A close second is mailing lists, which the author does mention. I think it's pretty well established that the only way a mailing list can be pleasant to read is if every single participant is uses the same mail client and formats their responses identically, taking great pains to format the exact same way, which has never happened.
There is already a solution which naturally encourages all the good behaviour in this article: Stack Overflow and co.
There's so many questions on StackOverflow these days you're counting on luck that someone (qualified) sees your question. Most questions I've asked in the past year never get to even 10 views, or 1 answer. Another problem is that you're not supposed to respond unless you have The Answer, so if you don't happen to get an expert to read it, you often get nothing at all. Some fields seem to be perpetually full of beginners -- Lisp-related tags are often loaded with "help with hello world" questions.
StackOverflow also has the Close Police, who seem to patrol questions looking for any excuse to close it. Even after 10 years, I can't predict when a question might be flagged.
On IRC, there might be only 5 people actively participating in a channel, but 100 lurkers. When you ask a question, people respond with suggestions even if they don't have The Answer, and this often leads to a workable solution.
The average quality of response on IRC is much higher, as well. A lot of the lurkers are actually semi-famous developers. On more than one occasion, I've asked how to do something like $(app) does, and someone says "$(dev) here wrote $(app), just ask them!".
StackOverflow is from the social media generation of software, where you need a pretty avatar, and accumulate points, and there's rules you must not break. IRC is from the pre-web generation of software, where there are no absolute rules, and you just want to get shit done.
> StackOverflow is from the social media generation of software, where you need a pretty avatar, and accumulate points, and there's rules you must not break.
Unlike IRC, where people need to learn and adopt the particular culture of a channel, and (in extreme cases) need to supplicate before the right people to get a civil response.
Stack* is about questions and answers, learning and doing.
All (software) IRC channels have basically the same culture. It's essentially what you mean when you say StackOverflow "naturally encourages all the good behaviour".
I have no idea what you mean by "supplicate before the right people to get a civil response". I don't think I've ever seen that. Unlike StackOverflow, you have the option to ask one person directly, but you're never obligated to.
Quick back-and-forth for details is very efficient compared to e-mail or postings somewhere if asking for details is really needed. Similarly, it feels more appropriate for really short questions.
The waiting isn't so much an issue if you have a stable IRC setup (or the channel has good infrastructure), but can be a problem for people that don't have that. Generally, "please ping me if you reply" works fine, and less active channels can be quite good at directing questions to the right person.
And a big thing is audience: if there's only a few people I think will know a good answer, asking in an IRC channel or on a mailing list they use is more efficient to get them to see it. On Stack Overflow I have the risk of not only having it to word in a way that the few people I want a response understand it, but also so that everyone else doesn't feel like it's a bad question, can only ask questions SO finds acceptable, and maybe the right people don't even look at SO, or don't see the question.
This obviously doesn't apply to questions many people from a larger community can answer.
Missing tip: when creating a new question on Stack or traditional forum: make your question topic describe the root of the problem. Be concise.
You will increase chance that somebody that potentially knows the answer will come to help.
Titling your topic "problem", "need help", "my app doesn't work" isn't going to help you and will frustrate others, usually dealing with people breaking half of the tips from the article.
As for your other point, yes, with all the negativity that StackOverflow sometimes exhibits, I really feel that the pressure/urge for users to create a "Minimal, Complete, Verifiable" example  is part of the site's appeal, and part of the reason of the high quality of responses you sometimes find there.
Couple of books I found useful :-
A more beautiful question - Warren Berger
Power Questions - Andrew Sobel
Secrets of Question Based Selling - Thomas Freese.
While they're not a substitute for technical adequacy, at the end of the day, we have real people as co-workers, clients, bosses, and we provide services to them, and those skills are of utmost importance, and should be part of the interviewing process.
Also, thanks for the resources, I'll be checking them out. ;)
Also, if anyone here has gotten an Anker vertical USB mouse to stay awake, scroll smoothly, and click reliably on a clean install of 18.04, I’m all ears. :D
> If you spend 5 minutes Googling this you’ll know more than me.
It’s short enough, if flatters and encourages the recipient, it demonstrates modesty.
Much better than RTFM!
And I disagree that "RTFM" is a useless answer. When it's correct, it's the most useful answer one can get. To put it another way, it's only useless if one refuses to accept it--which is, again, like violating rule #7.
There might be a place for an abridged version of HTAQTSW, but I don't think this is it, because it doesn't improve upon it, and it denigrates it.
Auuggghhhh! The forums you use are a great resource not just for you but for others. A posted solution could help other people who are searching for the same question.