What are we trying to build?

Mine is the Wikipedia of the non-notable. A repository of knowledge which does not have to rely on citations for trustworthiness.


@gilles Not necessarily. On DIY, the best answers often rely on quoting from the National Electric Code or other reliable sources.

1 Like

Of course answers can rely on citations! That’s not specific to any particular site. But apart from the special case of Skeptics, the sites do not rely solely on citations. It’s ok to say “I tried this and it works”. It’s ok to say “in my experience …”. The difference with Wikipedia is that we don’t have to limit ourselves to knowledge that can be cited. This considerably broadens the body of knowledge that we can share.

I’ll amend my wording to make this clearer.


Mi Yodeya relies on citations – they’re not required, but they’re strongly encouraged. The additional value that the site brings is organizing information and providing good entry points – for any question of text or halacha or philosophy there are many relevant sources, and good answers summarize the key points from the most-relevant ones, point to others, and cite/link everything for further review. And all that’s wrapped up in the natural curiosity that led somebody to ask the question in the first place, whether it’s a practical matter of prayer, a whimsical question like whether T-Rex would be kosher for the time-traveler, or anything in between.

(I’ve now seen your update, but I’ll leave this here as an additional anecdatum. We also welcome practical-experience answers where those apply.)

1 Like

I think if we are really going to succeed in this project we really need to get intentional with EXACTLY what we want to do. And it needs to start even before requirements, figuring out in a couple of sentences our goal/mission then in a few bullet points the main objectives we have to achieve said goal.

Then our MVP requirements should branch from those bullet points. That way the work that we are all working on doesn’t lose sight of our goals.

At the same time as creating the bullet points of objectives we really need to define our core user(s)

this should give us the two main principles behind a product:

  • Who we want to be using our product(s)
  • Why they will want to use our product(s)

If we cant answer these two questions succinctly and if a large group of the core contributors can’t then we won’t succeed.

I’m here because I love the idea of contributing to creating a community of people, helping people on their journey, learning from others but also not dealing with all the politics and bs that SO has become known for.

I dont like how ‘closed’ SO has become for new people, how unclear/difficult it is to ask questions. I DONT like how PC insano it has become but im not here for that reason. Im here because I want to build a better community that thrives around asking questions. Not just to make SO2.0. When we ask questions in an environment that promotes creativity, openness and discussion I think it breeds ingenuity, community and human-ness. Its what we do best. Any time humanity has pushed itself forward its been through questions.

For me this is what Codidact could become. A place for questions. A place for answers. A place for community. Often I find the discussions had around a question to be the most valuable in SE - even though they are an afterthought IMO

It was actually @cellio story that drew me here in the first place. To me that is what SE has really missed the mark on this whole thing - diversity of opinion and people - coming together.


It might be a question that has to be asked after the question “What are we trying to build?” has been answered. But I think that the questions are interconnected:

How should the site evolve?

I’ve seen that people wanted the site to be “complete”, but am not sure what that means. StackExchange basically started with StackOverflow - “A site about computer stuff”. Over time, the community grew so large and the content became so broad that now there are dozens of more specialized sites (Software Engineering, Code Review, Graphics, Machine Learning, … and of course, all the non-computer stuff).

This should not be considered to be any sort of “proposal”, but only as a question: Is the goal to start with 170 specific, small sites that resemble the SE network sites, or are there plans to initially have sites with broader topics, and then have a process of fragmenting and specializing these when the need arises?

Although I’m not an expert in “community building”, I think that having an answer here might already be crucial to “bootstrapping” a new community: When the site starts with 170 sub-sites, it could be difficult to achieve the critical mass in any of them. To some extent, this problem can be alleviated by “seeding” the sites with the most prominent Q/As from their SE counterparts, as discussed in other threads. But this will not replace a community of people who are willing to actively contribute…

(If somebody thinks that this should be discussed separately, this post could be moved to another, more appropriate thread - similar to migrating a question from a “broader” site to a more specialized one :slight_smile: )

1 Like

Personally I think the focus at first should be around what do we want the community to look like. Maybe we create functionality to spin off ‘rooms’ where we write a framework that allows unlimited question ‘subjects’ and doesnt follow the same structure as SE - or maybe we dont.

I just think we need to focus on one thing at a time - and focus on the most basic, fundamental (but most important thing) first.

You mentioned it at the top. How should the site evolve. Is more strategy and implementation detail and comes later. Lets not worry about running before we even know how to walk or where we are walking to.

I don’t think we want to start with clones of 170 SE communities. I do think we want to start with some existing SE communities, ones that actively want to try an alternative to SE with an eye toward moving. Over time we should expect both more migrations of existing communities and proposals for new communities, which we’ll have to figure out how to handle at some point.

I’d like to see us start out with just a handful of communities from SE, ones that are willing to be beta testers and help us shape our platform. Those communities are likely looking at alternatives too, like BioStars and question2answer (what Physics Overflow uses), so we need to have a better value proposition.


This strikes a chord with me. My primary SE experience is in a relatively small community - Mi Yodeya. There, community really is an important aspect of what we’ve built. We’ve built friendships and projects together in the course of learning together. As you said, this aspect is an afterthought on SE, partly because SE is primarily optimized for SO, which is too massive to exist as a single community.

The site is optimized to invite questions and answers, specifically, with back-and-forth discussion half-heartedly enabled in comments, actively discouraged by policy, and pushed to a separate but linked chat platform. Now, I think that the clear emphasis on the primary content being on-topic and in conformance with the defined Q&A format is the core idea that makes SE distinct and valuable, and I’m not sure any platform could be valuable to me in the same way without something like that core feature. But on the other hand, I feel that the community we’ve built using the Q&A-optimized platform that SE offers could be even stronger on a platform that also optimizes for community-building, per se.

So, I would suggest that including socializing and free discussion as first-class features somehow could be an important differentiator from SE, particularly with respect to smaller communities around relatively niche subjects. This could include fully-integrated chatrooms, a chatroom automatically created and linked to each primary post, and/or a section of the site set up for free-form discussion and community-building, outside the strict Q&A format.


Wow - that reply made my heart sing!!!

This is exactly the kind of conversation we need. I completely resonate with this. Even in this tiny thread ive got 20 ideas racing for how we can solve these challenges and im sure im not the only one!

@Marco13 Can we do something to try and facilitate some more directed discussion around these points that might lead directly into some vision/purpose statements?

I still think its pretty foggy on what we are trying to do at Codidacts core.

But this is how great thing are made. A feeling that something is missing or can be made better.

By the community, for the community.


@cellio maybe you could compile a list of the most active existing communities that we would possibly want to seed/setup?

Almost like a sales list of people we could approach when we get get a bit further down the line with this?

We’ve started to discuss seeding in MVP: Data import. That discussion is primarily about the how. The who warrants a separate discussion.

1 Like

Thanks @mattjbrent, that’s an interesting perspective.

I do not agree with it. I don’t think the world needs another discussion platform. If you want discussion, what’s wrong with Reddit? And human-ness is more of a thing that happens (and must be let happen) than a goal: if you want a hug, get off your computer.

What drove me to Stack Exchange (initially Stack Overflow) in the first place was in part the lack of discussion. (There’s chat but it stays out of the way.) It was all about building a place where you can find answers right below the question, and not on page 27 of a thread in a message that’s incomprehensible out of context. Being part of a community came later — it started when I joined a beta site where I was one of the top users and got involved in curation.

But I don’t think our points of view are incompatible! It’s perfectly fine if discussion exists. As long as the answers can be found below the question, as long as I can ignore the discussions, I’m happy. A vast majority of Wikipedia visitors don’t look at talk pages. A vast majority of Stack Exchange visitors don’t look at chat and don’t pay much attention to comments.

Who we want to be using our product(s)

Everyone who can read. Eventually. (Catering to illiterate people here is beyond my imagination horizon.)

Why they will want to use our product(s)

To find knowledge that they can’t find elsewhere. And more for a small minority, but for the vast majority, it’s the knowledge.


Discussion: enabled but non-invasive. Comments should be collapsible, arguably threaded, or on a separate “panel” in the page (I don’t know the right terminology, but I mean something like those in-page “tabs” that change the view without forcing a full reload). By default they’re out of the way but you can easily see that they exist and can easily view them.


We’ve been discussing comments at MVP Proposal: Requests for Clarifications and Feedback


We’re all here because we’re dissatisfied with Stack Exchange. But are we all dissatisfied about the same things?

Excellent question. Reflection on this is important for the other excellent question @gilles raised about why other extant QA software won’t do; and when formulating an MVP.

Objections to SE/SO/etc could fall into several buckets, such as (with examples, not necessarily my views):

  • governance - “I don’t like those in charge, and what they’re doing”
  • social - “I don’t like prevailing social norms w.r.t. to new users / poor questions / etc”
  • procedural - “I don’t like how one moderator can decide on things / I don’t like the process for complaints being handled”
  • mechanical - “I think questions should get multiple chances at the reopen queue / I think anonymous votes should have some weight or give/take rep”
  • technical - “I think the API should be more open to make automated tasks (eg spam hunting) easier / I think the stack software should be open source so we can run our own $TOPIC community”

Many of these are interlinked or overlapping; and some we will want to modify more than others.


To me, what keeps me coming back to SE is its signal to noise ratio. I love learning things, and SE is a wonderful platform for all sorts of people to share information. I dislike other places cough reddit cough because of how unfocused, opinionated, and flat out useless most of their content is. I’m not in SE for the community, despite how pleasant it is. I’m there because people talk about things that matter, and get to the point.

People need to feel welcome to make contributions. No one wants to get out of their comfort zone if it will only hurt them, so being nice is what allows good content to exist in the first place.

SE has that. Or at least it’s community has it. Lately the company doesnt seem to care much.

Of the objections @bertieb listed, I identify with all of them save procedural, but primarily with governance. Additionally, I’m not sure where animated ads and illegal relicensing would fall under, but thats on my list too.


I identify with all except ‘technical’ ^^

That would fall under governance. Btw, on Discord, we seem to have reached an agreement in that: (i) We won’t run ads at all[1] [2] [3] [4] [5], and (ii) unjust/illegal relicensing is an extremely easy problem to avoid [6][7].


Discussion and the like

I think it should be possible to have meta content for every item (but not required), and hidden by default so it does not clutter the main content.

Meta content of different kinds:

  • Read-only (votes, views, info from profile page, close status, revision history, etc.),

  • Threaded discussion of the content (similar to comments)

  • Seeking consensus on changing/building content (and/or formalised voting on decisions about it)

  • Off topic

  • Say hello to user (subject to blocking)

  • “See also” (like the hot network list)

There could be views that collect the same kind of meta content, say all current/open discussions for tag wikis.

The site

The slogan for the site could be: The place for professionals and learners alike

The site could have several corners that are qualitatively very different, not based on the same model (as Stack Exchange mostly is). I am thinking mostly of Stack Overflow here, but it could probably also apply to other facts-based sites (mathematics, English, physics, etc.)

I think the differentiation should be that we will (also) have a corner that is designed for learning, especially for beginners. One of the artefacts from that corner should be a set of FAQs (e.g. in Usenet style) that both serves that very purpose and also serves as a very quick and efficient introduction to a beginner (or new to it) in a field.

There is a huge untapped market here and the expectation (whether justified or not) of a place for beginners creates a lot of tension on Stack Overflow and also creates the image of Stack Overflow as a “toxic” place (unfair or not). A lot of contributors have a wish of teaching others as their motivation for contribution, including Jon Skeet.

The artefact from the normal Q&A is curated questions/answers, maintained/kept up to date and of publication quality (on the level of Wikipedia or better)

The site should not be free for all: The barrier for participation should be the willingness to put in an effort (those with the minimum-effort attitude are not welcome).

Possible corners (only the first two for MVP):

  • Knowledge repository

    Q&A as we know it

  • Human search engine / learning

    • Especially for beginners seeking advice, pointers to resources,
      drafting a real question that can be put in the Q&A corner, homework help, etc.

    • Content hidden from search engines

    • A safe place, without voting

    • An artefact could be FAQs, in the style of Usenet’s (before AOL destroyed it)

  • Chat

    For very quick interaction (meta type stuff is covered elsewhere)

  • Blog-type content


  • Shooting the breeze

  • Meta place

    Governance, feeds from the different sources, voting on big issues, moderator elections

  • Professional services market (yes, controversial)

    Support for micropayments.

  • User pages

    Including support for structured content (for instance, Trello-like)

(Meta: OK, I had to stop myself before it became too long. Take it as a set of ideas, rather than a well-developed whole.)


This intrigues me.

I’ve been mulling over something like this for quite a while - for those who know me best - and it’s kinda tough to really get a bead on what the “next” site would be.

So what will follow from me is an attempt at what I think I want to see in a future Q&A-oriented technical site.


We wish to become a reliable source of answers to complex questions across subject matters.


  • Reliability implies curation. Curation is vital. Being able to clean up the faff and get rid of the noise is just as important as having experts actually answering in the first place.
  • Complex questions are important to codify early on, since the “easy” stuff is already easy enough to find. A new Q&A community’s value-add doesn’t come in with answering what’s already been solved; it’s all about tackling the harder stuff.
  • Cross-subject implies that the Q&A platform will eventually not be limited to technical sites, but to all manner of sites. This is an attempt to bridge the gap for those sites looking for community.

In my head, everything else becomes part of “the how”. I’m sure there are some other MVP posts I can read up on and comment to the effect of to cover that aspect.