103

First off, this is intended to be an extension to the question "Is it ethical to read programming books on the clock?". I do realize the irony of asking this on Stack Exchange itself, but hey, I'm not on the clock right now.

I am a programmer who, like many of my colleages, oftentimes gets stuck on something and asks a question on Stack Overflow or Programmers Stack Exchange to get past the problem. I imagine that people of other disciplines may do this as well for other technical subjects, like Physics Stack Exchange. I have never met an employer who objects to this (so long as the code is general and limited enough), because it directly results in me solving the problem quickly and moving on to other things.

However, I recently came into a situation where I asked a tricky question on Stack Overflow, but I didn't get an answer to it. After a few days, I finally figured it out and wanted to write an answer to it. But in the back of my mind, I wondered if doing this on company time was all right. After all, I'd already found the solution to the problem within my company's code and writing an answer to benefit others outside of the company wasn't what I was being paid to do.

Seneca the Younger was famous for saying "docendo discimus" ("by teaching we are learning"), so one could argue that answering my own question, or other peoples' questions about something relevant to what I'm doing, could be a form of learning (for instance, solidifying in my mind the answer to the tricky question I figured out). However, I'm a bit unsure about this, because it is a less direct form of learning and could be considered as "work".

This seems to me like a similar dilema of "Is it ethical to read programming books on the clock?". The consensus for that seems to be that it's ethical to read programming books in order to learn, so long as it's relevant, not interfering with work, and not forbidden by your boss.

Would answering Stack Exchange questions while on the clock also be ethical?

Community
  • 1
Thunderforge
  • 3,750
  • 11
  • 35
  • 47
  • 14
    This is a question you should be asking your employer, not people you don't work for. Since it's not our time you'll be wasting. Personally, I'd just wait til I get home, or atleast wait for a break. – uSeRnAmEhAhAhAhAhA Jan 21 '14 at 05:55
  • While this topic makes for a great discussion, ironically, it's not a great question for Stack Exchange since it provokes discussion. Stack Exchange works best for questions that can be answered with facts, references, and specific expertise. Please see [help] for more guidance on how to word questions to fit our format. Hope this helps. – jmort253 Jan 24 '14 at 06:28
  • 5
    With community sites like Stack Overflow, you get back far more than you give, no matter how much you give. I find it peculiar that anyone at your company would balk at contributing to Stack Overflow "on the clock" when they would have no compunction about mining Stack Overflow "on the clock" for answers given freely by the community whenever they run into any kind of coding issues. What do you make of the fact that going on Stack Overflow saves your personnel a lot of time and the company a lot of money - Does it enter your calculations? Do we have a free rider problem? – Vietnhi Phuvan Jul 08 '14 at 13:07
  • @deletethisaccount - Answering questions of people is not exactly wasting time. – Nicolas Barbulesco Jul 23 '14 at 13:15
  • 2
    When I solve a technical problem for my company I usually document the solution in a more easily digested format so that the other members of the technical team have some idea of how to solve the problem if they run into it themselves. By writing an answer on SE for a problem you encountered in work, you are effectively documenting the solution for future reference. I would write an answer on SE, and the share the answer with the relevant team members "Hey guys, I solved that problem we had a couple of weeks ago. Attached is a link to the method I used to solve it". – Spencer Apr 26 '19 at 06:04

10 Answers10

97

Conversely I would ask:

Is it ethical for a company that thrives on the 'work' or support of a community, not to give something back?

Can a company call on ethics to forbid you from participating in this case?

I think not.

They can forbid you from drawing on outside resources of course. Or shun everything community-backed altogether. But only picking out active contribution is, in my opinion, hypocritical at best, unethical in itself on closer examination.

In my opinion, so as long as your company gains something from drawing on stackexchange, in some form or another, it's your company's duty, ethically speaking, to allow, even encourage you to participate, too.

Disclaimer: because this keeps coming up

I do not suggest disobeying a company's rules and guidelines. I'm only voicing my opinion on them.

CMW
  • 6,149
  • 2
  • 36
  • 50
  • 11
    +1 good point. companies/management typically don't have a problem with getting an answer off SO/SE (getting a benefit); if they have a problem with "paying" for that benefit (by allowing employees to answer questions) that's a "culture smell" :) – David Jan 21 '14 at 13:12
  • A-ha! Hear hear. – Code Whisperer Jan 21 '14 at 20:15
  • 4
    I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with this answer. Its not your job to decide what your company should or should not be doing based on your own personal opinions and ethics. Its your job to do the job they hired you to do. If they would like you to stay off of "discussion forums" while on the clock, then that is what you should do. – Rachel Jan 21 '14 at 20:53
  • 5
    You're right, it's your company's right to decide, not yours. I'm just saying, from the ethical point of view, which was asked for in the question, your company can't decide to deny participation in forums and Q'n'A sites to help others while still drawing on that same help. Don't disobey your boss. That boss, however, is being unethical for ordering you to not participate, while maybe even encourging passive use of the resouces. – CMW Jan 21 '14 at 21:01
  • 2
    CMW: I find that this is a very personal point of view. StackExchange answers are given free of charge by generous individuals. However using this answers does not mean that you even should participate. Even saying that a company that forbids its employee to contribute in Stack Exchange is unethical is, in my opinion, only a view points and should not be considered as absolute. If you disagree, you should voice your concern and then still follow policies as long as you are an employee. – BlueTrin Jan 22 '14 at 15:57
  • 1
    @BlueTrin I don't think there are any absolute answers when it comes to ethics, but I will clarify that this is all only my point of view. – CMW Jan 22 '14 at 16:02
  • 3
    Are we just wage slaves or do we care about our profession? – maxy Jan 22 '14 at 17:52
  • @maxy That comment sounds rather random. Is there a point? – CMW Jan 22 '14 at 18:16
  • 3
    @CMW, if we care about our profession we will of course answer questions whenever we think that many people sharing the same profession may benefit, and doing so is professional. If we are wage slaves, we would of course refrain from doing anything that may benefit someone who is not our employer. So under the light of your answer, this is the original question rephrased. – maxy Jan 22 '14 at 18:36
  • @maxy well this is what the discussion in these comments turned to. The question whether we should 'just do that' or actually follow what rules the employer lays out. Some employers may even encourage it. Conceivable. – CMW Jan 22 '14 at 18:38
  • 6
    Well, not all employers have guidelines for that. If you feel that you have to ask for permission for 30min of time for something that you think makes sense, then you are behaving more like a wage slave than like a professional. Of course, if there is a policy, you should respect it, question it or quit. – maxy Jan 22 '14 at 19:02
  • 1
    @CMW - Take a stand. If your boss "orders" you to do something unethical, then ethical thing to do is disobey. Civil disobedience is not unethical. – aroth Jul 09 '14 at 11:03
76

I know this angers some when I say this, but ethics are not the issue. The issue is what your management approves of and what they disapprove of.

Personally, I participate when I need a mental "break" and it is refreshing to see others' perspectives. I do feel I gain new perspectives and insights, and certainly I've asked my share of questions on Stack Overflow.

As a Director, I get to make that choice, and I support my reports' participating in similar forums. I have asked them to keep it under 1/2 hour per day, but I don't walk around with a stopwatch.

Short answer - talk to your manager / supervisor. Explain the benefit, and follow their direction.

With regards to Ethics: Ethics are used to make choices. If you have the choice, you should utilize ethics to make the correct choice. Ethics do not supersede policy.

Dramatically over-simplified and extremely metaphored example:

Your company has a policy that says to give a customer a balloon if they have a complaint. You have an "ethical" problem with balloons. Do you give the balloon to the complaining customer you are working with or not?

Answer: You give the balloon to the customer. The choice is not yours to make, it was made by the policy-makers of your organization. Your ethical problem with balloons should have been voiced when you were trained on the policy, not when the customer complained. If you cannot accept being required to give the customer a balloon, you should have resigned when you were trained on the policy. If you did not resign, you accepted the policy and your role in it at the time. THAT was your choice opportunity.

The choice about the company giving customers balloons is not yours to make. You are acting as an agent of the company, and therefore there are no ethical issues.

Wesley Long
  • 63,364
  • 22
  • 144
  • 213
  • 10
    Ethics certainly are the issue. However, in general I think you are correct in the sense that if your management approves of how you use your time on the clock, then you are behaving ethically. – Nate C-K Jan 21 '14 at 08:26
  • 6
    @NateC-K - we hammered this out, already. I don't think many people understand what ethics are, any more. Ethics are guidelines where you have multiple choices and you take the one commonly defined as "better" from a moral or non-harm perspective. If you have a manager, then ethics are not your issue, compliance is. Ethics are concerns of senior management. Policy compliance is the concern of line-level employees. If you're making "ethical" choices as a line-level employee, supervisor, or manager, then you are overstepping your authority. – Wesley Long Jan 21 '14 at 14:35
  • 5
    @WesleyLong: Ethics are the concern of everybody. You do not need any special authority to do the right thing, nor does it make you morally superior to be in senior management. – Michael Shaw Jan 21 '14 at 14:52
  • 1
    @MichaelShaw - This is the same argument we had on the previous question. Ethics are something everyone needs for their own personal lives, but at work, you defer to your management. Know your role. – Wesley Long Jan 21 '14 at 15:05
  • 10
    @WesleyLong: I see no reason to think that ethics are confined to our personal lives. – Michael Shaw Jan 21 '14 at 15:57
  • 2
    @MichaelShaw - it is a question of responsibilities. If you are bringing "ethics" into your workplace to make your decisions, rather than deferring to management, then you are overstepping your role. If you wish to change your constraints about approved/unapproved activities, then go to your management team. That's what they're there for. Each employee crafting their own rules is a recipe for disaster. – Wesley Long Jan 21 '14 at 16:00
  • @WesleyLong Better to ask for forgiveness than permission. – jliv902 Jan 21 '14 at 16:08
  • 3
    @WesleyLong I agree with your answer, but I disagree on ethics. If an employee is told to do something illegal or against her or his morals, I expect the worker to consider refusing... and also dealing with the consequences of refusing, of course. – ANeves Jan 21 '14 at 16:13
  • 8
    @WesleyLong: I don't know how you got "Each employee crafting their own rules" from what I said. Ethics apply to everyone, full stop. When I was in the military (a rather authoritarian environment), I was repeatedly told to follow the lawful orders of my superiors, never to blindly obey no matter what. – Michael Shaw Jan 21 '14 at 16:38
  • @MichaelShaw, the military may not be the best citation for ethics and refusing to follow unlawful orders (New Orleans), but leaving that aside, refusing to follow an unethical order is not nearly the same thing as striking out on your own agenda. – Wesley Long Jan 21 '14 at 16:41
  • 1
    @Aneves - No one is talking about refusing direction. What we are talking about is participating in unapproved activities on paid time and mis-using the word "ethics" to somehow justify it. If you want to do something on paid time, ask your manager. That's what they're for. – Wesley Long Jan 21 '14 at 16:43
  • 8
    @MichaelShaw: I think what Wesley is trying to say is this: people ask these kinds of questions all the time about things they want to do that someone may disapprove of. They want proxy approval from some random person on the Internet, when what they really should be doing is asking their supervisor if it is OK. – Robert Harvey Jan 21 '14 at 16:43
  • @RobertHarvey - Thank you. I guess the concept just needed some distance on the perspective. I appreciate your point-of-view. – Wesley Long Jan 21 '14 at 16:44
  • 2
    @WesleyLong It seems to me that what you just did in your comments is applying some ethical standard to this particular decision. “If I am part of a hierarchical organization, I have no decisions to make” (i.e. should defer to management for each and every decision/follow instructions unquestionably) just isn't true legally, philosophically or practically. – Relaxed Jan 21 '14 at 16:55
  • 1
    @Annoyed - There is a very critical difference between what I did and what you are saying. What you are saying is that I advocate blind obedience. I do not. I encourage you to question and challenge policies that you disagree with. I encourage you to bring new ideas to your leadership and advocate for them. At the end of the day, though, realize that the leadership makes the final decision, and your role is to either comply or relocate. You can't subvert their authority just because you (and any "Internet mob") disagree. That will get you terminated, and rightfully so. – Wesley Long Jan 21 '14 at 16:57
  • @RobertHarvey: I agree with that, and go a step further: If you know (or fear) that your supervisor would disapprove of something (and disapproving is not itself unethical), and you try to get random internet person approval rather than supervisor approval for it because you want a 'yes', that's unethical. – Michael Shaw Jan 21 '14 at 17:01
  • 2
    @WesleyLong: I don't know what discussion you had on a previous question, but are completely wrong in your conclusion. If you are accepting someone else's pay for your time, then it is entirely within the realm of ethics to consider how you spend the time that you are being paid for. It is unethical for you to let someone pay you for an hour of working on one thing, and then spend that hour working on something else instead. This is the crux of why this decision should be left up to management. – Nate C-K Jan 21 '14 at 17:01
  • 1
    @NateC-K - I believe you are confusing the posters. What you just said is exactly the position I have been taking. If you are participating in unapproved activities on paid time, you are not doing your job. The word "Ethics" is being mis-used. – Wesley Long Jan 21 '14 at 17:05
  • 3
    That's what I mean, you are wrong about the word ethics being misused. I have no idea why you would say that it is outside the realm of ethics to consider whether you have an obligation to serve management's wishes while on the clock, that is just wrong. – Nate C-K Jan 21 '14 at 17:10
  • 1
    For a definition of ethics, and examples of topics that fall within the field: http://www.iep.utm.edu/ethics/ The paragraph that begins "Ross recognizes that situations will arise..." is particularly relevant. – Nate C-K Jan 21 '14 at 17:15
  • 1
    @NateC-K - Ross is arguing from a negative action standpoint. That a normally acceptable action should should not be done due to the circumstances because harm would come of it. This discussion is about a positive-action standpoint - that an (as-yet) unapproved action should be done without approval, even though no direct harm would come from inaction. Hardly comparable. – Wesley Long Jan 21 '14 at 17:24
  • 2
    I see your answer tacitly accepts that this is a matter that falls within the realm of the field of ethics. My point was not that the dilemma Ross concerns himself is the same dilemma, it is that weighing conflicting duties is an ethical question, not a question of something else called "compliance" that somehow falls outside the field of ethics. – Nate C-K Jan 21 '14 at 17:29
  • 1
    @WesleyLong: Ross's dilemma could as well have been positive action, whether to actively go and snatch the gun from your neighbour. Anyway that's not the point. The point is that ethics involves deciding between several duties that may sometimes conflict. You have a duty to your employer, to (among other things) comply with their policy. That you keep to this duty is absolutely a matter of ethics (and of course consequences, such as the fact that you'll (rightfully) get fired if you don't). It is not something that supersedes and stands outside the realm of ethics. – ShreevatsaR Jan 21 '14 at 17:37
  • @ShreevatsaR - Respectfully, you are misusing the term Ethics. Perhaps that is why you and I seem to be on different wavelengths. Ethics are guidance for decision-making when you have a choice. Many here are trying to argue they have a choice as to whether to comply with policy or not. That is the issue at hand. – Wesley Long Jan 21 '14 at 18:14
  • @NateC-K - Where did you get that I accepted that it is ethics? My entire point is that the positive-action "Ethics" argument is fundamentally flawed. My response's only point was that your logic was flawed regarding Ross's argument. – Wesley Long Jan 21 '14 at 18:20
  • 2
    @WesleyLong: It is you who is misusing the term ethics. Please either go read the definition of ethics on the page that I linked to and explain why this question does not fall under that heading; explain why the definition on that page is wrong; or stop making the incorrect assertion that this is not a question of ethics. – Nate C-K Jan 21 '14 at 18:27
  • @NateC-K: I edited my answer and I believe I addressed this point. There is no question about the definition of ethics. The question is about an employee's role in policy decisions. When you accept employment, you voluntarily subjugate yourself to the policies of your employer as a unit. You don't get to "pick and choose" what you agree with. It's all or nothing. – Wesley Long Jan 21 '14 at 18:30
  • 2
    @WesleyLong: That in itself is a conclusion that you can only arrive at via an ethical thought process. Furthermore, there is always a choice as to your course of action, so you are wrong to say that "you don't get to pick and choose". Sometimes there are competing concerns that override the duty to comply with company policy. The fact that this particular competing concern is not significant enough to warrant overriding policy does not mean that it does not require an ethical argument to arrive at that conclusion. – Nate C-K Jan 21 '14 at 19:06
  • 1
    @NateC-K - I hope you are able to maintain employment with that approach. I have not worked at a company yet that would tolerate that approach. Employees stepping outside policy without management approval has been grounds for dismissal in every place I have ever worked. – Wesley Long Jan 21 '14 at 19:10
  • 4
    @WesleyLong: Of course being fired is a concern, but that's totally compatible with what I said, which is that there are competing concerns. Even soldiers in the line of fire don't get to ignore the ethics of their actions just because they are following orders, even though the consequences for disobeying may be court martial or even summary execution. That is not just my opinion, it is the law. – Nate C-K Jan 21 '14 at 19:22
  • 2
    I think a possible source of confusion for several here is that you seem to be saying that "ethics", writ large, are the exclusive responsibility of management. I think that's what most are pushing back on here, even though you didn't really say that. What probably needs clarifying is that the ethical behavior for employees is to defer to ethical decisions already made by management on behalf of an employer. Where there is no policy or guidance, individual ethical choices are still valid. – Ben Collins Jan 21 '14 at 22:36
  • 1
    @WesleyLong I don't know what you meant to advocate or not but I still find it difficult to construe your answer and earlier comments as advocating anything else than blind obedience. If not, then it makes sense for the OP to ask about the ethical facet of the situation and management approval or the risk of being fired are beside the point (albeit obviously important to most people in practice). – Relaxed Jan 23 '14 at 10:43
  • 2
    @WesleyLong “your role is to either comply or relocate. […] That will get you terminated, and rightfully so.” I just don't think so. It's not true you will necessarily be terminated for any failure to comply with arbitrary requests, it's not legal to do so in many countries and even if it's true in practice in other places, it's not “rightful” in my view. – Relaxed Jan 23 '14 at 10:52
  • 1
    -1. Policy is not absolute. Directors are not gods. When I cross paths with a director who expects blind obedience because they're a director, I make it clear that if they want a robot they should go buy a robot; if they want a skilled and valuable human being, they should learn to relax and take a laissez-faire approach, quickly. – aroth Jul 09 '14 at 11:09
  • 1
    @WesleyLong while I agree you do have an obligation to do what your company says, you also have a duty to do what's best for your company. There are times these two directly conflict. I can't tell you how many times and how many companies I've done things that would qualify as insubordination or would result in termination according to policy. I also cannot tell you how many times doing so has resulted in praise by my employers. We hire experts to do what makes the most sense, to think on their feet, and if necessary go against the rules. otherwise we get robots, they're cheaper. – Eric J Fisher Jul 09 '14 at 20:19
  • @WesleyLong - "Ethics are something everyone needs for their own personal lives, but at work, you defer to your management." The Godwin point is very close. – Nicolas Barbulesco Jul 23 '14 at 13:42
  • @Nate is perfectly right here. – Nicolas Barbulesco Jul 23 '14 at 13:43
38

I am of the opinion that teaching is a form of learning. By taking the time to write high-quality answers for SE questions that are related to your job, you are also learning and improving your communication ability and knowledge in your chosen career path.

That said, I think it should be treated the same way you would any other unauthorized learning activity related to your profession while on the clock.

  • It should not interfere with your work
  • It should not be be forbidden by your boss
  • It should be done in moderation

If you are unsure about it, ask your boss.

An employer hires you to do something. If they want you to stay off "discussion forums" and focus on your work, then that is what you should do.

Something to be careful of with SE though, is it can be addicting! You must have the self-discipline to ignore the shiny red box indicating you have new messages when you don't have time for them, bypass the low quality posts you see and may want to flag/improve, and can't obsessively check your reputation gains throughout the day. Providing you can do that, I'd say you're fine. :)

Rachel
  • 10,234
  • 9
  • 51
  • 68
  • 8
    "Something to be careful of with SE though, is it can be addicting!" is a gem! – Bleeding Fingers Jan 21 '14 at 08:36
  • Providing you can do that... A big ask! ;) – starsplusplus Jan 21 '14 at 08:57
  • 5
    +1 I want to close with unclear what you are asking 80 % of the questions I am asked by email. I wish some of my coworker would come to SE and and learn how to ask something. – Simon Bergot Jan 21 '14 at 15:23
  • new Tangent(); // @Simon - make a constant reference to this: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2012/03/rubber-duck-problem-solving.html - Send it out to a few people as a, "Hey, this is neat." email, then about a week later, put a rubber duck on your monitor or shelf. It takes a while, but it works. Of course, that assumes the offenders are in your office. – Wesley Long Jan 21 '14 at 15:38
25

I'm the CEO at my corp and I spend a good amount of time answering questions on the SE network. Sometimes over an hour. I answer questions that invoke me to learn more about something relevant in the scope of my own sys-admin. And in taking the time to create an answer, I often have learned more about my duties.

I will say +1 to clearing it with your supervisor but also definitely point out the answering you spend time on at work is associated with your duties and helps you stay sharp.

If you're getting your job done, I'd be disappointed if this wasn't approved of. I am all about my employees bettering themselves and also helping them to have positive attitudes about working for/with me. So no, it wouldn't be unethical to give back if it helps make you deliver better value at your job.

jmort253
  • 11,416
  • 5
  • 58
  • 83
Krista K
  • 161
  • 5
  • 9
10

Rather than focussing on the specific act, responding to a question on Stack Overflow, it is appropriate to consider the activity, participating on Stack Overflow, as a whole. This is because for Stack Overflow to function it needs you to answer questions as well as ask them. Answering questions indirectly encourages other people to answer your questions.

If the benefits to your employer, solved coding and software problems, outweighs the negatives, time spent participating on Stack Overflow, then I believe it is ethical. It is therefore advantageous to your employer to allow it.

Peter Mortensen
  • 1,003
  • 1
  • 8
  • 8
geometrikal
  • 987
  • 7
  • 9
  • I like this perspective. It implies that the questioning and answering are intricately linked - which they are. Either do both or neither. I don't know if you are right but I would like to think you are. – starsplusplus Jan 21 '14 at 08:59
  • 4
    Thats not how SE works. People ask questions, people answer those questions not the questions they want them to ask. If you want to answer a different question I suggest you ask that question. – IDrinkandIKnowThings Jan 21 '14 at 16:12
8

My personal opinion would be yes it is ethical. There are a few parts to consider for what skills may be refined in posting answers to questions:

  1. Communication skills - How well can one articulate the answer so others get it and feel it is worth something? How well can one hint at answers at times since some Stack Exchange sites may have answers that are intended to guide the original poster to a solution.

  2. Reputation - Some people may take one's reputation into account in looking at answers. By giving answers that have been up voted and/or accepted there can be the sign that someone takes a serious role in passing along knowledge which may be reflected upon the company.

  3. Snags in the answer - While you may have found an answer, in posting it there could be some bugs or other issues that people may spot with the solution that could be quite useful in the end.

  4. Moderation - If you are a moderator of a Stack Exchange, it may be that part of your day is answering questions and keeping an eye on the site that is something to work out with your employer as to how much could be done on the clock.

I tend to prefer answering questions than asking them so most of my reputation comes from answering questions, explaining tags and those kinds of things rather than asking questions.

JB King
  • 15,457
  • 2
  • 35
  • 58
3

My background is more as a contractor, where we bill the customer by the hour and are expected to differentiate between professional development, billable contract work, and administrative duties. We were given a minimum target for the contract work a week and were able to flex the others as needed.

Asking a question on Stack Exchange on the clock is entirely ethical, if you get an answer faster you will use less time then some other forms of research.

As for answering a question, work out with your manager time set aside for professional development, which would not be directly billed to a customer. If your employer knows and is willing to support your development, and the cost is not being directly added to an unwilling entity's cost, it is ethical.

kleineg
  • 1,106
  • 8
  • 26
3

I think we are generally agreed that seeking an answer to a job-related problem from a web forum on company time is perfectly good and acceptable, right? I can't see any logical reason why someone would say no, though I suppose there are probably managers out there who have a problem with it for reasons that would make no sense to me.

But given that assumption, I think it follows that if we want that resource to be available, we have to support it. Therefore, my philosophy is, whenever I get on a forum to get an answer to a problem, I first try to answer at least one question posted by someone else. If I answer one for every one I ask, then I am doing my fair share.

Beyond that, I often find that when I am stuck on a problem, it can help to clear my mind to read someone else's problem. I don't know that I've ever been so fortunate that I just stumbled across an answer to my immediate problem that way. But I've had plenty of times that I've learned something that came in useful down the road. So when I'm in a brain freeze, I often take off 15 minutes or so to look at a forum and maybe answer a question or two.

I've never had a boss object to this practice, but then, I've never discussed this in detail with a boss either.

On the broader subject, whether it is ethical to read job-related books on company time or to browse job-related web sites ... When I am busy and have looming deadlines, of course not. When things are slow and there is no assigned work to do at the moment, I think yes. What's the alternative? If I don't have any assigned work, I could spend the time sitting back and eating a donut or chatting with co-workers, but that's clearly less productive than reading job-related things. Some times I have little personal projects that I pursue, like I'm a software developer, so I may work on a program to help automate some task I must do frequently or that sort of thing.

Jay
  • 11,053
  • 1
  • 24
  • 37
-1

When it comes to it, only your manager can approve it. Therefore, the only answer is to talk to your manager.

But I see one good benefit : your solution to your problem may not be the best, and when you write it, someone will read it and write you comments (code or idea review).

Of course, I assume you are not over doing it. SE shouldn't interfere with your every day duties and your work.

BЈовић
  • 1,765
  • 1
  • 20
  • 32
-1

Stack Overflow helped me on a lot of occassions already. And with this it did not only save myself time, but it also prevented me now and then from doing stupid stuff in my code that could have cost me even more time to solve later.

But this system only works, because people participate and share their knowledge. So ethically I consider it OK to help out others, too, as long as I do it in a give and receive system and not to to improve my rating/badges/reputation. If I can't write it up in less than three minutes, I'll use my spare time or breaks to reply or prepare code examples.

All in all, I consider it "ethically fine" as long as I save more time using Stack Overflow than I spend on it.

Peter Mortensen
  • 1,003
  • 1
  • 8
  • 8
Calon
  • 21
  • 2