<p>I often, but not always, vote to close many such questions. Why? </p>

<p><strong>There is no axiom that all questions have a place somewhere on SE.</strong> Questions on the routine use of some language don't belong here and they don't belong on SO if they are not about a (non-trivial) programming problem raised by the poster's own code. For example, questions about "How do I do X in Y?" don't belong in either place. I don't pose as a hard man in saying that, as I am active on SO too, I have answered thousands of such questions about Stata on Statalist and I respect greatly those who do similar things for SPSS, SAS, R, Python, MATLAB, Excel, etc. in appropriate forums. (It remains axiomatic also that people should Read The Fine Documentation.)  </p>

<p><strong>The argument is pragmatic as much as one of principle.</strong> If any and every question on use of statistical programs is allowed here, then we would be swamped. Traffic could easily rise by a factor between 2 and 10. If that happened, I think many active members would feel that the forum was too busy to manage. If that's not so, then we need a policy on precisely what is allowed, and we do have one. </p>

<p><strong>I don't buy any implication that people new to the forum, or to statistics, or to any statistical computing platform have a right to ask different questions or a broader range of questions here.</strong> If the question on-topic. that is fine. If not, not. If I walk into a shop and the answer is "Sorry, we don't sell that here", then that's the way it is. I expect a similar attitude from new members. It's a little wry when new members start ruling for themselves what is on-topic as against moderators or members with moderate or high reputation, but there you go. </p>

<p><strong>I try always to follow the statement on what is on-topic at <a href="https://stats.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic">https://stats.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic</a></strong>  </p>

<ul>
<li><p>Members who think the policy is too hard on certain kinds of statistical computing questions need to say what policy they would prefer. We've been around this more than once during my time on the forum (2 years) and no one ever has different wording to offer that buys widespread assent. </p></li>
<li><p>Members who think that particular decisions are being made in conflict with the policy need to spell that out, because if so decisions need to be revisited, which is always in order. </p></li>
</ul>

<p>How does the example raised by @Glen_b bear on this? I have to say that as posted I think it is a weak question and doesn't really belong in either forum. I have no objection to people trying to improve it, but the main obligation is with the OP to improve it. (In particular, posts with the flavour "I don't understand" are making statements, not asking questions, a hard principle to learn.) </p>

<p>Elsewhere I am intensely interested in historical questions but here I don't find what was allowed a few years ago to be a compelling argument. A forum is allowed to, indeed expected to, evolve as it matures and works out its own style, policy and <em>modus operandi</em>. History is especially irrelevant for new users. </p>
