The problem with SO is the sheer volume. With volume comes a drop in quality: of the questions asked, answers given, and (in my view) the average behaviour of the participants. I actively avoid participating on SO, unless specifically asked.

That said, I am a fan of the idea of compiling a 'wiki' of high-quality broadly-applicable questions and answers that many people will find useful, now and in the future. This is, for me, the essential difference between the Database Administrators[/url] Stack Exchange site that I contribute to as much as I can, versus the specific-question, specific-answer, extended discussion model of, say, SSC. These approaches are compatible and complementary, to a great extent.

I think the reputation/privileges model is beneficial, taken as a whole. The 'mess' that is SO aside, this model does encourage positive behaviours and reward constructive participation on Database Administrators. We have a moderate number of excellent questions and answers, and a great crew of 'regulars' with practical knowledge across a broad range of DBMSs and a real desire to help. There is no minimum to ask a question or post an answer (you don't even need to log in if you don't want to). Reputation points mean good answers float to the top, and bad answers are retained as a warning of bad practice.

Off-topic or extended discussion is discouraged on the main site, but that's why we have a dedicated chat system[/url] for each site. There is a small rep requirement (20) to chat, and a bit more to create a room of your own (perhaps to discuss a question at length, or to pursue a related topic), but this is only sensible to prevent abuse and spam etc.

There is even general on- and off-topic conversation a la Thread on The Heap. I hope we are always welcoming and never rude, but if we are you should let us know and we'll fix it.

I'm not saying all this to say that DBA.SE is better or worse than SSC. For my personal purposes, it has significant benefits, so I choose to contribute there most of the time. Opposing views are equally (or possibly more) valid.

edit: The thing I found awkward to get used to at first was the collaborative editing model, where anyone can suggest an edit (though community approval is needed) and high-rep users are trusted to edit constructively without review. The safeguard (aside from the full moderators) is that edits can always be rolled back by the OP, whatever his or her rep level. Edits are pretty fundamental to the 'wiki' idea of collaborative improvement.