Some of the students involved in either Solar Challenge U, Planet Stewardship Research, or TranSeed Labs indicated that they wanted to begin a Solar Energy Science and Economy Q&A site.
Being a member of StackOverflow and the AI StackExchange, I conveyed to them the benefit of submitting a proposal to Stack Exchange Inc. That the students represent five universities and are also members of clubs in the Student Activities systems of those universities was a plus. Our collective education in science, mathematics, and multinational corporation economies was another plus.
We who have toiled with theoretical and materials science aspects of solar technology and know about the economic realities of global and national energy infrastructure, decided to initiate the proposal.
Just ysterday, we decided we had enough definition in both the SE side and the educational and social networking side of the Solar Energy Science and Economy proposal. The first thing we noticed was some disconcerting activity obviously directed at eroding the legitimacy of the science and economy aspect of the proposal by members of StackExchange that are involved in the development of a NON-science beta stack.
The strategies seem to be within the bounds of what is acceptable in StackExchange. Nonetheless, from a social science and web traffic and click bait perspective, they are clearly attacks.
Being attacked by marketers of competing interest is fine if there is symmetry in the set of rules and monopolistic behavior is curtailed by those rules (such as with Westphillian systems of economic balance or with the SEC in the United States). Asymmetric rules, however, can damage small businesses in government.
In Stack Exchange ecology, the asymmetry may not be ethical in that those a just a few months ahead in the process may have grossly asymmetric opportunity in the rules of what may, under all the claims that people are, "just trying to educate", war-like engagement or at least thinly veiled aggressive and coordinated gang behavior.
It is like when students graduate from elementary school, 6th grade in some countries. They enter middle school or junior secondary school the next year, and the existing students there, who exhibit no significantly greater maturity (and sometimes less) and have contributed nothing further to the educational system or anything else at that point in their life, become antagonistic simply because they can.
My colleagues and I are now deciding whether to launch a larger campaign for members from staff and researchers in the universities. We have our doubts as of today.
What are the positions of StackExchange and the community directors involved with oversight of this process?
What is the scope of science and can lifestyle and political organizations poach on its territory devoid of any legitimate scientific interest?
Should those who deliberately chose non-scientific categories for their proposals be allowed to, when in beta, change their proposal in a way that deliberately trounce the efforts of those who have been devoted to and trained in the sciences because they mysteriously chose to enlarge their formerly minor interest in the rigors of science?
Is creating a link path directly from Q&A in a proposal, which so obviously erodes the SEO efforts mounted from outside SE, something that also erodes efforts to build out the science side of SE?
Is the scope of Solar Energy Science and Economy, where post authors assume a more universally appealing position in an attempt to share more realistic knowledge of science and economy aspects of the solar energy infrastructure transition, a valid proposal from the perspective of Stack Exchange Inc?
If the answer from Stack Exchange Inc is, "No comment," then can the enthusiasts involved in Solar Energy Science and Economy use the same tactics that the 9th graders do in response?