In chat it was brought up, that the site tends to become political. While I don't think that's the case I may overlook the things, so I ask how the community stands towards it. Also, how should we react against politics and advertisement towards OSS or holy wars between OSS and Free Software (or what else can come up) if it happens?

  • Why s/religous/political/? – user114 Jun 29 '15 at 14:30
  • @Tichodroma Because the issue isn't religious, it's 100% politics. – Zizouz212 Jun 29 '15 at 14:30
  • @Tichodroma: No reason. Should I change to 'How to avoid political/religious wars?' – Mnementh Jun 29 '15 at 14:31
  • @Zizouz212: The lines are blurry. Strong political attitudes can be seen as religious. – Mnementh Jun 29 '15 at 14:32
  • I disagree. While most of those who lean to a specific party will of course claim reason and best intentions, not all of their arguments can be grounded on facts. There is a lot of believe in the whole topic of, for example, Free Software vs. Open Source (from both sides). Parties use politics to advance their point but the do this because they base themselves on believes. – user114 Jun 29 '15 at 14:33

Like I've also said earlier (not sure if it was in meta or chat), having these wars will get us nowhere, and they'll never end. There's a couple things that I'm very critical about:

  • Our site name is biased.

Admit it. We can't be 100% accepting of the open concepts if we don't create a neutral environment from the start, elements that should make a part of our site will be discouraged, and gradually erased from existence. We need a new site name, but before we can ever do that, we need to make sure that we finalize our scope. We include Free Software and Open Source as our site name for example, what will happen to Creative Commons?

Our site scope has changed, drastically. We're including many things. Perhaps, we need to take a new look as to how to promote/market/approach the site?

  • If we accept support from one organization, we accept all, or we accept none

This is already in practice. Many organizations, especially charitable ones, don't accept government donations, because they do not want themselves to be influenced. We need to employ the same concept here. Accept one, accept all. Accept zero, accept none.

If we want to start creating a neutral site, I believe we should look at what things have in common with each other, and create a site around that. That could mean broadening the scope slightly, or even narrowing it down. That's for a separate meta post.


As a community, we should be against political wars.

Guidelines for avoiding political wars:

  • Don't start political wars
  • Don't participate in political wars
  • If you find yourself starting, or participating in a political war anyway, cease doing so immediately
  • Vote to close political war-mongering as well as war-waging

I realize this sounds satirical, but I'm rather serious. Don't do it, and crack down on it. Refuse to be any part of it, refuse to have any part of it.

  • 1
    What about political discussions? – user114 Jun 29 '15 at 15:06
  • @user114 if you want to have a political discussion, chat is the place for it (the keyword being discussion), but do so at your own risk. – RubberDuck Aug 9 '15 at 11:56

I think, so far we avoided holy wars or political stuff mostly. I may not see it though.

If it happens I think answers that push one particular opinion should be downvoted and questions should be closed as opinion-based.

  • 2
    The strong opposition against including Free Software into the site name can be taken as a sign for a political bias of the site. – user114 Jun 29 '15 at 14:11
  • 3
    @Tichodrama: The top-voted answer to the question about including Free Software into description argues in favor of it: meta.opensource.stackexchange.com/a/58/55 – Mnementh Jun 29 '15 at 14:17
  • 1
    @Tichodroma It's not a political bias. Our scope is premature, and not finalized. Rather than attacking others through comments, start meaningful discussions. Adding Free Software to the site name would then discourage other segments. I agree, we need a neutral site name accepting of all elements that make this site – Zizouz212 Jun 29 '15 at 14:17
  • 1
    There are factual differences which should be discussed and should not be downvoted unless they are poorly worded or unsupported. I think the problem would be the way that things are put across (confrontational as opposed to discussion / "best" as opposed to "suited for this use case"). – trichoplax Jun 29 '15 at 14:20
  • @Zizouz212 What "segments" will be discouraged? BTW, if you want discussion, please join. – user114 Jun 29 '15 at 14:21
  • @Tichodroma I've responded to those – Zizouz212 Jun 29 '15 at 14:21
  • @Zizouz212 Good! – user114 Jun 29 '15 at 14:22

You must log in to answer this question.

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