Max is a life enhancer for tech & entrepreneurship. Which seeks to blend both to build innovative products or services for the world that solves hard problems.
Plus a single misconception will affect livehood or endanger data integrity of users. Then won't this serve to be a better example as a learning experience for the person who uses that article or the writer?
Let the reader be the judge of that content and learn from the experience when they apply it. If by applying this concepts/code they got into trouble. They can quote that article and document what they had learnt in failing better
The writer of that original article could also write a response or update what they had learn after they had written the article. Sort of like self reflection on why do they think in writing the article that way.
Technical approach: Maybe a bit unrelated, but after thinking about this I wonder if a non-public peer review feature would be an option. A simple flag like "this article received change suggestions from peers" on the public side of things while the author can read the full feedback and decide how to react on it (in my experience, people usually aren't intentionally misleading their readers).
That might work if we are talking about in terms of the context in a academic research or wiki for a single source of truth but article writing doesn't work that way.
With that you increase the barrier of entry for potential new writers to start writing as a developer. Which i believe that's not what Dev.to want to do, but to provide a low barrier of entry for potential technical writers to build their brand as well to just document what they had done.
Let's face it, it takes a while to get use to writing. You won't start off as banger of viral article on your first day. Unless you had prior experience/training in doing it. Even that doesn't guarantee viewership, which comes from experience from publishing tons of articles or reading good technical articles or writing books.
Cause to me the article has to provide value be it to solve a very painful problem they had encountered when searching for it through Google or just offering a perspective on how to tackle future problems.
Passionate generalist conquering the web one project at a time. Whether authoring libraries for node, JS, PHP, or Rust, I am always on the lookout for better solutions to common problems.
Location
USA
Work
Lead Developer & Co-founder at corpscrypt, CTO at REtech
If by applying this concepts/code they got into trouble.
Thanks for clarifying. One of the problems with this current de facto reality is that this could lead to dev.to (or the complete forem concept, for that matter) being regarded as an untrusted source for research one day. As you can conclude from my original post, I am under the subjective impression that what I am talking about is a growing issue, not one that was around enough to be concerned about in the past.
That might work if we are talking about in terms of the context in a academic research or wiki for a single source of truth [...]
I think this serves as a good qualifier for the type of articles I am referring to as I still have the feeling we might not think about the exact same kind of content. There are many articles on dev.to that are written in a manner that can only be interpreted as if they would be based on exactly that premise. It is within this exact categorization of content where I see said problem.
With that you increase the barrier of entry for potential new writers to start writing as a developer
Yes, that is indeed the culprit, isn't it? Everything I theorize about here is a potential danger to the very charm of dev.to.
The last paragraphs seem to be centered around topics concerning quality and/or outreach. I just want to make clear that I by no means propose any intervention on such a level. For me this falls under the same umbrella as opinion or perspective and I personally reject any form of content government that is based on anything that can be considered subjective. It is obvious to me now that I should have spent more time defining the type of content I am "targeting" here.
Max is a life enhancer for tech & entrepreneurship. Which seeks to blend both to build innovative products or services for the world that solves hard problems.
One of the problems with this current de facto reality is that this could lead to dev.to (or the complete forem concept, for that matter) being regarded as an untrusted source for research one day
Sure if it's aiming towards a Academic level context and it is not instead, Dev.to is a developer community focus with a diverse range of people in different level of nationality, expertise or perspective.
In terms of untrusted source wise, i agree that your mileage my vary in dev.to. Personally, I doubt you place a 100% trust on the results of Google or Stackoverflow codes without doing your due dilligence. If you do that who am I to judge? I would just say whatever works for you. You just might not be the intented reader of that article that all, so you just move on. So let's agree to disagree this :)
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Let the reader be the judge of that content and learn from the experience when they apply it. If by applying this concepts/code they got into trouble. They can quote that article and document what they had learnt in failing better
The writer of that original article could also write a response or update what they had learn after they had written the article. Sort of like self reflection on why do they think in writing the article that way.
That might work if we are talking about in terms of the context in a academic research or wiki for a single source of truth but article writing doesn't work that way.
With that you increase the barrier of entry for potential new writers to start writing as a developer. Which i believe that's not what Dev.to want to do, but to provide a low barrier of entry for potential technical writers to build their brand as well to just document what they had done.
Let's face it, it takes a while to get use to writing. You won't start off as banger of viral article on your first day. Unless you had prior experience/training in doing it. Even that doesn't guarantee viewership, which comes from experience from publishing tons of articles or reading good technical articles or writing books.
Cause to me the article has to provide value be it to solve a very painful problem they had encountered when searching for it through Google or just offering a perspective on how to tackle future problems.
Thanks for clarifying. One of the problems with this current de facto reality is that this could lead to dev.to (or the complete forem concept, for that matter) being regarded as an untrusted source for research one day. As you can conclude from my original post, I am under the subjective impression that what I am talking about is a growing issue, not one that was around enough to be concerned about in the past.
I think this serves as a good qualifier for the type of articles I am referring to as I still have the feeling we might not think about the exact same kind of content. There are many articles on dev.to that are written in a manner that can only be interpreted as if they would be based on exactly that premise. It is within this exact categorization of content where I see said problem.
Yes, that is indeed the culprit, isn't it? Everything I theorize about here is a potential danger to the very charm of dev.to.
The last paragraphs seem to be centered around topics concerning quality and/or outreach. I just want to make clear that I by no means propose any intervention on such a level. For me this falls under the same umbrella as opinion or perspective and I personally reject any form of content government that is based on anything that can be considered subjective. It is obvious to me now that I should have spent more time defining the type of content I am "targeting" here.
Sure if it's aiming towards a Academic level context and it is not instead, Dev.to is a developer community focus with a diverse range of people in different level of nationality, expertise or perspective.
In terms of untrusted source wise, i agree that your mileage my vary in dev.to. Personally, I doubt you place a 100% trust on the results of Google or Stackoverflow codes without doing your due dilligence. If you do that who am I to judge? I would just say whatever works for you. You just might not be the intented reader of that article that all, so you just move on. So let's agree to disagree this :)