[foobarbecue]

What a strange rant.

First of all, this guy continued answering and asking questions since he published this article, so I guess he changed his mind about deleting his account. http://stackoverflow.com/users/2189331/jdevlin

Secondly the italic bits about how he should be allowed to delete questions because he created the content make no sense. All SO questions and answers are collaboratively created so he can't claim ownership.

I agree the moderation is out of hand, and it should be easy to delete your account (but what's this about a link that "got misclicked")?

[knorby]

There are plenty of collaborative communities where post deletion is allowed. There is clearly a different level of value between a SO question and a reddit comment thread, but deletions are almost always disruptive in some way.

But those posts have his name on them. He is judged by them, and he in some way has to stand by them. I don't know that deletion should be an assured right with all user-created content, but no one should be publishing someone else's content under their name without their continued consent.

[tsotha]

>... no one should be publishing someone else's content under their name without their continued consent.

I disagree. That's the deal when you add content to one of these kinds of sites - you don't own it. And you know that going in. And there are valid reasons to disallow it: if people start deleting their own answers the conversation becomes (in some cases) impossible to follow.

It's kind of silly to be so heavily invested on a site like this and then expect them to change the rules when you're ready to move on.

[knorby]

But StackOverflow sites allows deletion, at least in part, as the author points out. So it is fair to say they aren't really enforcing that notion either.

I don't think I'm necessarily hinting at a copyright issue, though I think some control over attribution is pretty fundamental to it, but the point I'm trying to make is that the right of attribution is a stronger one than SO's right to maintain high-quality content. There are a number of ways that right can be accommodated, and it is the job of the publisher to figure out how.

[foobarbecue]

knorby, my main point wasn't about who holds copyright here, but it was to say that when he deleted a question, he was also deleting answers that other people had written. You really do need a good reason to do that.

[knorby]

Why is that the author's problem rather than a problem of StackOverflow's? I'm not going to suggest I know a better way, but it is up to them to figure out. If you build a site around user-generated content, these are problems that can't be dismissed.

Anyway, I would say a user has a stronger right to delete content than other users' have to keep their connected content up.

[codinghorror]

The issue is Creative Commons content, if you are legitimately pruning old low value content of yours that is totaly fine. But rage quits where people just want to take their content and go home, withdrawing it from the commons out of anger, is not OK.

You can always get to older content even deleted content through the regular Creative Commons data dumps that the whole Stack network publishes torrents of. You can also, if you sign an NDA, get a more complete data set for research purposes.

[davidgerard]

It's pretty clear you need a way for people to remove their names, then.

[aalear]

We have that. http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/96732/how-do-i-remov...

[davidgerard]

That appears to say you have "you could ask, a mod might action it, but if they're opposed you might be able to beg a dev to ..." That is to say, you really don't "have that".

[bhayden]

>withdrawing it from the commons out of anger, is not OK.

This is pretty obviously not what happened here, though.

[foobarbecue]

After posting this, I thought: well, what I said was entirely correct, but why did I bother objecting to some random guy's sour grapes story? And then the answer came to me... I did it because I want the ycombinator points! There is a point whore in all of us...