply agree; no biggie. In situations where that physicist works, this results in little practical difference (but obviously there are situations where the difference is important.)
A guided tour through general relativity (see this discussion by Baez as a starting point, for example) will also convince a physicist who still insisted that energy is conserved even after the balance vs conservation difference was clarified. With energy, either "conservation" makes no sense, or if we want to force a sense, then it's false. (I myself have been on both sides of this dialogue.)
This shows a paradoxical situation: the majority may state something that's actually not true – but the majority itself would simply agree with this, if given the chance! This paradoxical discrepancy arises especially today owing to specialization and too little or too slow osmosis among the different specialities, plus excessive simplification in postgraduate education (they present approximate facts as exact). Large groups maintain some statements as facts simply because the more correct point of view is too slow to spread through their community. The energy claim is one example, there are others (thermodynamics and quantum theory have plenty). I think every physicist working in a specialized field is aware about a couple of such majority-vs-truth discrepancies. And this teaches humbleness, openness to reviewing one's beliefs, and reliance on logic, not "majorities".
Edit: a beautiful book by O'Connor & Weatherall, The Misinformation Age: How False Beliefs Spread, discusses this phenomenon and models of this phenomenon.