I am sorry for any inconvenience or offence I caused. It was and is somehow however unclear to me that this comment crossed some line. As circumstantial evidence in my defense I can mention that it was me who flagged shortly before this question for you attention to this question. I will try to be more careful regarding my phrasing in the future.

Also I will come back to this matter in about half a day; it is difficult at the moment (for completely unrelated reasons).

As a final quick note to my correspondent on main; please check the FAQs for the main usecase of CW mentioned there. My reasoning is precisely the one in the FAQs (to the extent I understand them).

Sorry, more meaningful repsonse later. But I would very strongly prefer the context would be preserved!

This is the commenct called uncivil (it is not repeat it, just to keep the conetx) and originally included in OP. The particular objection was against the last sentence. And this is all there was.

Well, I have no strong feelings regarding this matter, and or maybe because I do not care much about "rewards" in the form of points. However, I also think that the Erdős answers are likely closer in spirit to the question than the other one. So they should appear first (by votes). If it were CW I could easily up and down vote. Now this is a bit more difficult (since there is no reason to down-vote that answer on regular grounds). And, this is the entire point of the CW-ing in such cases. But of course I do not want to deprive anybody of a couple of oh so important points.

For full context

http://mathoverflow.net/questions/122406/undecidability-and-holomorphic-functions-reference-request

I can see that my comment was certainly not friendly, it was (intended as) a somewhat annoyed comment. Of course one should avoid writing annoyed comments, but then I am still surprised in a very direct sense this particular comment caused this reaction. [Added: By 'this' I basically mean any, I do not have a particular problem with the form of the reaction. Except I'd preferred the context would have been preserved all along.]

@grp: Some assertions you make seem factually incorrect. Or at least you use the word "accountability" in a way I do not understand. Also one is never really even asked to provide an email address, neither directly nor by the FAQs nor by the system. In addition there are other means of (almost) off-line communication (a comment somewhere, for example).

Not sure this is ontopic for this thread but regarding the substance of the exchange itself. From the FAQs, since it seems not known to some:

The most common use of community wiki mode is to ask a question where the goal is to produce a sorted list of answers, rather than a single complete answer. Community wiki mode gets the reputation system out of the way so that people more freely vote up and down to help rearrange the sort order, therby making the page more useful.

I fail to see how a comment like this:

Since apparently there is no "unique" answer here, but this rather asks for a list of results of a certain flavor I thinnk this should be CW.

Is not clearly identifiable as referring indirectly to this description of CW in FAQs. And why my second one on up-downvoting is so surprising.

It seems some additional explanation is necessary.

The context is the following: Qfwfq was trying to recall a certain specific fact that he or she had heard, and produced some identifying information that did not uniquely characterize the answer. However, it is reasonable to assume that the correct answer would trigger some additional recollection. In other words, there is a correct answer, and a definite criterion for it to be chosen, even though that criterion may be mysterious to us. This is why I think CW is not particularly appropriate for this question (although this point is peripheral).

When quid proposed that the question be CW, Joel David Hamkins asked, "Why shouldn't those who can come up with good examples be rewarded for doing so?". This provoked quid's response. My problem with the response is that the last sentence, "But of course I do not want to deprive anybody of a couple of oh so important points.", is not a counterargument that could lead to some resolution, but is instead an attempt to invalidate the question, and by association, the questioner. I think we can all agree that there are valid reasons for disliking the point system, but it is not necessary to put down people who claim it has value.

My general point is this: if you ever feel the need to make a comment that "raises the temperature" of the discussion, please refrain from doing so on the main MathOverflow site, and instead write it on here, on meta.

I would prefer for the moment nothing were delted copy it over here please at least. With precise time stamps! This might be relevant. The paraphrase is incomplete!

The above being said, and while my hectic first comment could give a different impression is I do not much care if this question is community wiki. Over time I flagged and commented on any number of questions they should be CW. In most cases they were made CW.

What I do care about is the claim that they idea to suggest it is odd or based on some point considerations. It is also tru that since the result OP searched was found somewhat quickly the question took a somewhat different direction.

But I will not flag or comment on CW anymore. You can then sort out the fights between those that vote to close if it is not CW and they think so and others.

@Teo B: I never said it was uninteresting! This is a crucial difference.

An analogy that seems closer is somebody (A) submitting two part paper, somebody (B) suggesting to better write just one containing both since it will be easier to read the material this way, somebody (C) objecting to the idea because after all publication count is important. And then (B) saying, well, do whatever but I do not like this approach.

(I hope you do not mind how B was chosen, this was by coincidence.)

On the last sentence matter: I would however like to point out that before that I gave an argument why CW has certain advantages (it is or at least was my understanding that it is not acceptable to downvote an answer in general just because one thinks another one is better, only in CW). And then I end in an admittedly polemic way since it seemed to me somebody values the points higher than "making the page more useful" (formulation from FAQ).

Let me clarify again. The problem is not the fact that you had a disagreement about CW. It is that you used the words "oh so important" in that part of the sentence. In the version of English that I learned as a child, that phrase is a way of saying, "points are not only unimportant, but you are foolish for thinking they have value". That, and only that, is what I find unacceptable.

I finally understand Scott's point. There really are MO users who think that points have value and can be offended with quid's flippant remark! Maybe even among the moderators...

I still don't have any problem at all with the comment in question, and as a non-anonymous user, let me say: if it's true that these points induce people to post more than they otherwise would, I understand why MO as an institution supports them, finds them beneficial, etc. But that doesn't mean that all of its users like them (this is why Anton added the option of disabling reputation counts, which I greatly appreciate), nor that on balance they are good for humanity/mathematicians/mathematics.

I do not want to restart this discussion, this more intended as a "private message" for Teo B:

I still think your analogies are not good, but I admit you had some point. In any case thank you for your friendly efforts in this discussions. Still your analogies are not good :D