Why does meta stackoverflow need an independent reputation system? [duplicate]

Question

Possible Duplicate:
Should reputation from SO carry over to Meta?

What is the purpose of having an independent reputation system for the users of meta stackoverflow? Isn't it the case that all (non-trivial) meta stackoverflow users are stackoverflow users, and the users with high enough reputation in the latter should be trusted as much in the former? I don't get the idea that users of stackoverflow with certain privileges have a different accessibility in meta stackoverflow. Wouldn't it be much simpler if the reputations and the priviledges of a user of stackoverflow carried over to meta stackoverflow?

Another reason I am against having an independent reputation for the meta is because, if you have multiple accounts on stackexchange, it will show as a list with your reputations. However, only one site, that is meta stackoverflow, stands out strangely. Reputation points on other sites may reflect your contribution/ability in a particular field, but it does not seem to make sense to have your meta points listed. It does not look like a much meaningful measure to be shown as a property of the user.

Answer 1

Meta Stack Overflow is not only Meta Stack Overflow but also Meta Stack Exchange. There are a lot of issues discussed here that are about the network and not specific to Stack Overflow, sometimes even completely irrelevant to Stack Overflow.

So, no, it wouldn't make sense to tie Meta Stack Overflow reputation to Stack Overflow, it's not a normal Meta and that would be unfair to everyone who participates here without participating on Stack Overflow proper.

There are plans to create a separate Meta Stack Exchange, and when that happens I guess it would make sense for Meta Stack Overflow to become a normal per site Meta, and Meta Stack Exchange to have its own reputation and badges instead.