Since StackExchange is about making information more available, is it acceptable to archive information on StackExchange?

For example, I really like the SK Terran build order in Starcraft Brood War; I used to use it continually in my games; I've studied how progamers excuted it; I know a lot about it.

But few people play Brood War nowadays and it's unlikely that there's a group of people dying to know about SK Terran.

But I really want to preserve the knowledge.

My inclination is to ask a question and answer it myself. Even if it sinks into oblivion, at least the knowledge is there.

What are some better ways of doing this?

  • Can somebody help me make this question more general? Although the idea was spawned by the SK Terran question (which was asked for a different reason), I don't think this discussion needs to be directly related to that specific question - thanks!
    – Atav32
    Jun 15 '12 at 15:16

In this answer, I assume that if you were to write such an answer, it'd take you several screenfuls of text. If this isn't true, this answer probably doesn't apply to you!

If what you want to write is the one, ultimate, definitive guide to do something, this site might not give you the tools to do so properly.

Rather than trying to organize everything that is known about a certain subject on a single page (the "Wikipedia" approach), we instead have a more pragmatic "I have a problem" → "Here is the solution" approach. The barrier to entry is much lower, as you don't need to be able to write the book on the topic to answer a question, but if writing the book on the topic is what you want to do then this might not be the place to do so.

Both approaches have their pros and cons, of course. In a twenty-page essay it's hard to find the nugget of information you're after. In twenty different questions, it's hard to find a fil rouge and form a coherent body of knowledge.

Trying to do both approaches means doing two things badly, so we'd rather focus on our strengths. The main problem with very long form answers here is there's no way to link to different parts of your own answer, while wiki engines typically make that possible and even give you a table of contents. The second major problem is table support, which we (regrettably) lack.

Some well known sources of "encyclopedic" bodies of videogame knowledge are (in no particular order) Wikia, the Strategy Wiki and obviously GameFAQs.


In general, it's fine to ask and answer your own question. Recently there's even been changes to the SE software to make this easier.

However, your question (and answer) still have to undergo the same process of community evaluation that every question (and answer) go through on the site.

It's important to have a specific question that can be reasonably answered. The two questions you've posted so far are being downvoted and closed, and the majority of close voters seem to believe it's not a real question:

It's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form.

Similarly with answers, if people don't find your answer helpful, or it's incorrect (as sometimes happens when you ask and answer your own question), the answer may be downvoted as well.

I've also seen that people react negatively to many question/answer pairs posted in a short period of time. Spacing them out a bit can help to avoid spamming the front page.


The main problem with your two closed posts is they're, well, not questions. They're lists of questions, and it's hard to see what you're getting at. Self-answer or no, questions are supposed to be focused and...questiony like any other question.

Take this shameless plug example: How can I breed a Solstice Dragon? I have a simple and straightforward question, to which I already know (and shared) the answer to. I make the question clear and straightforward as if I were asking any other question on the site, but my goal is to share the answer to the question as well as the question itself.

Your questions take an encyclopedic format as opposed to an encyclopedic spirit. We want the spirit of preserving and publishing information, but it still has to be in the format of a regular, one-question-per-question question.

You must log in to answer this question.

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