The current description for the AI.SE site is:

Q&A for people interested in conceptual questions about life and challenges in a world where "cognitive" functions can be mimicked in purely digital environment

Two years ago, the meta site voted on site descriptions. The current text is at 2 votes. There are other texts that have many more.

Further, the current text is out of sync with our votes on other factors, like whether modeling and implementation details should be on-topic or not.

Someone has even pointed out this strangeness already, with 9 upvotes, to no avail. Others asked for grammatical changes, and were told they weren't needed because we were about to change the site description. That was 2 years ago, and today it looks like this:

enter image description here

  • Is it possible to change the description at all?

  • If so, who can do it?

  • If so, what is required before those people will actually make the change?


I just looked around a bit and it turns out that moderators can edit that tour text. Our scope has changed and widened markedly from two years ago - those discussions were held before we even had our own moderators - so I think it'd be good to get fresh eyes and new thoughts on the tour blurb. Once we reach a consensus, I (and I'm sure my fellow mods too) would be happy to replace the current outdated text. As for the site description that appears in the sites list, we'll need to poke Stack Exchange staff to get that adjusted once we've decided on a replacement.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The tour text can be edited, but the actual site description - used in other places, such as the site switcher dropdown - can only be edited by staff. $\endgroup$ – Mithical Sep 14 '18 at 6:49
  • $\begingroup$ I don't want to unilaterally edit the tour text, and although I have moderator privileges, it not at all obvious to me how to do so (is it just those with the (moderator) tag, or those with moderator privileges?). Regardless, I think we should change it to the most popular post on the last vote now, and then we can think about holding another vote to make it more up to date still. We've clearly failed to update this several times in the past already, so waiting for new consensus seems likely to result in nothing changing again. $\endgroup$ – John Doucette Sep 14 '18 at 12:33
  • $\begingroup$ @Mithrandir Excellent point, thanks. Answer clarified. $\endgroup$ – Ben N Sep 14 '18 at 14:58
  • $\begingroup$ @JohnDoucette Ah, the name of the access moderator tools privilege is a bit confusing here. I'm referring to diamond moderators in this answer. $\endgroup$ – Ben N Sep 14 '18 at 15:00
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @BenN That makes sense. What would constitute "consensus" though? I think there is consensus that the current text makes very little sense. Almost anything would be an improvement. Can you be clearer about exactly what would have to happen to change it? $\endgroup$ – John Doucette Sep 15 '18 at 21:51
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @JohnDoucette Please start a new meta question soliciting suggestions and I'll close the old one. A couple days after the voting settles down on the new answers, we'll alter the text. (Sorry for the late response, this slipped my mind for a bit.) $\endgroup$ – Ben N Sep 21 '18 at 21:44
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @JohnDoucette Since we're still a fairly small stack, I doubt we're going to get an avalanche of votes on this, so, in the end, we may have to resort to loose consensus and rely on rationality. (I'm very happy with the suggestions that have been proposed on the new thread.) $\endgroup$ – DukeZhou Sep 26 '18 at 23:55

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .