My stackoverflow question was closed so here's a blog post about CoreWCF

Stackoverflow is no longer a Q&A site. It's trying to become a curated information source. Like wikipedia or the kind of thing you'd train AI with. As such it isn't great for answering question any more.

Another old problem was notable users. There was a guy famous for his presence and answering tons of question (I forgot his name). He was actually pretty good but... he was not an expert in all the areas he'd participate in, but his answers would sometimes win because he was articulate, not because it was the best.

Likely this summarises the shift:

https://openai.com/index/api-partnership-with-stack-overflow...

On the contrary, the people trying to keep the site a useful, curated source of information (rather than a dumping ground for people trying to get others to debug code for them) are on balance strongly against every kind of AI involvement with the site, including the use of that information for training AI (although we can't do anything about that). We curate a repository of high quality questions and answer (which is a "Q&A site", and is specifically what the site is supposed to be, so as to distinguish it from traditional forums) exactly because we want it to be a place where you get information from humans that reflects original human insight.

Which is also the reason for the ban on GenAI content (https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/421831).

The primary question is that who is deciding that what kind of information is curated and whether the arguments have been properly voted, and the process itself is transparent.

I guess nobody could disagree, that it benefits all if the site is useful and whether the content is factually correct and up-to-date and follows Q&A format.

I admit, I haven't followed what happens closely for some time, but here is some older example post: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/389834/statement-fr...

> The primary question is that who is deciding that what kind of information is curated and whether the arguments have been properly voted, and the process itself is transparent.

You already seem aware of the existence of the meta site - which contains reams of useful information and prior discussion and explanation of policy - so I assume you are simply complaining about others disagreeing with you, rather than genuinely wondering.

Instead of linking how the process is transparent, you chose to attack me. I guess it hasn't changed then.

I am not attacking you; I am questioning your bona fides. I didn't link you because you have already demonstrated awareness of the only reasonable links to give you in context.