I think the difference with StackOverflow, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, is that it was intended to be a sort of wiki. When you publish an article on Wikipedia, anyone can edit it. That's an expected part of the workflow. Your content is never really meant to be "yours" (except it is? They're weird.)
I think the founders believed that by building StackOverflow on that basis, information would be (and stay) more accurate, much like how Wikipedia is often more accurate than many single-source articles. (There was a study about that, but I can't recall which university.)
Whether or not that was a good design decision though? Well, as you can see from the other comments, that remains to be seen.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Interesting take.
I think the difference with StackOverflow, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, is that it was intended to be a sort of wiki. When you publish an article on Wikipedia, anyone can edit it. That's an expected part of the workflow. Your content is never really meant to be "yours" (except it is? They're weird.)
I think the founders believed that by building StackOverflow on that basis, information would be (and stay) more accurate, much like how Wikipedia is often more accurate than many single-source articles. (There was a study about that, but I can't recall which university.)
Whether or not that was a good design decision though? Well, as you can see from the other comments, that remains to be seen.