Look, we are not going to tolerate rudeness. Full stop. And I want to guide people toward more constructive forms of commenting – asking questions versus asserting errors, using more “I” language, etc. “How do you account for (problem)?” is way more constructive than “that’s wrong because of (problem)”. “Could you add a source for X?” is way more constructive than “your unsupported claim is wrong”. “I’m having trouble understanding X; can you clarify?” is way better than “this is unclear” – and, by the way, leaves open the possibility that you’re the one who’s missing something, not the poster.
None of this conflicts with site quality. How we interact with users sets a tone very early, and I’ve seen it drive away people who would have been expert contributors, but they didn’t like the abrasive, sometimes-combative culture of a site. We don’t need to coddle people (and shouldn’t; it’s insulting), and we don’t need to accept poor content lest the author be upset by downvotes, but we do need to act with decency. There is a real human being on the other end of the words you write. Remember that.
As I write use cases for Codidact I’m finding lots of places where I want the software to inject guidance for users, long before another person would need to step in. Adding that guidance will be a (probably) never-ending task, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t start. And we will.
So we’re approaching the issue on two fronts: better guidance (and moderation when needed) for users who are trying to help but might be stumbling a little, and better guidance in the software to avert some problems before they happen.
Quality content and expert participation are not incompatible with treating people decently. This will be a point of distinction for Codidact. I for one will not tolerate rudeness and abrasiveness rooted in this false dichotomy, and I think I’m not alone in that.