Not signed in (Sign In)

Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Feature requests: Proposal: 2500 rep for vote to community wiki

Bottom of Page

1 to 8 of 8

  1.  
    • CommentAuthorHarry Gindi
    • CommentTimeJan 7th 2010 edited
     
    At the moment, as far as I can tell, only the real moderators (maybe only Anton, for that matter) can community wiki hammer a whole question (hammer means that all answers are cwiki'd too). I want to submit this on meta.SE, but I'd like to poll the community first.
  2.  

    All moderators can wield the wiki hammer, and no non-moderator can. A similar request appeared on meta.SO. One big concern is that converting to CW is currently irreversible. I'd vote for this feature if CW were reversible (by 5 votes or by moderator, just like closing). Presumably you'd only be able to vote to (un)wiki a question, and a successful vote to wiki would wiki all answers. A successful vote to unwiki would unwiki all answers unless they would be wiki anyway for some other reason. A post would only accrue reputation for the owner when it isn't in wiki (i.e. unwiki-ing a post doesn't give you reputation retroactively, just like wiki-ing it doesn't take away reputation already earned).

  3.  
    Are there any chances of this more sophisticated community wiki system being implemented?
    • CommentAuthorCSiegel
    • CommentTimeJan 7th 2010
     
    I definitely approve, though consider saying 2000 for anyone who can edit.
  5.  
    Sounds reasonable. Anton, would you mind if I copied your post (with minor edits for context) and put it on meta.SO?
  6.  

    hmmm, actually not so good on the SO side. If vote-to-wiki won't happen on SO, then reversibility of CW won't either. That means that we should probably just push for reversibility of CW in SE, and just flag posts for moderator attention if you think they should be wiki. I can also see the argument that the wiki police can potentially get pretty harsh (as they have on SO), so it makes sense to take the edge off by going through a small finite set of moderators.

    I've actually been a bit surprised at the lack of contention about CW on meta. I don't think anybody has ever really objected to me converting a question to wiki, so I've never had to defend the decision. When it comes to closing/reopening questions, lots of arguments and heuristics have come up here on meta, so I feel like I understand the subject pretty well. But CW is more nebulous, and I'm much more hesitant when dealing with should-be-CW cases that aren't clear cut.

  7.  
    That's because conversion to community wiki is much more clear cut than if the question belongs on the site at all. A good rule of thumb that I use for flagging for community wiki or making one of my own questions community wiki is: any question that is substantially subjective, or any sort of list, or any question that has a substantial number of correct answers. Almost every post that I've flagged or suggested be wiki-fied in the comments was eventually converted.
  8.  

    Also, I suspect people are more annoyed at being told not to talk about a problem than being told they won't get reputation for doing so.

1 to 8 of 8

  1.  
Back to Discussions Top of Page