Re: Gnus + emacs.stackexchange

[Artur Malabarba]

> >> Couldn't one post there anonymously at some point?
> >> Perhaps they removed that possibility.
> >
> > I'm not sure, but if one could then they've
> > definitely removed it.
>
> I think it is a bit illogical there are accounts on
> the SX sites and yet everyone is encouraged to edit
> posts, including those that aren't written by
> the editor.

Kind of. Everyone with a bit of reputation is encouraged to submit edits.
And it takes quite a bit more to be able to edit directly.

> On Wikipedia the whole idea is anyone can edit, and
> the result of the collective effort will prevail in
> the end (is the assumption). But it doesn't say who
> wrote what with an assigned reputation to go with it,
> which would seem to run contrary to that principle
> (?).
>
> But if it works I suppose it doesn't matter what is
> logical or not. Personally I like no one to edit what
> I write and if I make a mistake (it has been known to
> happen) I'm confident someone will point it out, which
> is the way I like it.
>
> As for reputation that should be implied. During the
> Russian civil war the Reds didn't have any signs to
> tell who was the commander in each squad, but still
> everyone knew who was the boss. It's usually not that
> difficult to tell.
>
> But again (explicit) reputation is a way of making it
> a competition and it seems to inspire people to
> produce material, so tho I personally am opposed to
> that for several reasons I'm not blind to see that it
> seems to work for them and to some extent to me, as
> I often Google error messages and the like and find
> the answer on one of them sites.

Yes, I think you've said it all. :-)
Maybe one could arguably say that Wikipedia's model is more successful due
to its size. But that might just be comparing apples and oranges. Both
clearly worked very well for their applications.