On the other hand, a Slashdot comment that's stuck in my mind (and on my hard disks) since I read it years ago:

In one respect the computer industry is exactly like the construction industry: nobody has two minutes to tell you how to do something...but they all have forty-five minutes to tell you why you did it wrong.

When I started working at a tech company, as a lowly new-guy know-nothing, I found that any question starting with "How do I..." or "What's the best way to..." would be ignored; so I had to adopt another strategy. Say I wanted to do X. Research showed me there were (say) about six or seven ways to do X. Which is the best in my situation? I don't know. So I pick an approach at random, though I don't actually use it. Then I wander down to the coffee machine and casually remark, "So, I needed to do X, and I used approach Y." I would then, inevitably, get a half-hour discussion of why that was stupid, and what I should have done was use approach Z, because of this, this, and this. Then I would go off and use approach Z.

In ten years in the tech industry, that strategy has never failed once. I think the key difference is the subtext. In the first strategy, the subtext is, "Hey, can you spend your valuable time helping me do something trivial?" while in the second strategy, the subtext is, "Hey, here's a chance to show off how smart you are." People being what they are, the first subtext will usually fail -- but the second will always succeed.

— fumblebruschi

Well, did they test popularity of sites without fake internet points vs popularity of sites with, controlling for relevant factors? I skimmed through the post, and there wasn't much actual data on what people do and why, just assertions.

Convincing people to offer others programming help on the internet isn't a special accomplishment of SO. From usenet to modern mailing lists to forums to IRC, there are tons and tons of thriving venues for it. The gamification might have helped SO's popularity some, but taking time out of their busy lives to answer others' questions was alive and well.

SO is a dangerous trash heap. It doesn't encourage helping people make good programs; it answers extremely literal questions. Speed of post is important. Style of post is important. Blatantly wrong answers are upvoted by people who don't know what they're looking at when they are early, indicating that vote count isn't telling ever. Doing anything but answering a question completely literally is treated with extreme hostility. These sorts of things have gotten worse with time.

The community relations are bizarre. Active members of the community buy into cheap salesman lines by the owners that are meant to favor the owners. The idea that the community can direct itself is thrown around as if it wasn't blatantly untrue.

Yes, an incredible people jump at the chance to help strangers. SO didn't invent that, they're just one of the more popular current hosts to these people. It's distasteful to act like it started by wondering if such people exist.