Skip to main content

Return to Answer

Copy edited (e.g. ref. <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/English#Proper_noun>). Added some context.
Source Link
Peter Mortensen
Peter Mortensen
  • 31.4k
  • 4
  • 23
  • 14

I won't remark on the general case as I think existing answers cover it fairly well.

To summarize my answer: it's possible some small portion of the 90-99% (lurkers) are unable or not authorized to contribute for one reason or another, including:

  • Technical limitations (such as an old computer with an old browser, where development machines are not connected to the internet)
  • Language limitations (egfor example, barely able to read englishEnglish)
  • Policy-based limitations (not allowed to access social media from work)
  • Pedantic/incompetent IT policies, especially those created as knee-jerk responses to every security threat no matter how severe
  

The organization I work for has a large number of engineers working for them (on the order of 10k+). HistoricallyHistorically developers here didn't have access to the internetInternet, let alone anything as valuable as stack exchangeStack Exchange sites. AsAs a consequence, most "good practices" (::cough::) came from books written in the 801980/90s1990s or word-of-mouth, etc.

Not long after stack exchangeStack Exchange sites became a usable resource for us, a variety of things (including intentional or incompetent network policies) have rendered many websites mostly or entirely useless (egfor example, only able to browse a given site). ItIt seems that when someone doesn't know how to make stuff work correctly, their solution to making it safe/secure is to render it useless.

I'm trying to change the developer culture within our group (egfor example, getting people to read books like Code CompleteCode Complete, doing regular training on technical topics, encourage developers to become regular contributors to stack exchangeStack Exchange sites, etc.), but this is just one of the many stumbling stones we've hit along that path.

Supposing these problems were magically resolved overnight I wouldn't expect an influx of new accounts/contributors from our organization (whether because they expect stuff to be broken, or they're conditioned to lurking). NeverthelessNevertheless, it's an answer to your question.

I won't remark on the general case as I think existing answers cover it fairly well.

To summarize my answer: it's possible some small portion of the 90-99% (lurkers) are unable or not authorized to contribute for one reason or another, including:

  • Technical limitations (such as an old computer with an old browser, where development machines are not connected to the internet)
  • Language limitations (eg, barely able to read english)
  • Policy-based limitations (not allowed to access social media from work)
  • Pedantic/incompetent IT policies, especially those created as knee-jerk responses to every security threat no matter how severe
 

The organization I work for has a large number of engineers working for them (on the order of 10k+). Historically developers here didn't have access to the internet, let alone anything as valuable as stack exchange sites. As a consequence, most "good practices" (::cough::) came from books written in the 80/90s or word-of-mouth, etc.

Not long after stack exchange sites became a usable resource for us, a variety of things (including intentional or incompetent network policies) have rendered many websites mostly or entirely useless (eg, only able to browse a given site). It seems that when someone doesn't know how to make stuff work correctly, their solution to making it safe/secure is to render it useless.

I'm trying to change the developer culture within our group (eg, getting people to read books like Code Complete, doing regular training on technical topics, encourage developers to become regular contributors to stack exchange sites, etc), but this is just one of the many stumbling stones we've hit along that path.

Supposing these problems were magically resolved overnight I wouldn't expect an influx of new accounts/contributors from our organization (whether because they expect stuff to be broken, or they're conditioned to lurking). Nevertheless, it's an answer to your question.

I won't remark on the general case as I think existing answers cover it fairly well.

To summarize my answer: it's possible some small portion of the 90-99% (lurkers) are unable or not authorized to contribute for one reason or another, including:

  • Technical limitations (such as an old computer with an old browser, where development machines are not connected to the internet)
  • Language limitations (for example, barely able to read English)
  • Policy-based limitations (not allowed to access social media from work)
  • Pedantic/incompetent IT policies, especially those created as knee-jerk responses to every security threat no matter how severe
 

The organization I work for has a large number of engineers working for them (on the order of 10k+). Historically developers here didn't have access to the Internet, let alone anything as valuable as Stack Exchange sites. As a consequence, most "good practices" (::cough::) came from books written in the 1980/1990s or word-of-mouth, etc.

Not long after Stack Exchange sites became a usable resource for us, a variety of things (including intentional or incompetent network policies) have rendered many websites mostly or entirely useless (for example, only able to browse a given site). It seems that when someone doesn't know how to make stuff work correctly, their solution to making it safe/secure is to render it useless.

I'm trying to change the developer culture within our group (for example, getting people to read books like Code Complete, doing regular training on technical topics, encourage developers to become regular contributors to Stack Exchange sites, etc.), but this is just one of the many stumbling stones we've hit along that path.

Supposing these problems were magically resolved overnight I wouldn't expect an influx of new accounts/contributors from our organization (whether because they expect stuff to be broken, or they're conditioned to lurking). Nevertheless, it's an answer to your question.

Source Link
Brian Vandenberg
Brian Vandenberg
  • 4.2k
  • 14
  • 4

I won't remark on the general case as I think existing answers cover it fairly well.

To summarize my answer: it's possible some small portion of the 90-99% (lurkers) are unable or not authorized to contribute for one reason or another, including:

  • Technical limitations (such as an old computer with an old browser, where development machines are not connected to the internet)
  • Language limitations (eg, barely able to read english)
  • Policy-based limitations (not allowed to access social media from work)
  • Pedantic/incompetent IT policies, especially those created as knee-jerk responses to every security threat no matter how severe

The organization I work for has a large number of engineers working for them (on the order of 10k+). Historically developers here didn't have access to the internet, let alone anything as valuable as stack exchange sites. As a consequence, most "good practices" (::cough::) came from books written in the 80/90s or word-of-mouth, etc.

Not long after stack exchange sites became a usable resource for us, a variety of things (including intentional or incompetent network policies) have rendered many websites mostly or entirely useless (eg, only able to browse a given site). It seems that when someone doesn't know how to make stuff work correctly, their solution to making it safe/secure is to render it useless.

I'm trying to change the developer culture within our group (eg, getting people to read books like Code Complete, doing regular training on technical topics, encourage developers to become regular contributors to stack exchange sites, etc), but this is just one of the many stumbling stones we've hit along that path.

Supposing these problems were magically resolved overnight I wouldn't expect an influx of new accounts/contributors from our organization (whether because they expect stuff to be broken, or they're conditioned to lurking). Nevertheless, it's an answer to your question.