@Tchalvak: It was mainly intended as a suggestion to how you could improve the tags on that question.

After taking a quick look over there, "balance" is an existing tag that works well with that question: you're trying to find a value for X (or multiple values) that keeps the game balanced. "difficulty", another existing tag, is probably a bit of a stretch, but could possibly work.

That sort of stuff is known as the Scunthorpe problem - which by now has really become a clbuttic sort of mistake: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scunthorpe_problem

I'm thinking that might be the best way to do things: pull the stuff via RSS and insert into some external task management system where people classify the topics and mark them as completed when something's been written. This way, we get the intended input and tracking of stuff that should be written into the Wiki, we can easily do filtering to see exactly what needs to be done, and there'd be no disruption on SO - seems to be the best of both worlds.

My main concern with a link in the message are new users, who suddenly see something like "Rejected for Docwiki". This could be confusing and possibly misinterpreted as "This is a bad question", even with the link. That might happen for comments as well, but I think it'll be easier to properly describe it without having it interfere too much with the question text.

@Stu: Yes, that's entirely true, but without someone asking that question, no one will answer it. To me, the equal value of questions and answers shows that we acknowledge that fact, and I think that seems to fit well with the concept this was built on. In practice, it'll probably always be easier to get the rep as an answerer, but by making it even harder to get rep from asking questions, that can be demoralizing to those people, and it might prevent them from asking those really good questions. The change isn't meant as a penalty, but it can easily be interpreted that way.