This came out of a discussion in the C++ lounge today with @casperOne regarding the long-term viability of keeping the c++-faq meta-tag around. Please help me to flesh it out.
- Meta-tags are bad
- The C++ community, possibly uniquely, utilizes this tag for a multitude of reasons:
- To easily identify canonical questions that other questions may be closed as duplicates of.
- Identify collections of "authoritatve answers" as there is a dearth of good, peer-reviewed C++ information.
- There are too many questions and too many people and we should just get drunk
- While possible to move the referenced questions into a tag wiki (it would have to be another one, since this tag theoretically would not exist if removed from all the questions) the tag wiki system is not quite up to the task of acting as a reference repository for [allegedly] oft-asked questions, that we instead post as fake questions and tag them c++-faq so that they do not get closed as Not Constructive.
In order to more constructively create a repository for this sort of information, it was proposed that the tag wiki system be enhanced so that we can use that instead of polluting question-space with long-winded, made up "references". It would need to be searchable, and we would need to be able to close a question by referring the OP to the wiki post somehow, in much the same way that we can presently close as dupe of a c++-faq post (though, frankly, I don't see this happen that often).
I was slightly concerned that high rep certainly doesn't necessarily entail expertise (ultimately, what does?), but concluded that it's difficult to get a gold badge simply through picking off low-hanging fruit and rep-whoring. Then, we have the voting system to protect against the odd high-rep, low-expertise person-who-got-really-lucky-with-Reddit from upsetting the delicate balance.