Return to Answer

###Good question

A few thoughts & observations I made over the years:

1. Voting on Meta questions and answers is often not done on strictly rational grounds. Two posts, in fact saying the same, can have opposite voting. Even in a time span of a few days.
2. Although we try to make things generic, questions and answers on meta are often strongly related to, and inspired by a specific case, subsequently quoted in situations, just a bit different, but because of that, totally incorrectly applied.
3. The highest voted post on Meta has (of now) 117 votes, which definitely says something about the support in the community. At the same time, we have roughly 155.000 registered users. Then to say a few votes, even if many, represents "the" opinion of the community is not correct. It gives an indication of the opinion of the people who post and vote on Meta. To make it a democratical truth would require a system we don't have.
4. Like anything in life, there are different ways to look at things. When literally taken, even the highest valued posts and opinions clash from time to time in practice. Even in real life law, similar is the case, and common sense should tell us what to decide.

Therefore: discussions on meta are definitely useful, if the posts are good, it gives us tools and arguments to look at what we are doing and to make our practice. They don't deliver consensus in the sense of a set of rules to blindly follow, and they should never replace common sense to make decisions in situations the posts were not meant for, or where different angles are applicable. Furthermore, the outcome of any of the posts is never an absolute truth that should be blindly applied year after year. Opinions and practice evolve over time.

That is actually how we should look at meta discussions.

Good question

A few thoughts & observations I made over the years:

1. Voting on Meta questions and answers is often not done on strictly rational grounds. Two posts, in fact saying the same, can have opposite voting. Even in a time span of a few days.
2. Although we try to make things generic, questions and answers on meta are often strongly related to, and inspired by a specific case, subsequently quoted in situations, just a bit different, but because of that, totally incorrectly applied.
3. The highest voted post on Meta has (of now) 117 votes, which definitely says something about the support in the community. At the same time, we have roughly 155.000 registered users. Then to say a few votes, even if many, represents "the" opinion of the community is not correct. It gives an indication of the opinion of the people who post and vote on Meta. To make it a democratical truth would require a system we don't have.
4. Like anything in life, there are different ways to look at things. When literally taken, even the highest valued posts and opinions clash from time to time in practice. Even in real life law, similar is the case, and common sense should tell us what to decide.

Therefore: discussions on meta are definitely useful, if the posts are good, it gives us tools and arguments to look at what we are doing and to make our practice. They don't deliver consensus in the sense of a set of rules to blindly follow, and they should never replace common sense to make decisions in situations the posts were not meant for, or where different angles are applicable. Furthermore, the outcome of any of the posts is never an absolute truth that should be blindly applied year after year. Opinions and practice evolve over time.

That is actually how we should look at meta discussions.

###Good question

A few thoughts & observations I made over the years:

1. Voting on Meta questions and answers is often not done on strictly rational grounds. Two posts, in fact saying the same, can have opposite voting. Even in a time span of a few days.
2. Although we try to make things generic, questions and answers on meta are often strongly related to, and inspired by a specific case, subsequently quoted in situations, just a bit different, but because of that, totally incorrectly applied.
3. The highest voted post on Meta has (of now) 117 votes, which definitely sais something about the support in the community. At the same time, we have roughly 155.000 registred users. Then to say a few votes, even if many, represents "the" opinion of the community is not correct. It gives an indication of the opinion of the people who post and vote on Meta. To make it a democratical truth would require a system we don't have.
4. Like anything in life, there are different ways to look at things. When literally taken, even the highest valued posts and opinions clash from time to time in practice. Even in real life law, similar is the case, and common sense should tell us what to decide.

Therefore: discussions on meta are definitely useful, if the posts are good, it gives us tools and arguments to look at what we are doing and to make our practice. They don't deliver consensus in the sense of a set of rules to blindly follow, and they should never replace common sense to make decisions in situations the posts were not meant for, or where different angles are applicable. Furthermore, the outcome of any of the posts is never an absolute truth that should be blindly applied year after year. Opinions and practice evolve over time.

That is actually how we should look at meta discussions.

###Good question

A few thoughts & observations I made over the years:

1. Voting on Meta questions and answers is often not done on strictly rational grounds. Two posts, in fact saying the same, can have opposite voting. Even in a time span of a few days.
2. Although we try to make things generic, questions and answers on meta are often strongly related to, and inspired by a specific case, subsequently quoted in situations, just a bit different, but because of that, totally incorrectly applied.
3. The highest voted post on Meta has (of now) 117 votes, which definitely says something about the support in the community. At the same time, we have roughly 155.000 registered users. Then to say a few votes, even if many, represents "the" opinion of the community is not correct. It gives an indication of the opinion of the people who post and vote on Meta. To make it a democratical truth would require a system we don't have.
4. Like anything in life, there are different ways to look at things. When literally taken, even the highest valued posts and opinions clash from time to time in practice. Even in real life law, similar is the case, and common sense should tell us what to decide.

Therefore: discussions on meta are definitely useful, if the posts are good, it gives us tools and arguments to look at what we are doing and to make our practice. They don't deliver consensus in the sense of a set of rules to blindly follow, and they should never replace common sense to make decisions in situations the posts were not meant for, or where different angles are applicable. Furthermore, the outcome of any of the posts is never an absolute truth that should be blindly applied year after year. Opinions and practice evolve over time.

That is actually how we should look at meta discussions.

###Good question

A few thoughts & observations I made over the years:

1. Voting on Meta questions and answers is often not done on strictly rational grounds. Two posts, in fact saying the same, can have opposite voting. Even in a time span of a few days.
2. Although we try to make things generic, questions and answers on meta are often strongly related to, and inspired by a specific case, subsequently quoted in situations, just a bit different, but because of that, totally incorrectly applied.
3. The highest voted post on Meta has (of now) 117 votes, which definitely sais something about the support in the community. At the same time, we have roughly 155.000 registred users. Then to say a few votes, even if many, represents "the" opinion of the community is not correct. It gives an indication of the opinion of the people who post and vote on Meta. To make it a democratical truth would require a system we don't have.
4. Like anything in life, there are different ways to look at things. When literally taken, even the highest valued posts and opinions clash from time to time in practice. Even in real life law, similar is the case, and common sense should tell us what to decide.

Therefore: discussions on meta are definitely useful, if the posts are good, it gives us tools and arguments to look at what we are doing and to make our practice. They should however never replace common sense to make decisions in situations the posts were not meant for, or where different angles are applicable. Furthermore, the outcome of any of the posts is never an absolute truth that should be blindly applied year after year. Opinions and practice evolve over time.

That is actually how we should look at meta discussions.

###Good question

A few thoughts & observations I made over the years:

1. Voting on Meta questions and answers is often not done on strictly rational grounds. Two posts, in fact saying the same, can have opposite voting. Even in a time span of a few days.
2. Although we try to make things generic, questions and answers on meta are often strongly related to, and inspired by a specific case, subsequently quoted in situations, just a bit different, but because of that, totally incorrectly applied.
3. The highest voted post on Meta has (of now) 117 votes, which definitely sais something about the support in the community. At the same time, we have roughly 155.000 registred users. Then to say a few votes, even if many, represents "the" opinion of the community is not correct. It gives an indication of the opinion of the people who post and vote on Meta. To make it a democratical truth would require a system we don't have.
4. Like anything in life, there are different ways to look at things. When literally taken, even the highest valued posts and opinions clash from time to time in practice. Even in real life law, similar is the case, and common sense should tell us what to decide.

Therefore: discussions on meta are definitely useful, if the posts are good, it gives us tools and arguments to look at what we are doing and to make our practice. They don't deliver consensus in the sense of a set of rules to blindly follow, and they should never replace common sense to make decisions in situations the posts were not meant for, or where different angles are applicable. Furthermore, the outcome of any of the posts is never an absolute truth that should be blindly applied year after year. Opinions and practice evolve over time.

That is actually how we should look at meta discussions.