user199: I commented here that we may need to be open to the possibility that Buddhism in general (as opposed to the more restricted "Buddhist Studies" or "Buddhology") may be unsuited to the SE style of forum. I think part of what was niggling me became clearer this morning -- namely, that while many online Buddhist forums can act as some kind of online sangha, the nature of SE (Q&A, not discussion and chat) means that it cannot.
I don't know if that means the whole notion of buddhism.SE is ill-founded, but I just thought I'd raise the point. At very least it's probably a useful thing for newbies to be aware of, so as to set expectations. I already feel as if I'm beginning to "get to know" a few of the regulars here, and I like that. But I suspect it's something that users need to be aware is at most a side-effect of contributing and if they're looking for an e-sangha experience, they need to look for something in addition to SE.
Yea? No? Shuddup?

user289: Technically, the Sangha is the community of the ordained monks and nuns. People have just started to use the word to mean Buddhists in general.
I think what Buddhism.SE isn't is an institution (like the sanghas with buildings and administrators), in the sense of an institution that can hand out official rulings on anything, which I think a lot of people secretly want.
And in a lot of traditions, what we official are supposed to want is a teacher with the dharma transmission, someone who is an accomplished yogi and enlightened, and so on. Nothing stopping from those people from answering, but there is nothing in an SE system to put those sort of teachers answers on top. 
I can't count the number of times I've read a Buddhist book that admonished me about picking a good guru and being wary of all those other teacher or trying to rely on one's own wits.
Anyhow, for me that is fine, and if people do want to find out more about whose answering, they can always follow the profile links.

user143: I definitely get a community feel here. I've asked many questions and each one has been given thoughtful consideration and useful answers. And for that I am appreciative and inspired to answer when appropriate or edit when needed. I notice lots of people helping to edit questions for others so they don't get closed down and that sort of thing. 
There is something very clean and efficient about actually not having endless discussion, debate, etc. The internet is full of those type of forums already for people who are energized by that. This is different and quite nice really.
I do think it would be useful to have a FAQ or introduction page of some sort to guide new users in how to make best use of Buddhism SE and avoid common misunderstandings before one is accustomed to the format. Is that something that might become available? 

user18: This is the approach I took in the beginning as a moderator; when we got posts that were too "Buddhist", it seemed we were expected to remind them that this is not a Buddhist site. Or, in the words of this post, "this is a Q&A web site, not a church".
But, after being on the receiving end of some textual abuse from irate answerers (e.g. being called "passive aggressive"), and doing a bit of digging and a bit of reflecting, I'm not so sure there isn't room for a bit of church-ness here.
While there are certain things we aren't designed for (pastoral therapy, for example), I'm not sure that we need take such a hard-line stance against being at least a bit Buddhist, and certainly against being communal. Here's some points to consider:
1. SE sites are considered communities. 
As it says on the stackexchange.com front page:

Expert communities.
Each of our 125 communities is built by people passionate about a focused topic.

So, at the very least, we have to remember that this is more than just an encyclopedia, it actually is a community for people passionate about Buddhism. Just as stackoverflow.com is a programming community, I would suggest that Buddhism.SE is a "Buddhism community" (though not, perhaps, a "Buddhist community"). 
2. SE sites are designed to provide answers to real-life problems.
As it says in the 2-minute tour:

Focus on questions about an actual problem you have faced.

So, again, the focus is on helping people with their problems; Christianity draws the line on giving pastoral advice, but I would argue that this has to do with the fact that such advice is more likely to be opinion-based in Christianity. In Buddhism, on the other hand, there is much advice that can be given drawing completely from expert sources.
For example, photography.SE is full of real-world problems about taking pictures, not just abstract theoretical questions. SO is primarily a resource for people actually writing programs. Etc. Buddhism.SE should, by analogy, be a place where people actually practicing (or teaching, studying, etc.) the teachings of Buddhism should be able to get expert (meaning text-based, not guru-based) answers to their practical problems.
3. Stack Exchange is about making the Internet a better place.
On the company information page, it says:

Stack Exchange
Make the Internet a better place to get expert answers to your questions.

With this in mind, we have to ask what we are really trying to do; I think I can at least answer that we are not trying to create a second Wikipedia. So what does that leave us besides a sangha? Granted, we are not meant to be primarily a discussion forum, but we have chat rooms where we can discuss to our hearts' content. 
What exactly would be the problem with allowing for a communal feel to the site? I think we've (read: I've) already managed to chase a few users away with our hard line; probably we've scared others from even posting in the first place. Look at the Judaism site's blurb:

Mi Yodeya is a question and answer site for those who base their lives on Jewish law and tradition and anyone interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required. 

Going by this, I would actually be in favour of site name like "Sangha" or something. No way I'd recommend "E-Sangha" (still have nightmares!) but just "Sangha"; we could be the Sangha of the Internet.
After all, a sangha is not about discussion or touchy-feely campfire pow wows; it's about getting support in our practice of the teachings of Buddhism, something that I think, on reflection, SE is uniquely designed for.

199: <p>I commented <a href="https://buddhism.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/124/right-speech-and-se-customs-are-buddhists-too-nice-for-an-se-site/128#comment207_128">here</a> that we may need to be open to the possibility that Buddhism in general (as opposed to the more restricted "Buddhist Studies" or "Buddhology") may be unsuited to the SE style of forum. I think part of what was niggling me became clearer this morning -- namely, that while many online Buddhist forums can act as some kind of online sangha, the nature of SE (Q&amp;A, not discussion and chat) means that it cannot.</p>

<p>I don't know if that means the whole notion of buddhism.SE is ill-founded, but I just thought I'd raise the point. At very least it's probably a useful thing for newbies to be aware of, so as to set expectations. I already feel as if I'm beginning to "get to know" a few of the regulars here, and I like that. But I suspect it's something that users need to be aware is at most a side-effect of contributing and if they're looking for an e-sangha experience, they need to look for something in addition to SE.</p>

<p>Yea? No? Shuddup?</p>
 289: <p>Technically, the Sangha is the community of the ordained monks and nuns. People have just started to use the word to mean Buddhists in general.</p>

<p>I think what Buddhism.SE isn't is an institution (like the sanghas with buildings and administrators), in the sense of an institution that can hand out official rulings on anything, which I think a lot of people secretly want.</p>

<p>And in a lot of traditions, what we official are supposed to want is a teacher with the dharma transmission, someone who is an accomplished yogi and enlightened, and so on. Nothing stopping from those people from answering, but there is nothing in an SE system to put those sort of teachers answers on top. </p>

<p>I can't count the number of times I've read a Buddhist book that admonished me about picking a good guru and being wary of all those other teacher or trying to rely on one's own wits.</p>

<p>Anyhow, for me that is fine, and if people do want to find out more about whose answering, they can always follow the profile links.</p>
 143: <p>I definitely get a community feel here. I've asked many questions and each one has been given thoughtful consideration and useful answers. And for that I am appreciative and inspired to answer when appropriate or edit when needed. I notice lots of people helping to edit questions for others so they don't get closed down and that sort of thing. </p>

<p>There is something very clean and efficient about actually not having endless discussion, debate, etc. The internet is full of those type of forums already for people who are energized by that. This is different and quite nice really.</p>

<p>I do think it would be useful to have a FAQ or introduction page of some sort to guide new users in how to make best use of Buddhism SE and avoid common misunderstandings before one is accustomed to the format. Is that something that might become available? </p>
 18: <p>This is the approach I took in the beginning as a moderator; when we got posts that were too "Buddhist", it seemed we were expected to remind them that this is not a Buddhist site. Or, in the words of <a href="https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/255/pastoral-advice-questions/258#258">this post</a>, "this is a Q&amp;A web site, not a church".</p>

<p>But, after being on the receiving end of some textual abuse from irate answerers (e.g. being called "passive aggressive"), and doing a bit of digging and a bit of reflecting, I'm not so sure there isn't room for a bit of church-ness here.</p>

<p>While there are certain things we aren't designed for (pastoral therapy, for example), I'm not sure that we need take such a hard-line stance against being at least a bit Buddhist, and certainly against being communal. Here's some points to consider:</p>

<h3>1. SE sites are considered communities. </h3>

<p>As it says on the stackexchange.com front page:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><strong>Expert communities.</strong>
  <br/>Each of our 125 communities is built by<br/> people passionate about a focused topic.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>So, at the very least, we have to remember that this is more than just an encyclopedia, it actually is a community for people passionate about Buddhism. Just as stackoverflow.com is a programming community, I would suggest that Buddhism.SE is a "Buddhism community" (though not, perhaps, a "Buddhist community"). </p>

<h3>2. SE sites are designed to provide answers to real-life problems.</h3>

<p>As it says in <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/tour">the 2-minute tour</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Focus on questions about an actual problem you have faced.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>So, again, the focus <em>is</em> on helping people with their problems; Christianity draws the line on giving pastoral advice, but I would argue that this has to do with the fact that such advice is more likely to be opinion-based in Christianity. In Buddhism, on the other hand, there is much advice that can be given drawing completely from expert sources.</p>

<p>For example, photography.SE is full of real-world problems about taking pictures, not just abstract theoretical questions. SO is primarily a resource for people actually writing programs. Etc. Buddhism.SE should, by analogy, be a place where people actually practicing (or teaching, studying, etc.) the teachings of Buddhism should be able to get expert (meaning text-based, not guru-based) answers to their practical problems.</p>

<h3>3. Stack Exchange is about making the Internet a better place.</h3>

<p>On <a href="http://careers.stackoverflow.com/company/stack-exchange">the company information</a> page, it says:</p>

<blockquote>
  <h1>Stack Exchange</h1>
  
  <p><em>Make the Internet a better place to get expert answers to your questions.</em></p>
</blockquote>

<p>With this in mind, we have to ask what we are really trying to do; I think I can at least answer that we are <strong><em>not</em></strong> trying to create a second Wikipedia. So what does that leave us besides a sangha? Granted, we are not meant to be primarily a discussion forum, but we have <a href="http://chat.stackexchange.com/">chat rooms</a> where we can discuss to our hearts' content. </p>

<p>What exactly would be the problem with allowing for a communal feel to the site? I think we've (read: I've) already managed to chase a few users away with our hard line; probably we've scared others from even posting in the first place. Look at the <a href="https://judaism.stackexchange.com/">Judaism site</a>'s blurb:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Mi Yodeya is a question and answer site for those who base their lives on Jewish law and tradition and anyone interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required. </p>
</blockquote>

<p>Going by this, I would actually be in favour of site name like "Sangha" or something. No way I'd recommend "E-Sangha" (still have nightmares!) but just "Sangha"; we could be the Sangha of the Internet.</p>

<p>After all, a sangha is not about discussion or touchy-feely campfire pow wows; it's about getting support in our practice of the teachings of Buddhism, something that I think, on reflection, SE is uniquely designed for.</p>
