From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Artur Malabarba Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: Gnus + emacs.stackexchange Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 00:21:47 +0100 Message-ID: References: <87fv7hoxnd.fsf@debian.uxu> <87mw1luz3o.fsf_-_@debian.uxu> <87a8xjpxdh.fsf@gmail.com> <87h9rr56ap.fsf@debian.uxu> <876184j9lx.fsf@debian.uxu> Reply-To: bruce.connor.am@gmail.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1431040922 31306 80.91.229.3 (7 May 2015 23:22:02 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 23:22:02 +0000 (UTC) Cc: help-gnu-emacs To: Emanuel Berg Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri May 08 01:22:01 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YqV7B-0001Qn-Bz for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 08 May 2015 01:22:01 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:53105 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YqV7A-0004nm-FH for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 07 May 2015 19:22:00 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42537) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YqV70-0004ng-2d for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 07 May 2015 19:21:51 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YqV6y-0006dL-W7 for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 07 May 2015 19:21:50 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-lb0-x235.google.com ([2a00:1450:4010:c04::235]:32932) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YqV6y-0006c8-Ih for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 07 May 2015 19:21:48 -0400 Original-Received: by lbbzk7 with SMTP id zk7so42092726lbb.0 for ; Thu, 07 May 2015 16:21:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=yKgSIcBcuAvGlSBNsoyzYGeYSjhWSJxK+Wkoj3/nogs=; b=qpk+3/J6SRilIh2EDZflpyCrehFj9hLkHh1uoOuOMBGcxsTr27/90+dAOggWEAGISO G9q+vaYBt+m8bFPar3KemdTnSB09ps0Gm8hGivjwQT7MjZ8etMcIgzBhiGRHYzKuHdYm 28st0jkZYyXfSGuwFEpAwP8QdCXCnVnDMzSzio3iJ70VAv4mttFfjrTe6mCacffJvm0x hA8gfbYck2pJuGe1x++/eb0cxXIjVBek3NVzQxdNpDJd2/571ba4GJLDbo0qGsRSVBwW mfDiG8tvrO66gJhEGxp7jxP/scCjkju9bmK2L/Sf8ffwUjfBoIb2j2Xk3L91qz4MaYhN suWg== X-Received: by 10.152.43.110 with SMTP id v14mr752775lal.4.1431040907858; Thu, 07 May 2015 16:21:47 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.25.150.1 with HTTP; Thu, 7 May 2015 16:21:47 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.25.150.1 with HTTP; Thu, 7 May 2015 16:21:47 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <876184j9lx.fsf@debian.uxu> X-Google-Sender-Auth: gCjF4xjGy_St07bQRWKI0DZRsbQ X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2a00:1450:4010:c04::235 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.14 X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:104283 Archived-At: > >> 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.