Jump to content

Talk:Quora/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

More detail

According to the knowledge market article, a knowledge market is "A knowledge market is a mechanism for distributing knowledge resources. There are two views on knowledge and how knowledge markets can function. One view uses a legal construct of intellectual property to make knowledge a typical scarce resource, so the traditional commodity market mechanism can be applied directly to distribute it. An alternative model is based on treating knowledge as a public good and hence encouraging free sharing of knowledge. This is often referred to as attention economy. Currently there is no consensus among researchers on relative merits of these two approaches." The Quora article does not clarify which one it is. Is it an expert-driven system where people can suggest edits like Britannica? Or is it more like Wikipedia?

--Smkatz (talk) 17:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a really good observation. My opinion is that Quora is intended to be an expert-driven system. Users can suggest edits and questions are supposed to be fielded by experts. Unfortunately I don't think there is much vetting of expertise, you can only really flag as promotional or not. There is not a mechanism that I am aware of where you can be noted as an SME. I do think Quora intends to treat knowledge as a public good, it is very easy to share information there. What is your opinion about other answer question sites like LinkedIn, Yahoo answers, etc? I don't know that they have been categorized either.NCSS (talk) 20:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Misc

Fixed the ambiguity. Ludi317 (talk) 00:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Added Quora's Logo. Buddydavid (talk) 19:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Registration required?

The infobox says that registration is optional, but it seems to me that it is required in order to participate. Am I right? --Jaqen (talk) 09:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

YesLborodkin (talk) 09:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are right Jaqn. NCSS (talk) 19:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

That's why it is probably going to fail. I find my answers someplace else now. I hate when websites force people to sign in with their facebook, twitter etc accounts. 88.238.95.24 (talk) 01:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Competitors

Why are the competitors listed in the introduction? The competition probably warrants its own section.

Also, would LinkedIn not also be a competitor? NCSS (talk) 19:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't think LinkedIn has much of the Q&A component that online knowledge markets have. Facebook Questions might be a more relevant competition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.207.128.254 (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Flags

I flagged this article for structure as the sections do not read like paragraphs should (prose). the article seems to be well sourced, but it needs some help. NCSS (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Registration free and open?

User:Biblbroks thinks registration is not free, but still invite only. But visiting the site allows anyone with a Facebook or Twitter account to register and use the site. Looking for a source that states current status. --Pmsyyz (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I checked: http://www.quora.com/Getting-Started-on-Quora/Do-you-have-to-receive-an-invitation-to-use-Quora , users outside the US need an invitation, but users in the US can register. I'll change it. ToastIsTasty (talk) 19:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Registration has always been free. Invitations were required for all, even post-beta, but that ended by early 2011, maybe before. Invitations are required for users outside the U.S.A. in general, but there seem to be a few exceptions e.g. Germany, though even that isn't consistent, nor a stated company policy.
The company policy is that registration is free to all, and invitations are not required for users in the U.S.A., or at least as best as I can determine. I think the current wording in the Wikipedia article is accurate, at this point in time. --FeralOink (talk) 20:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Facebook version of Quora

Facebook version of Quora: facebook.com/pages/FaceAnswers/121984454540490 or FaceAnswers.com (redirected)

better domain names for Quora to increase the number of users and visits: FaceQuora.com and SocialQuora.com

.

I have noticed this feature, too, but I am not sure I would call it Quora exactly. NCSS (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Flags

This article needs to be rewritten to sound less like a sales promotional tool for Quora. My suspicion is that people related to the company are editing this page as flags are continually taken down with no real improvements. Please do not remove the flags until some significant improvement has been made. NCSS (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The tags are being removed repeatedly by User:Pmsyyz. I do not know if that person has a WP:COI problem or if he or she just does not like tags pointing out problems in an article. I agree that the tags cannot be removed without actual improvement to the article. Since multiple editors have added those tags and only one has removed them, I hope that Pmsyyz will respect WP:CONSENSUS. DreamGuy (talk) 19:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I think this article is written ok, except maybe for that quote in History. I just don't agree with the flags at the top of the article. Can you tell me why the article might need to reorganized or be rewritten entirely? If you don't provide suggestions or explanations for your assertions, don't be surprised if I remove the flags. --Pmsyyz (talk) 23:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Flags should be removed once improvements have been made or consensus has been reached. Do you have any COI issues to share with us Pmsyyz? This article needs to be rewritten to adhere to Wikipedia style guidelines. NCSS (talk) 21:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I just don't like ugly templates on Wikipedia articles if they aren't pointing out real problems. Flags should be removed if there is no evidence that flag suggested improvements are needed. Can you tell us any problem with the organization of this article? If not, I will remove that template. It appears to comply with Wikipedia:Layout that the template links to.--Pmsyyz (talk) 00:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
There are real problems, as pointed out by multiple editors. Do not remove the template until the article is fixed. See WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT for why your behavior is unacceptable. DreamGuy (talk) 01:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Where has anyone pointed out anything about the layout? --Pmsyyz (talk) 02:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm glad NCSS looked at the facts and removed the template, unlike DreamGuy. DreamGuy, please look at the article in the future instead of attacking others. --Pmsyyz (talk) 00:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Oops…

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: obsolete; the page is back at Quora. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Quora (websitite) → Quora (website)

So what needs to be done now? Can I help out somehow? NCSS (talk) 21:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Rewrite needed?

Does anyone think the article may need to be rewritten entirely to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards? I do not. --Pmsyyz (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

That section could be cleaned up, and is marked as such. But not the whole article, so I'm removing the template at the top that says the whole article might need to be rewritten. --Pmsyyz (talk) 17:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Help a newbie

Howdy,

I am a heavy Quora user and made a number of changes to this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quora&diff=prev&oldid=433226091 - give me feedback. Also tell me why Wikipedia has flagged the Quora links as 'self-published sources' - if this is truly policy (and your Verifiability policy does say that "personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources") and Quora is not an acceptable source, I expect Wikipedia will be irrelevant within 10 years.

Best, Mariuskempe (talk) 16:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, as much as I like the idea of Quora, much more I like the idea of Wikipedia. Therefore I must say that I expect that your stated opinion about your expectation will be irrelevant in matter of hours if not even less. Thanks for the contributions to the article. All the best, --biblbroks (talk) 01:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Very funny. The reason that Wikipedia is trusted by so many is verification. For a source to meet the standard it needs to have editorial oversight. Quora does not have that type of oversight. NCSS (talk) 00:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Reception section

The reception section seems very superfluous and self-serving. While it has references, the formatting and content are highly suspect. NCSS (talk) 21:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Quora Screen Capture - Summer 2011.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Quora Screen Capture - Summer 2011.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 04:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Flag

I think this article has been edited by people from Quora, because it seems like an ad. The article has vague phrasing about "growth" and only seems to cover positive topics. A thorough review of sourcing should also be done. NCSS (talk) 23:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree completely. As of March 2015 the article is being edited with all recent unfavorable press links taken out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.94.94 (talk) 19:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)‎

Regarding the "See Also"

In the see also section, currently there are only item Askville, I guess maybe we can also add some other related entries such as Stackoverflow, Yahoo_Answer. Hfevers (talk) 03:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

No need. There is a whole list in "Question and answer website", wikilinked from main text. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

On of my first actions would be to add a See Also section, as it is one of the best NPOV measures without edits, in my experience. G. Robert Shiplett 18:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Problems editing and with page rendering

On this date there were serious problems at the quora.com site including server errors and edit update errors with both IE and Firefox ; I can try later with Safari ; a Chrome user may wish to try. The tiny HV3 browser seems to do better rendering their pages.

I will see if I can add some balance if not NPOV to this article

G. Robert Shiplett 18:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Criticism section?

Article seriously needs a criticism section. Lot of privacy concerns on the web about Quora, and much discussion of how it represents a kind of privatisation of information, or knowledge vault merely for the initiated... Article reads like PR release for Quora. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.26.74 (talk) 09:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The article appears to be systematically censored by Quora-friendly or -paid parties. for instance, many recent edits were all systematically undone one at a time, seemingly by a bot. The article bears close watching for POV as it was badly out of date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.94.94 (talk) 15:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)‎
It is being kept out of date by edits with vague or no objections. Please review this version for neutrality, as it is an attempt to balance a seemingly entirely negative view of Quora in the press 2013-15, with claims by Marc Bodnick of Quora itself that claim the site is "5x to 15x" more used than public measurements suggest. It seems there is an active attempt to control this article to maintain a pretense that Quora is a major media property despite evidence it has failed to meet any of the hyped expectations of 2010-11 such as a "multibillion dollar" valuation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.94.94 (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)‎

Actually there is a privacy concern section. Could you be more specific on what you feel the article needs? NCSS (talk) 21:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Privacy concern section updated with recent EU regulation concerns, and contrasting versus features Facebook etc. have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.94.94 (talk) 15:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)‎
This section despite being heavily referenced is also being censored. There is seemingly no stated press release nor policy by Quora on how to respond to the EU legislation on right to be forgotten. Facebook etc are facing major problems in this regard so it is clearly an issue facing social media sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.94.94 (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)‎

Is http://www.sfgate.com/technology/businessinsider/article/Why-Quora-Is-Wikipedia-s-Worst-Nightmare-3817912.php relevant to this article? Toccata quarta (talk) 14:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Not especially relevant, I don't think. Jimmy Wales is an investor in Quora per his statements on Quora website content. Quora is HARDLY even close to Wikipedia, regardless of whether or not Jimmy Wales has any association with Quora. Also, that article was written in late August 2012. Since then, one of the Quora founders has departed, and there have been other changes. Now the new TechCrunch rumor du jour is that Quora is a Twitter competitor. It is no more a Twitter competitor than a Wikipedia competitor! That is not merely my personal opinion. Thank you for the URL though. I enjoyed looking at the photos, and reading the article, as I had not seen it before! --FeralOink (talk) 12:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Agreed 100% NCSS (talk) 22:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

article being kept in a 2010-11 promotional state

[1] is an account created simply to hide an IP, and may be a systematic attempt to censor critical updates to the article, keeping it out of date but favorable to Quora. The fact that a number of edits were all undone one at a time, and by an entirely new account seemingly created for this purpose, suggests a bot. The edits removed many references. Those edits are now consolidated and compressed somewhat with many new references, e.g. in privacy section, and the overall article refactored (so "reception" no longer exists with out of date references from 2010 without date markings). It is up to date as of this version of March 2.

This article was already on watch for being patrolled by conflicted or paid editors, who are clearly warned on top of this page not to censor it. Quora is notable for unverifiable claims like Quora traffic being "5x to 15x" what public measurement services can measure. That is now reflected explicitly in this article version [2], along with the balancing fact that there is no independent auditing or technique involved in such claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.94.94 (talk) 16:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)‎

Lack of press coverage in 2014-15 except for one unfavorable article, use of terms like "underachieve", "plateau", "failing", "near-unicorn", etc., all strongly suggest Quora is not the financial darling it once was.

I hope the above satisfies [[3]] or other Wikipedia:WikiProject_Private_Equity editor. There is no financial motive on my part to devalue Quora, and it would be helpful if others could disclos clearly if they have any reason to detract or promote it.

User:Wikidemon also reverted the article to a prior outdated pro-Quora POV without an attempt to retain even clearly relevant links, I have attempted to engage him on this [4] [5] and refocus effort constructively on sourcing criticisms in version that seem to have sources only in Quora itself. Most of the article, on financials etc. is already well sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.94.94 (talk) 19:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)‎

Please don't accuse editors of censorship. I'm not a "private equity" investor, I just put my name down a long time ago on that page hoping it would be a way to explore some editing opportunities. As it turns out, most projects on Wikipedia are all rather moribund, it turns out not to be a popular way for editors to organize around topics. If you'd like to propose some changes to the article could you please do so one at a time, preferably here, so we can discuss? Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 20:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, look, sorry, that obvious bot edit by Conaissance99 made me pretty suspicious, and it's not your fault.
I have vetted everything I could say was an opinion, though of course some things that seem obvious to any Quora user may not be to a non-user, etc., so please, go ahead and moderate any language you think remains that is a problem. I removed all the criticisms of the content that have sources only on Quora threads into a section below so we can debate what is adequate sourcing for each.
The article was in such sad shape there is really no way to fix it without a general refactor. If you wish to totally rewrite it from all the same 2013-15 sources that I used, retaining the critical tone of those sources in some context that fairly balances the 2010-11 hype and the valuations that no one seems to believe ("near-unicorn"?), go ahead. But the structure of the article was untenable, with "reception" listing stuff from 2010-11, "operations" including social media and content features, and so on. Someone has to refactor it from the new sources, if not me then you go ahead. But I'm addressing every concern that you raised, including with my pointed talk comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.94.94 (talk) 20:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)‎
The material you added is mostly not usable because it does not meet Wikipedia standards for weight, sourcing, tone, etc. Would you please revert it so we can go through changes one by one? There's probably enough there in the stable status quo version of the article, outdated though it may be, to bring things current. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Jimmy Wales is a private equity investor, in Quora, in fact. He isn't a member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Private_Equity. Just because Wikidemon is a member, does not mean that he is an investor, nor a Quora investor. If Jimmy Wales were editing the Wikipedia article about Quora, there would be a real COI concern. I haven't seen any evidence of that, though I haven't looked. In general, I don't think Quora merits a lengthy entry on Wikipedia, as it just isn't that notable. Quora questions and answers are NOT adequate NPOV references for controversies here. I recall that the original version of the article had many Quora links, mostly promotional, and will check to confirm whether or not they are still included.--FeralOink (talk) 04:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not going to revert or edit because I work for the company, but several statements are totally unverified and/or not written in accordance with NPOV. For instance...
No source
'As of 2015 the overwhelming majority of reviews of Quora come from Quora itself. Promotion from New York and Silicon Valley press seemed to have ceased in 2012-13. There was little external coverage even from India (which attracts more Quora users than any other country) nor in the US 2014-15 except one Fortune article (see below).' This is definitely untrue. See my links below which are just two examples.
Biased descriptions and speculation
'Furthermore, outlandish claims such as "5x to 15x" more users than public measurement services reflect, have been made by Marc Bodnick to investors. These claims are seemingly unverified; no company auditor has commented on the basis for them.' This is pretty nonsensical when many sites are relied on as the source about the size of their own userbase. There are no third party sources for things like Facebook user numbers. The additional flourish of language like "outlandish" is particularly not neutral. The NPOV way of saying this is to say, "In X year, representatives of the company claimed..." etc.
Factually incorrect
'Notably direct editorial supervision and control of all moderation being handed to Marc Bodnick, an investor and private equity venture capitalist, described as the site's "grown up"' See How does Quora moderation work, How are moderation and policy decisions made on Quora for examples. We shouldn't cite these in the article since they're primary sources, but they show how inaccurate the statement in the article is.
More editorializing and a BLP violation
'Bodnick has been prone to make odd unverifiable claims about the company, notably that public measurement services “significantly underestimate” Quora, and “are off by a factor of 5X to 15X" as of early 2014.' This is cited to TechCrunch, which does not call out the claims as odd, unverifiable or any other qualifier.
More uncited editorializing
'The validity of this valuation is hotly debated.' Uncited. Hotly debated by whom? This should be stated as speculation by the press. It's also a little odd, since basically all large valuations of private Internet companies are hotly debated.
Unreliable sources used for critical content
'Quora's unusual model has marked it out as unattractive to promoters' cited to a single blog post from 2011.
More editorializing and factual incorrectness
'seems to contain marginally notable people who do not, for instance, merit their own articles on Wikipedia' uncited and 'Most criticism and reviews of Quora are on Quora itself, as it appears few outside critics bothered to review it after 2011.' uncited as well. It's pretty funny too, since the author cites reviews of Quora from 2014 in his own edits. More examples of recent pieces [6] [7] and more in Google News if you look.
I think some of this material, like Quora being criticized for not publishing data on usage statistics like other companies, is pretty well-cited and NPOV. But a lot more of this reads like a hit piece, rather than a review based on a reasonable survey of source material. Ping @Tom Morris: as uninvolved admin who knows the subject matter. Steven Walling • talk 03:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Steven Walling: Am I uninvolved? I'm very active on Quora (on topics I'm interested in) and have been given Top Writer awards on there, which I've received gifts from Quora for. I don't work for them, but I'm probably more involved than your average admin. That said, involvement issues aside, while I haven't looked into all the points you make, I've looked at a few of the points and they do seem problematic. (Sadly, between a busy work and personal life, I haven't got much time to look into the details, but I'd encourage uninvolved editors and admins to take the issues StevenW raises seriously.) —Tom Morris (talk) 09:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Steven Walling, I just thought of an alternative to Tom Morris! Ping @Jayen466: as uninvolved admin who knows the subject matter.--FeralOink (talk) 04:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Given all this, and my own observations, I really think we need to revert all of the additions again, and if the newly arrived editor or anyone else wants to update the article they're free to follow more conventional BRD editing process, and trying to establish consensus (and more pertinently, propose relevant, properly sourced material of due weight and NPOV). They really don't seem to know the ropes here about article sourcing and composition, although they seem to be making a good faith attempt to listen and learn. With respect to content, I do think we need to avoid adding too much detail sourced to tech blogs and their ilk that grouses about privacy, features, indexing, funding valuations, etc. All that Silicon Valley navel gazing stuff isn't terribly edifying to the wider public, and it applies equally to almost any consumer tech site. If we filled each online company's article with complaints about how they implement moderation, we'd be overwhelming what actually makes each company notable and differentiates them from each other. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I think it's clearly consensus view to revert almost all of this. The part that I think is fair to retain is "Growth since 2011 has been extremely hard to determine as registrations are no longer revealed. Questions about readership on Quora itself go systematically and officially unanswered [20] as of early 2015." cited to sources 20-22. The other part that is fair is "Technical press has also been criticial of forcing users to sign up to read, forcing them to download the mobile app from its earliest buggiest versions even to read or answer online, led to criticism in the technical press that it was "alienating key users"" cited to GigaOm. Other than that I think it should be removed, though I'm still not going to edit directly because of my COI. Steven Walling • talk 00:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

(Personal attacks and legal claims removed - Wikidemon (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC))

POV tag

The article is still in this "promotional state" due to the removal of almost all criticisms, and still badly out of date. After almost a month, no one has bothered to actually address the issues raised by the initial editor who made seemingly several good-faith attempts to moderate language, dull pointed claims, reflect the actual language used in the press, and so on. He or she certainly has not been met with same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erantan (talk • contribs) 18:02, 30 March 2015‎ (UTC)

(deleted personal attacks, threats, legal accusations, disparagement; I also removed the POV tag - Wikidemon (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC))

Requesting edits for vandalism

[8] is vandalism and should be reverted, but I have a WP:FCOI 50.0.117.62 (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

checkY Done. Please note that it's best not to describe anything as vandalism that could simply be unsupported opinion, policy-violating allegation, untrue, or even trolling of a different nature. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the edit mentioned above was not vandalism, just a controversial statement. Altamel (talk) 04:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

How widely used is Quora by famous people?

Here's the list from Quora's own list of most famous. The list includes some obviously using ghostwriters such as politicians, and is clearly not of the same depth as say the users of Twitter or facebook or LinkedIn.

Authors

Business & Entrepreneurial

Comedian Scott Aukerman, Host of Comedy Bang! Bang!

Composers Nathan McCree, Hans Zimmer

Film Alfonso Cuarón. Francis Lawrence

Politics

Screenwriters Sean Hood, John August

Sports Jeremy Lin, Point Guard for the Houston Rockets, Pat Cash, Tennis player, Tiki Barber, former NY Giants Running Back — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.94.94 (talk) 22:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

This is all WP:OR, and therefore not usable - Wikidemon (talk) 22:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I will research the more notable celebrities. Democratic Canadite Hillary Clinton is about to answer questions on the site on the eighth. I will add these points once I find these citations. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 05:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, other than Obama (profile)), Clinton and Tim Kaine have both done multiple Q&A sessions. The full list of sessions is at https://www.quora.com/sessions Steven Walling • talk 06:43, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Religious Affiliation

Bearing in mind the large numbers of questions on Quora which appear to emanate from certain American cults, and also taking into account the censorship policies in use by the moderators which seem to favour these cults, would it not be appropriate in any account of the site to indicate whether or not its owners or censors admit to a religious affiliation? I ask because it seems that criticism of world wide major religions is permitted without question on Quora, but any comment on some of the cults is instantly redacted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drg40 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

This is a common criticism. The persons responsible for content moderation on Quora are very opinionated on some topics they moderate, and seem uninhibited about using that power.
Even major decisions like 3-month blocks, have absolutely no advertised appeals method, and no way to tell who complained or made the decision. It is not even possible to message those who made the decision anonymously, though Quora does have anonymous facilities for this.
So yes given all this, it is perfectly appropriate to delve into Marc Bodnick and Adam D'Angelo's views in particular, though not to excess. If they are widely reported to be involved in some political or social project, and views unfavorable to that project were to be censored, then that could deserve a mention. but it would be hard to source such a claim as no one covers Quora now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.94.94 (talk) 19:31 2 March 2015 (UTC)‎
Drg40 talk - Of what cults are you hinting? Don't just leave that dangling in the electronic air like that! Thank you, an uninitiated Wordreader (talk) 16:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Content Moderation

The article doesn't talk about content moderation in Quora and the features that it supports in the context of social Q&A such as rating answers, report and suggesting edits. Quora relies on people to moderate content and the article lacks information related to how it moderates it's content to keep up with the quality. MNApoorva (talk) 04:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Social operation of Quora

This article does not discuss the social operation of the site, ,mainly in the "Ask to Answer" functionality. It would be interesting to see since users will get credit for referrals what patterns helped evolve this feature and overall the site itself. Saifalharthi (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Some topics the article is missing

  • How Quora finds experts - AskToAnswer(A2A) - This is a feature where it takes a hybrid approach (Automatic and manual). Where in the manual phase users can recommend that question to other users that they see fit to answer it. (like Trump with questions about Russia)
  • Personalization - Each user has his/her own timeline of questions and answers about topics of interest. The platform lets the user choose topics after registration and curates the timeline to fit that.
  • Restructuring the article - The content under privacy concerns and anonymity concerns address the same issue. They will be merged under one topic - Anonymity concerns.
  • Quora as a knowledge sharing platform: The article currently has a very short introduction about what Quora is. It does not talk about the format of Quora, who can ask questions and who can answer them, and how the database in managed.

MNApoorva (talk) 21:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC) and Saifalharthi (talk)

allow ll Quora users

what dose "ll" mean here?? please write theses so that even non native english speakers can understand it fully. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.191.36.254 (talk) 11:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

about the radioactive spider it can be created by using the ?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.208.151.153 (talk • contribs)
I don't understand what either of you are saying. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 03:53, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Walled garden

Quora appears to be a kind of locked strongroom for informations. In a sense it's the opposite of the egalitarian and free Wikipedia. Recently on the web, a user's personal details have become a kind of currency. Subsequently Quora will only allow one to view "answers" (which are often incorrect anyway) if one is prepared to hand over one's details: in a sense, "pay" for the information with one's email address / personal attributes. If this were untrue, then why is it a prerequisite for one to be logged in in order to use the site? To many, Quora represents a walled garden of data. There has been much criticism of this aspect of the website, yet the article (which is like an advertisement for Quora) don't seem to address this in any way. 86.161.178.132 (talk) 18:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

IP user is correct about Quora's walled garden aspect. We need some NPOV sources to introduce that concern in the article. Eventually, I'll get around to looking for some, and will update the article accordingly. --FeralOink (talk) 04:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
one more on that. i had the same (very annoying) experience w/ quora. even though finally i gave up and never read the content they were suppose dto have, the quora kept sending emali-spam after that forever. had to put them on my spam list to get rid of it. a CRICICISM section is very much needed for this article indeed.

176.63.176.112 (talk) 15:04, 23 December 2016 (UTC).

I can confirm this "walled garden" demand for personal details in order to access the site. I accessed the site today (14/01/18) following a search result.

Not only did Quora demand that I log in with Facebook or Google +, but also demanded that I allow them access to my friend's list.

I was able to view one page. When I clicked on an internal link to expand an answer on the page I was presented with a "log in with.." screen. Vexxed I anyway agreed to proceed with G+, only to be presented with a second screen asking for access to my contacts list. When I declined I was unable to continue.

I then logged in with Facebook (maybe fb already grants access to my friend's list?) and immediately received a list of notifications and a feed which was location and age-related, i.e. targeted according to my personal details. A log out is possible by clicking on profile pic and finding the link on a list, but the site is then unavailable again.

It is one thing if a site has a controlled area only available to paying customers, as some newspapers. Equally so with registered users. However, to demand access to your personal details including people you know seems outrageous to me. Imagine if you tried to buy a magazine in a shop, only to be told you had to supply your name, address and dob and a list of your friends names and addresses before you could buy it.

I have recently had a similar experience with Pinterest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.31.121.254 (talk) 16:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Yet another trolling site

I suggest disregarding this as the person apparently has neither experience on Quora which is rich with valid information from a myriad of sources, nor understanding of the definition of "trolling". 50.236.74.34 (talk) 23:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC) Quora is just a glorified Yahoo Answers, that's all. 177.148.162.192 (talk) 21:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Unlike Yahoo answers, Quora with its need to register to participate has attracted a very large group of people who are not interested in (actual definition) trolling or flaming but rather to providing the best answer they are able. 50.236.74.34 (talk) 23:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Need justification for, or reclassification of Quora as not a high importance website

Quora is classified as "High" importance to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Websites . I don't know what the basis is for that classification.

I cannot think of any reason why Quora as a website would merit a classification of high importance. Most of Quora isn't even accessible to visitors who are not registered users. Quora is not among the most visited websites, not based on any web analytics provider, e.g. Quantcast, Alexa. Quora is not widely known in the media or by the general public as a high importance website. Quora is not known as a high importance website among web developers or by any other technical users, not that I am aware. Maybe I am wrong though. Any thoughts? I can also address this issue on the WikiProjects Websites page, although I might not get around to doing that for awhile.--FeralOink (talk) 05:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

As of now, 2015, it is a "unicorn" company, meaning one of about 100 tech-related companies that are worth more than $1 billion.It is the most successful Q&A site ever, and qualitatively different than anything that came before. As a website with sparse design and branding, and some real-time javascript updates, it is pretty good. But it is not primarily a website, it is an online media property. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Is there anything critical on the net at all, any search for quora naturally gets flooded by the same. A for profit "opinion and knowledge" aggregateor, paying its contributors as far as i can gather nothing. Is this totally acceptable now? my apology if comment is inappropriate, really looking for a way to combat things like this and pintrest, parasitic middlemen reducing the potential to noise ratio of the net, and trading on the rep of things like wikipedia. sorry ranting. Agree that being a big business venture/profit scam does not one notable make. -nonregistri dhortali — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.91.30.44 (talk) 21:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
That's kind of WP:NOT#FORUM-ish, isn't it? There are plenty of websites where you can embark on a campaign against user-generated content sites run for a profit, a singularly ironic act of luddism if there ever was one. Wikipedia, by contrast, is intended as an aggregator of encyclopedic knowledge, not a platform for protest. Good luck. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Do we have any kind of consensus here that Quora is not a high importance website? All the comments seem to confirm that. Wikidemon made the most positive comments about Quora, while acknowledging that it is not primarily a website, but rather, an online media property. I agree with that.--FeralOink (talk) 12:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

It's also a spamming website. To see the content, you have to get an account, then deal with an amount of email spam what would make LinkedIn blush. The fact that the page is locked from such a criticism should tell even the most brain-dead wikipedia admin that it's a fanboy site, and open to that criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3769:EE00:38AF:481F:74A9:CD95 (talk) 05:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I've been a member for several years, top writer, many followers. I have only had one scam messaging post in the last year, the nigeria scam - and I reported it. No email spam at all. Could your email spam be coincidental? Robert Walker (talk) 13:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Similarly I have been on Quora the past year and have answered about 600 questions and made over 2000 edits [read: discourse regarding an answer given]. I have never been sent an email by them nor have I encountered any nags. I did however, initially sign up with Facebook and checked the option to allow posting to it. Perhaps this eliminated the emails and nags.

As for the importance of the site I can say that I have a really hard time coming up with a question that has not been answered already and unlike Wikipedia where alternative view points and perspectives are struck down, often in what seems to be an arbitrary manner, one can examine many possible answers to a give query. In this way I get WAY more out of Quora than I do out of Wiki, across the board on all subjects. Where Wiki presents the formal definition to a given subject, which if a subject of controversy, can result in a rather one sided depiction, Quora allows for many perspectives to be voiced.

Regarding the collapsed answers and censorship: collapsed answers can be accessed by clicking on the note at the bottom of the list where it tells a user how many were collapsed. Even censored material is accessible. It is a better delivery of information as a whole than many models attempted. This is, of course, just my opinion.

50.236.74.34 (talk) 23:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Content criticisms and reviews

Omitted because Quora and Apple Store and Google Play, none of which are really valid sources"

ADWEEK is not a valid source? AdWeek? that's a POV claim. "the only list of criticisms"? Not exactly, the web is rife with complaints about Quora, but AdWeek not valid? This is beyond POV and COI, it is just censorship. Likely by Quora's own employees.

These are the only list of criticisms current as of March 2015. This list was in prior versions of the article that User:Wikidemon objected to:

Some general criticisms include:

  • lack of non-English-speaking users
  • crude, personality-not-policy-based, moderation, with lack of formal appeals or short term "cooling off" blocks like Wikipedia's
  • lack of dialogue between multiple competent scholars
    • no requirement to provide verifiable sources in answers, many heavily upvoted answers are just widely shared views
  • lack of any neutral board or other oversight to ensure systemic biases do not affect quality or diversity of answers
    • specifically, lack of any oversight over overt political censorship by key editorial personnel

Most of these appear to be scale problems. Wikipedia, for instance, only evolved an appeals and arbitration process, and scholarly participation at a much larger size than Quora has achieved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.94.94 (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

"On Quora, a core of insiders often decides what is considered wit, correct language use and currency of knowledge for the rest of the community. They implement their biases by using several tactics, one of which is collapsing answers—even those with a very high number of upvotes." - AdWeek [9]
Quora question: "Why is it so hard to give feedback to Quora?" [10] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.94.94 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 2 March 2015‎ (UTC)
AdWeek IS a valid source! The problem with that particular article is that it was written in September 2012, and is titled, "The Quora crisis: How long can the center hold?" Obviously, the center HAS held to some degree, as it is now November 2015 and Quora still exists. If there were more recent coverage in AdWeek, that would be a great source to use for an updated version of this article. That is part of Quora's problem though: It no longer is on the radar enough for a publication like AdWeek to bother writing about it.
The list of "general criticisms" left by IP user above are valid. I say that as a Quora user: My off-Wikipedia and Quora identity is Ellie Kesselman, although I am not a Top Writer like Tom Morris nor an employee like Steven Walling. Unless the criticisms can be sourced adequately, they cannot be included in the Wikipedia Quora article though. The only bullet point in the criticisms list that is invalid is "lack of non-English-speaking users". Quora is an English language ONLY website. That is stated explicitly, and there isn't anything unusual about it. reddit is English-language only too (although there are now some sub-reddits for other languages). Given that Quora's stated intent is to be an English-language only website, it is not surprising that there would be few non-English-speaking users!
I am completely sympathetic to many of the critical comments about Quora that were voiced on this talk page, both this section and the ones preceding it. As a Quora user, I know that the criticisms are valid. However, that doesn't really matter for purposes of Wikipedia, not unless NPOV secondary and tertiary sources can be found to support the criticisms. Quora's idiosyncratic moderation and heavily politically biased editorial employees are not considered sufficiently notable to receive media attention, perhaps because Quora doesn't receive much media attention in general. Until that changes, there is no point in giving visibility to these issues in a Wikipedia company article. Wikipedia isn't a user review website, so complaints about unfair Quora moderation, while sometimes justifiable, don't belong here. In general, Quora is just not that important, and doesn't warrant a lengthy entry, whether positive or not. --FeralOink (talk) 03:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Has Wiki become a popularity contest? If a subject requires a long entry, what does the popularity of said subject have to do with anything? There are many esoteric entries in Wikipedia that if they were given space in accord to their public interest would be reduced to punctuation. Text takes up very little drive space, so as long as the content is treated in accord to Wiki rules for content posting, and a person is willing to type the keystrokes without becoming prosaic, what is the problem with letting it be done?

50.236.74.34 (talk) 23:36, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Mybyndoor

Mybyndoor is a news website owned by Jitrell IT Solutions Byndoor.Mybyndoor.com website developed by jackson Dsilva Byndoor.This website provide local news specially in udupi district. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanyserra (talk • contribs) 12:01, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

FAKE Information especially by BOTS

I added a perfictly ligitamate line to the Quora Page yet some bots have kept removing the line and now the page is locked with incorect information! My simple edit was that Quora moderates it's pages with BOTS and they delete anything they dont like without due process. The stuff simply VANISHES with no explanation or rephrase options! This is Censorship at best and promoting Fake information by hiding the truth at worst. Now too it seems that there are no actual people reading edits to this site as if they did they would see my ligitamate edit was it's self edited by a bot and the history page not only shows this but the bot itsself claims to be to infalibile. Is this now where humans are, Subject to fake bot programes adjusting our reality? I wish to have the line added as it's true, proof in the history Talk. If this is not fixed it clearly confirms the warnings I received from universitys & collages claiming that wickie is FAKE. No wonder they don't allow the use of it's content. I will see if any real Humans actually look into this with great intrest! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.197.38.171 (talk) 03:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Should the article mention why Quor ais not allowing anonymous posting questions anymore?

Is Mark Zuckerberg actually a Quora founder?

Zuckerberg is listed as one of three founders in the info box, but isn’t mentioned at all anywhere else in the article. Nor is Quora mentioned in the article on Zuckerberg. Peter Delmonte (talk) 15:26, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Update needed

This article needs to be updated with relevant information. It makes no mention to Quora spaces or to Quora's partner program just to name a few examples. --Puzzledvegetable|💬|📧|📜 20:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I just added some info about the partner program, but the article still needs work. --Puzzledvegetable|💬|📧|📜 20:57, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

You need to summarize what reliable, independent sources have written about Quota, and provide references to those reliable sources. Your personal knowledge is not acceptable (and neither is mine). Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I have added criticisms and Controversies

I have added several criticisms and controversies by adding section on the page of Quora. I had read many things and coverage about the alleged bias of the Quora moderation which was absent from the page. It was also required to put major data glitch as controversy of the company. Therefore, I have added the section in the Wikipedia page of the Quora which involves some criticisms and controversies of this website.--Harshil169

​I've moved the information to the history section as it is an isolated incident and not a general criticism about the website. See also WP:CSECTION. Also make sure to keep WP:UNDUE in mind so as not to make the page a sounding piece for those who don't like company. Assign appropriate weight to what is reported about the company in WP:RSes. --Puzzledvegetable|💬|📧|📜 21:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
@Puzzledvegetable: Just visit the edit section and try to know what I had actually added. I’ve added the protest against the company, legal sue to company, criticisms pf company by well known American journalists and Palestinian activists. That’s why I thought to add the separate csection for the company. However, one editor removed all of those edits by stating ‘’’Nobody cares’’’. —Harshil169 (talk) 06:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Though an American organisation, the site is heavily biased towards muslims and will allow no criticisms of them, no matter how relevant or how truthful. Critisising muslims and islam is the one sure way to get banned on Quora.(185.181.239.184 (talk) 05:36, 11 July 2019 (UTC))
I agree with your views and there have been given enough coverage to this specific point in different sources and by activists. If there’s any Wikipedia page of company then it should be open for criticism so that people can get what the site actual stand for. Obviously, NPOV, No original research and verifiability shouldn’t be violated. —Harshil169 (talk) 06:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
​I am notifying the editor that made that edit (Winged Blades of Godric) so that the editor can participate in this discussion if he wants. Note that his exact words in the summary were "Edit via Wikiplus/Nobody cares; no coverage in RS. Epistle News fails WP:RS per WP:NEWSORG". --Puzzledvegetable|💬|📧|📜 14:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
What we need is high quality sources, supporting the claims. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources.
Epistle-News is not a RS per WP:NEWSORG; see their About-Us section.
Mondoweiss is a purveyor of anti-semitic news and self-declares to be anti-Israel. Not remotely reliable in these areas. Neither do I find Rima Najjar to be someone acclaimed enough, to take her at face-value.
Israellycool is an one-man- blog. See WP:SPS. ∯WBGconverse 15:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you User:Puzzledvegetable for bringing an editor into the discsussion. The editor gave an excuse that Mondoweiss is an biased source while our Wikipedia's WP:RS and WP:BIASED policies state that non-neutral sources are best for supporting information. So, how the excuse that it is not reliable in these areas can be valid for this particular website? Also, I am not interested in defending the website. The website itself says it is anti-zionist not anti-semitic. If someone's ideology doesnn't resonate with the source then it doesn't mean that source become void or non reliable. The article was written by well known Palestinian activists who wrote more than half dozens of book over this issue and it was covered by other similar websites though.
(By the way, this same editor also removed my well cited sources like Republic TV, Times Now and Swarajya by citing that they are biased in three other articles. But wikipedia's policy itself states that wiki page should be neutral and reliable sources are best if they're biased to know different view points and reality. The same editor also accused me for spreading pro-right and pro-hindutva agenda by personally attacking me and name calling on my talk page when I just cited different view points on Wikipedia pages by keeping policies in mind.)
Now coming to Israellycool, I tried to make wiki page neutral by showing both sides of coin. The article on the website was written by someone by interviewing Israeli activist and their opinion and I cited that directly. However, one can give warning about it if sources are not reliable by simply putting [unreliable source?] but to remove entire text is archaic and arrogant. Regarding Epistle news, I seriously don't know how doesn't it meet the criteria of the Reliable source. This is news organisation funded by public directly then how it can become unreliable? The person who reported it was herself is an editor of Times of India group. After reading Wikipedia's policy, I don't think it violates any criteria of reliable sources. If one want to discuss that how it's violation of Wikipedia's particular policy by citing then I am okay with it and I will defend the sources according to Wikipedia's policy. It's impossible to oppose the hyberbolic statements like this is biased, this is not reliable and etc. Quora is just a company like Facebook and Twitter; if both the companies have controversy page then Quora atleast deserve controversy section as per the coverage given to it in the Media. None of the core policies of Wikipedia was violated in original csection but obviously WP:NPOV was violated when editor removed all the negative news without even putting citation and giving hyperbolic statement as judgement. I am not interested in directly talking with the concerned editor because he is not giving any conclusion or statements which states my edits are against this particular policy; I require mediator to solve this dispute and knowing their views on this topic to come on conclusion. --Harshil169 (talk) 04:21, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
See WP:DR and WP:IDHT. Best, ∯WBGconverse 05:37, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
I am seeking WP:3 for this as we are not coming on any conclusion and my all the sources are declared as unreliable by you. I will also raise issue of the Hamid Ansari's page where you reverted my edits by stating Republic and Times Now are not reliable because they are biased. Hope we will reach on conclusion. Thanking you, --Harshil169 (talk) 06:10, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
@Puzzledvegetable and Winged Blades of Godric:I want your attention into the matter that the editor @Harshil169: got banned from quora for hate contents. . And the quora page is nowbeing vandalised by someone who himself got banned from quora for hate. I know this because I was just casually browsing twitter and this guy had invited other trolls to help him and that was the case of sock puppetry which was condemned by other editor's in the debate of said page and I really doubt the account above supporting him is not a result of sock puppetry. This guy said he need help and encourage others to make new account. In his answers and post there is clear Islamophobic and hate content, which can clearly be seen. He said in his twitter accout(all of this is available in public domain by himself.) that he will make other wiki pages to raise his voice as a way to compete with other religions. Wiki is not a forum to raise your voice. It's an encyclopedia. I really want to take this matter into consideration since the editors views are highly biased, and edits are heavily politically leaned. Since he is editing quora to cope up with his own personal beef with quora which is extremely unacceptable on wiki on which editors test every word. I want the editors in this matter to check all the facts by themselves first.

All these informations are available in public domain, I did not post any external link, but if you want to search you can search the editors name on twitter or editor's name+Huffington post on google. Thank you.Edward Zigma (talk) 06:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

You are using fake propaganda/lies on me by stating that I got banned from Quora for using hate content. Don't you have any integrity to stick on the topic instead of personally attacking me? You could have refuted me on the basis of Wikipedia's policy but you are doing Ad-Hominem continuously for the third time and this time, I am typing response to you because you spread lies on me. Here's my Quora profile: quora.com/Harshil-Mehta-32 and I was banned for allegedly having sock puppet accounts while the reality was different. Like, I have already warned the site that my fake profiles have been created from different sources and I am getting warnings of login attempts. One can read it here. If I have to cite my social media pages on Wikipedia for the clarification then other editors like @Winged Blades of Godric: and @Puzzledvegetable: might also okay with this as none of them stopped this editor for commenting this content here or gave warning. Everybody has their own political, social and religious views; to state someone as biased because s/he doesn't stand with your views is not fair. There are some policies of Wikipedia and I am following them; I will also make more and more pages on Wikipedia which won't violate any policy. I have collected information regarding company in public domain and added it here; it's not personal beef. What I do on Twitter and Instagram is none of the other editor's business and I didn't violate any Wikipedia policy; ergo I am discussing on the policy and you should discuss on same. --Harshil169 (talk) 01:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
@Harshil169: policies clearly states you should not have your own personal beef for editing. And you are clearly using it for your agenda since you are banned from that site. You should be the last person on the list of wikipedia editors for this page.
I don’t fear by your threats and commands. I’m not violating any of Wikipedia policy and if you think I am violating then go and complain to the editors but stop stalking me outside Wikipedia and stop reverting my edits. I’m not taking any revenge here; I edit other things apart from this page too. My account is not single purpose account (like one person in this discussion has) and I’m not reverting and taking part in discussion with only one person like one person who’s targeting individual. Go and complain to Wikipedia admins and impose global IP ban on me if I’ve violated any policy. Go and do that. —Harshil169 (talk) 06:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Can both of you leave each other? Otherwise, two-way-InteractionBan is a decent option. ∯WBGconverse 12:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I didn’t start to inquire but if someone is personally attacking me and spreading lies then I’ve to simplify my side. —Harshil169 (talk) 13:12, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Harshil169, I wish you would refrain from taking 'sides'. This is an encyclopaedia. And yeah, if you've been banned from Quora I somehow feel your edit was not made in good faith. Maybe that's me being unfair, but still... My 2p about this 'Quora moderation bias' issue everyone keeps harping about: No, Quora does not have an agenda and is not biased against any ideology. Hindutva activists say it has an anti-India bias, hardline Muslims say it has an anti-Islamic bias, devout Christians say it has an anti-Christian bias, Creationists say it has an evolutionist bias, Flat-Earthers say it has a round-Earth bias, etc., etc., etc. The simple reason why people think this is so is because the Quora algorithm manufactures a custom echo-chamber for each user - it shows you answers based on content you interact with and from people you follow. This means you see mostly content which agrees with your existing ideology, whether or not the said content is polite or factually correct. When content you agree with is later collapsed for being hateful or factually incorrect, it *feels* like Quora is attacking your ideology, when in reality it is simply enforcing BNBR. So long as you use respectful language, any ideology (except Nazism and such others) is let to flourish on Quora. I say this as someone who's been on the wrong side of the Quora Mods and bots enough times to earn a two-week-long edit-block in June last year. I changed my language after that - made it less rude - and the number of Mod hits I've taken since has drastically reduced. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (talk) 03:10, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Quora/Archive_1&oldid=1164852902"