-9
$\begingroup$

If you think a question is too broad or too complicated, you can comment on it and mention these points, however, by putting a question on hold you are eliminating the probability that someone might be interested in answering such broad questions in perhaps a clever way.

Given that this question isn't put on hold, my question is why eliminate the chance of someone coming up with very clever answers for difficult or broad questions?

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 17
    $\begingroup$ Relevant xkcd. $\endgroup$ – ACuriousMind Dec 31 '15 at 3:01
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ I think it plausible that, in many cases, putting a question on hold here is an act of mercy for those too fragile to handle genuine free speech. $\endgroup$ – Alfred Centauri Jan 1 '16 at 0:26
6
$\begingroup$

If you think a question is too broad or too complicated, you can comment on it and mention these points,

Normally we do. Supposing this is personal experience here, you were told why it was too broad.

however, by putting a question on hold you are eliminating the probability that someone might be interested in answering such broad questions in perhaps a clever way.

Yes, preventing an answer is exactly the point of closing such questions. The reasons for that can be found on the Help Center page on closed questions.

my question is why eliminate the chance of someone coming up with very clever answers for difficult or broad questions?

Not every question posed on this site is acceptable, we have limits on what types of questions we want here; see this Help Center page on acceptable questions and this Help Center page on unacceptable questions.



If you feel your question was inappropriately closed, the proper action is to post a question on this Meta site asking Why was my question closed? with an explanation as to why you think it was wrongly closed and should be reopened (please read this link carefully). Asking the question you have here doesn't help you any (as you can see by all the downvotes on your question and answer), as the old adage goes you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'm curious to understand what is to be disagreed with in this answer. $\endgroup$ – Kyle Kanos Dec 31 '15 at 13:12
10
$\begingroup$

No several different ways.

  • Stack Exchange is not a government, and doesn't have the power to keep you from saying anything, so there is no issue of censorship even possible. Go forth and say what you want certain that Stack Overflow won't stop you.

  • Freedom of speech does not imply that you have the freedom of someone else's channel with which to promote that speech. You can say what you want with your own resources, but you are not entitled to those of Stack Overflow unless they want to let you use them.

  • Freedom of speech has never guaranteed an audience. You don't get to force anyone to listen to your political manifest and you don't get to force anyone to read your questions.

  • This is a community and it has mores and traditions that have been developed by the users over time. These include limitations on what belongs here. You don't wander into someone club house and demand that they listen to you orate.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Stack Overflow? $\endgroup$ – John Duffield Dec 31 '15 at 11:45
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @JohnDuffield: dmckee was around when it was just SO and not "the SE network" that it is now. $\endgroup$ – Kyle Kanos Dec 31 '15 at 12:34
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Also, the company that runs all this is (currently) officially called "Stack Overflow", no longer "Stack Exchange". $\endgroup$ – David Z Dec 31 '15 at 13:22
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Ouch. I have to say though that I don't like this: "Stack Exchange is not a government, and doesn't have the power to keep you from saying anything, so there is no issue of censorship even possible". On that basis you could claim there's no censorship in physics at all. And I'm afraid I really don't agree. I know physicists who can't get their papers into a journal or even onto the arXiv, and they really aren't quacks peddling nonsense. $\endgroup$ – John Duffield Jan 2 '16 at 13:12

You must log in to answer this question.

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