user289: Some of the best stack exchange sites can be brutal in how they deal with low quality questions and answers.

Low quality questions are shut down.
Low quality answers are voted down
People will either politely or curtly leave comments about low quality questions

And other other Buddhist places on the internet I've been on, sometimes being nice isn't as important as looking for implicit arrogance and setting people straight.  On the better sites, questions and answers are voted down because, say a programmer, doesn't really gain anything by telling someone they're stupid (or immoral!)-- vote down and move on. But (at least on other places on the internet I've been on) people act like they are racking up karma points for putting people that annoy them (put 'em their proper place, cut down those arrogant posters down to size, electronically wipe the smug smile off that better-than-you-know-it-all and really rack up the karma points for it!) 
Will our Buddhist beliefs make it easier or harder to pull of a high quality stack exchange site?

user199: One SE custom that gives me a tiny pause for thought is the reputation score. I confess I think I'm getting a wee bit attached to seeing it get higher :-)

user15: I think that Buddhism and right speech should make it easier for us to deal with ignorant or misguided comments/posts on this site. On any SE site, the point of downvoting, closing, and flagging is to help others, not to punish. On any SE site, you get the best out of people's ideas and contributions by encouraging and teaching them. We downvote questions when they are unclear or low-value, to encourage people to think before asking and to revise their questions. We close questions that are harmful to the community to protect others, and to set a standard for the site that everyone can see on the front page. We downvote answers that are unarguably wrong, to avoid newcomers thinking such answers represent mainstream belief or practice. And throughout all this, we explain sensitively why we do it, so that the user who has misstepped understands his mistake, and wishes to learn and participate further, which in turn helps him to observe right-speech (by not posting misleading answers or unhelpful questions).
Anyone familiar with the idea of "pushing down with one hand to lift up with the other" should have no trouble with dealing with other users sensitively even when doing apparently-negative actions like downvoting and flagging. As Sophie says, the tricky part is to remember that every username has behind it a person, with the same Buddha-nature as yourself, and the goal of all of us here is to help all people to realise that potential.
Speaking for myself, I find sites like this the easiest way to practise right speech. It may be easier in face-to-face conversations to remember that you're dealing with a human, but the immediacy also makes it much easier to lose your head, and speak hurtfully in anger or falsely in haste. Online, if you start to observe this tendency in your behaviour, it's much easier to step away and give yourself time to come up with a more helpful response.

user172: Stack Exchange is not a discussion forum.
I think it needs to be made clear to all visitors that Stack Exchange is not a discussion forum. And I don't think this should become a Buddhism discussion forum either. After all, there are plenty of those on the Internet. Dhamma Wheel and Dharma Wheel are ideal places to have long, extended discussions involving personal opinions and experiences on Buddhism.
Buddhism Stack Exchange should be the definitive site for authoritative, well-sourced answers to questions on Buddhism. 
A good Stack Exchange answer is typically accompanied by references to established sources. For Buddhism, these would include the Pali Tipitaka, the Sanskrit Tripitaka, Mahayana sutras, Prajna Paramita, and authoritative commentaries. 
Unsourced personal opinions and discussions belong in comments, not in answers! Again, the point of having a Stack Exchange site in the first place is rigorous Q&A. This place should not become yet another discussion forum.
I do think we need more moderators to raise awareness on this site regarding how Stack Exchange works. Sorry if this comes across as terse, but I don't see why typical forum-style posts should belong on Stack Exchange. I assure everyone it's nothing personal at all.

user43: What jumps at me is how most questions are pretty low-quality compared to other SE sites. On one hand, we can't expect the same level of rigour from an average person interested in Buddhism as from (say) a mathematician or Sci-Fi geek. On the other hand, it would be nice to see questions that:

Do not take up to 5 paragraphs of text,
Do not ask 3-4 questions at once,
Have done basic research by googling and reading Wikipedia,
Do not use question as a platform for asserting their political opinion,
Do not ask questions out of logical reflex but to get a useful answer,
Take care to phrase their question clearly and objectively.

I somewhat agree with the premise of the question, in that being Buddhist often correlates with having a low stress threshold which manifests as tendency to avoid direct confrontation. In the interest of community though, we must overcome this weakness and step up our game to ensure high-quality content.

user253: I think a balance needs to be struck. We do not want to be too "brutal", otherwise it can be hard for new people to join and participate, since you need a certain amount of reputation points to do so. 
For example, on sites like Stack Overflow, their base of experts who are more heavy-handed with their critiques has grown to a point where it creates an issue for a lot of newcomers: you need reputation points to ask questions, and if you don't ask the "best" questions (most beginners probably won't, which is why they are learning), then you get downvoted, which negatively affects your reputation, which inhibits your ability to participate further. Full disclosure--this is the predicament that my colleagues and I find ourselves in with that site and others like it.
Buddhism is not like programming, it is a religion. It is not a meritocracy (whether any field is can be a discussion somewhere else). It is not just for people who can argue the best, there are no exams, and no grades. It is no secret that English-speaking Buddhism can seem too proof-based, since we still take western scholasticism for granted. This can be quite a turn-off to lay Buddhists who do not take that approach for granted, so we should tread carefully, especially questions that have to do with the cultural aspects of Buddhism that may or may not be taken from any one sutra, but is nonetheless a part of how many people practice Buddhism.
Also, "Right Speech" shouldn't be invoked just because someone doesn't like a critique. I think if that should be a "flag", the explanation of why a comment is flagged as such should be very specific.
Here are my personal observations: People are less "nice" when discussing topics on the internet in general, and topics like Buddhism are no exception. So I do not think that our standards for a community have to be much different from others: we don't always have to avoid critiquing someone, but we should respect the fact that were are talking to other humans, not boxes on a screen. 

289: <p>Some of the best stack exchange sites can be brutal in how they deal with low quality questions and answers.</p>

<ul>
<li><p>Low quality questions are shut down.</p></li>
<li><p>Low quality answers are voted down</p></li>
<li><p>People will either politely or curtly leave comments about low quality questions</p></li>
</ul>

<p>And other other Buddhist places on the internet I've been on, sometimes being nice isn't as important as looking for implicit arrogance and setting people straight.  On the better sites, questions and answers are voted down because, say a programmer, doesn't really gain anything by telling someone they're stupid (or immoral!)-- vote down and move on. But (at least on other places on the internet I've been on) people act like they are racking up karma points for putting people that annoy them (put 'em their proper place, cut down those arrogant posters down to size, electronically wipe the smug smile off that better-than-you-know-it-all and really rack up the karma points for it!) </p>

<p>Will our Buddhist beliefs make it easier or harder to pull of a high quality stack exchange site?</p>
 199: <p>One SE custom that gives me a tiny pause for thought is the reputation score. I confess I think I'm getting a wee bit attached to seeing it get higher :-)</p>
 15: <p>I think that Buddhism and right speech should make it easier for us to deal with ignorant or misguided comments/posts on this site. On any SE site, the point of downvoting, closing, and flagging is to help others, not to punish. On any SE site, you get the best out of people's ideas and contributions by encouraging and teaching them. We downvote questions when they are unclear or low-value, to encourage people to think before asking and to revise their questions. We close questions that are harmful to the community to protect others, and to set a standard for the site that everyone can see on the front page. We downvote answers that are unarguably wrong, to avoid newcomers thinking such answers represent mainstream belief or practice. And throughout all this, we explain sensitively why we do it, so that the user who has misstepped understands his mistake, and wishes to learn and participate further, which in turn helps him to observe right-speech (by not posting misleading answers or unhelpful questions).</p>

<p>Anyone familiar with the idea of "pushing down with one hand to lift up with the other" should have no trouble with dealing with other users sensitively even when doing apparently-negative actions like downvoting and flagging. As Sophie says, the tricky part is to remember that every username has behind it a person, with the same Buddha-nature as yourself, and the goal of all of us here is to help all people to realise that potential.</p>

<p>Speaking for myself, I find sites like this the easiest way to practise right speech. It may be easier in face-to-face conversations to remember that you're dealing with a human, but the immediacy also makes it much easier to lose your head, and speak hurtfully in anger or falsely in haste. Online, if you start to observe this tendency in your behaviour, it's much easier to step away and give yourself time to come up with a more helpful response.</p>
 172: <p><strong>Stack Exchange is not a discussion forum.</strong></p>

<p>I think it needs to be made clear to all visitors that Stack Exchange is not a discussion forum. And I don't think this should become a Buddhism discussion forum either. After all, there are plenty of those on the Internet. <a href="http://www.dhammawheel.com" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Dhamma Wheel</a> and <a href="http://www.dharmawheel.net" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Dharma Wheel</a> are ideal places to have long, extended discussions involving personal opinions and experiences on Buddhism.</p>

<p><strong>Buddhism Stack Exchange should be the definitive site for authoritative, well-sourced answers to questions on Buddhism</strong>. </p>

<p>A good Stack Exchange answer is typically accompanied by references to established sources. For Buddhism, these would include the Pali Tipitaka, the Sanskrit Tripitaka, Mahayana sutras, Prajna Paramita, and authoritative commentaries. </p>

<p>Unsourced personal opinions and discussions belong in comments, not in answers! Again, the point of having a Stack Exchange site in the first place is rigorous Q&amp;A. This place should not become yet another discussion forum.</p>

<p>I do think we need more moderators to raise awareness on this site regarding how Stack Exchange works. Sorry if this comes across as terse, but I don't see why typical forum-style posts should belong on Stack Exchange. I assure everyone it's nothing personal at all.</p>
 43: <p>What jumps at me is how most questions are pretty low-quality compared to other SE sites. On one hand, we can't expect the same level of rigour from an average person interested in Buddhism as from (say) a mathematician or Sci-Fi geek. On the other hand, it would be nice to see questions that:</p>

<ul>
<li>Do not take up to 5 paragraphs of text,</li>
<li>Do not ask 3-4 questions at once,</li>
<li>Have done basic research by googling and reading Wikipedia,</li>
<li>Do not use question as a platform for asserting their political opinion,</li>
<li>Do not ask questions out of logical reflex but to get a useful answer,</li>
<li>Take care to phrase their question clearly and objectively.</li>
</ul>

<p>I somewhat agree with the premise of the question, in that being Buddhist often correlates with having a low stress threshold which manifests as tendency to avoid direct confrontation. In the interest of community though, we must overcome this weakness and step up our game to ensure high-quality content.</p>
 253: <p>I think a balance needs to be struck. We do not want to be too "brutal", otherwise it can be hard for new people to join and participate, since you need a certain amount of reputation points to do so. </p>

<p>For example, on sites like Stack Overflow, their base of experts who are more heavy-handed with their critiques has grown to a point where it creates an issue for a lot of newcomers: you need reputation points to ask questions, and if you don't ask the "best" questions (most beginners probably won't, which is why they are learning), then you get downvoted, which negatively affects your reputation, which inhibits your ability to participate further. Full disclosure--this is the predicament that my colleagues and I find ourselves in with that site and others like it.</p>

<p>Buddhism is not like programming, it is a religion. It is not a meritocracy (whether any field is can be a discussion somewhere else). It is not just for people who can argue the best, there are no exams, and no grades. It is no secret that English-speaking Buddhism can seem too proof-based, since we still take western scholasticism for granted. This can be quite a turn-off to lay Buddhists who do not take that approach for granted, so we should tread carefully, especially questions that have to do with the cultural aspects of Buddhism that may or may not be taken from any one sutra, but is nonetheless a part of how many people practice Buddhism.</p>

<p>Also, "Right Speech" shouldn't be invoked just because someone doesn't like a critique. I think if that should be a "flag", the explanation of why a comment is flagged as such should be very specific.</p>

<p>Here are my personal observations: People are less "nice" when discussing topics on the internet in general, and topics like Buddhism are no exception. So I do not think that our standards for a community have to be much different from others: we don't always have to avoid critiquing someone, but we should respect the fact that were are talking to other humans, not boxes on a screen. </p>
