What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 131 Stack Exchange communities.

Possible Duplicate:
We should be able to vote on our own community wiki posts

As far as I know, a post can become Community Wiki in these cases:

  • For Questions, you need to flag it to a moderator OR when it gets edited by a number of users.
  • For Answers, you can set it yourself OR, again, when it gets edited by a number of users.

I think that at least in the second case we should be allowed to vote for the post, even if we are the original author. The reason is that after being edited so much, that post is not really ours anymore, if you get what I mean.

I also think it'd be useful in some Meta discussions. Think about when setting policy: You provide the canonical "I agree" and "I disagree" CW answers for the community — they haven't been edited, you set them — but you still can't vote for them and actually show your approval/disapproval.

I don't think there's going to be abuse since you can vote once, and you'd be promoting a common post and not yours, and it won't give you reputation anyways. But instead, you'd be voting on the resulting post which probably has only little of your original wording.

I honestly fail to see any compelling reasons for not allowing it, but who knows. I've searched for any related posts, but it seems nobody asked before.

share|improve this question

marked as duplicate by Asad, Martijn Pieters, Lance Roberts, animuson, ChrisF Dec 28 '12 at 1:41

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

    
I think questions are no longer CWd due to edits. But they probably are (and this has been there before the recentish changes to CW) CWd if they get too many answers. –  Manishearth Dec 20 '12 at 12:30
    
That's surely an original idea.. however I don't think it's really that good. For example, a post (question or answer) will become CW after 12 edits, no matter who made them. So user can do all those edits, or 9 out of those 12, then this is his contents. Starting to apply all kinds of filters and checks will make it pretty complicated to implement. –  Shadow Wizard Dec 20 '12 at 12:30
    
@Manishearth A recent question I asked on MSO became CW because of the edits. –  Alenanno Dec 20 '12 at 12:33
    
@ShaWizDowArd I don't think it's hard to possibly implement a check for "# of different users that edited", but I'm not a programmer so I don't know how that could be done. –  Alenanno Dec 20 '12 at 12:34
    
@Alenanno if you mean that only if it was edited by at least 5 different users than yes, it shouldn't be complicated. But still, it's too rare to have any real effect. –  Shadow Wizard Dec 20 '12 at 12:36
    
@ShaWizDowArd Actually I asked this also for some Meta discussions: I also think it'd be useful in some Meta discussions. Think about when setting policy: You provide the canonical "I agree" and "I disagree" CW answers for the community — they haven't been edited, you set them — but you still can't vote for them and actually show your approval/disapproval. ... My proposal is a start, it certainly can be improved and fixed. :) but I think there is a need for this. –  Alenanno Dec 20 '12 at 12:38
    
OK, fair enough. Let the community (well, and the devs :)) decide. –  Shadow Wizard Dec 20 '12 at 12:40
    
@ShaWizDowArd Of course! :P –  Alenanno Dec 20 '12 at 12:41

2 Answers 2

An increase in reputation isn't the only reason you aren't allowed to vote on your own posts. If you post an answer/question, it is axiomatic that you agree with any positions it puts forth. If a post has 10 votes, you already know 11 people agree with it.

Allowing a person to vote on their own CW post would always result in a self upvote, since you won't ever post anything you disagree with. This is still the case when editing by several people causes CW, since these edits almost never introduce a conflicting viewpoint. They simply expand on the same arguments. This is why I don't think self votes are a good idea.

share|improve this answer
    
Please, re-check my question. When a post is edited until it becomes CW by many users, it loses the original "I wrote it therefore I agree with it" feature. And I don't see why allowing me to vote on Meta would be a bad idea. If I post two answers "I agree/I disagree" for people to vote on (such as policy questions), what am I agreeing with? –  Alenanno Dec 20 '12 at 12:44
1  
@Alenanno When a post is edited by several users, the underlying view point shouldn't change. If an edit is introducing an opposing view point to the post, it should be a different answer entirely. As far as posting "I agree/I disagree" are concerned, you don't get a vote on either, which is just as fair as being able to vote both. –  Asad Dec 20 '12 at 12:45
    
When I post those two answers, I'm always forced to post a comment to make my opinion clear, because as much as you say the opposite, it's not clear. I want to be able to vote on those answers as much as everybody else is allowed to. –  Alenanno Dec 20 '12 at 12:51
    
@Alenanno If you have an interest one way or another, you shouldn't be playing the part of moderator and representing both sides anyway. If you feel you are neutral on the issue, by all means, present both cases. If you have a leaning towards one side of the argument, only post an answer representing that side. –  Asad Dec 20 '12 at 12:53
    
I'm not playing the parts of a moderator, I am a moderator. And I want to be able to vote whether I am or not. And whether I'm leaning towards one side or the other, I don't see why I shouldn't be allowed to post both canonical answers for the benefit of the community –  Alenanno Dec 20 '12 at 12:54
    
@Alenanno Perhaps I should have made clearer that I meant a moderator of the discussion, not an SE mod. –  Asad Dec 20 '12 at 12:56

I don't think this is a good idea.

Yes, when a post becomes CW, you won't get any rep for it anymore.

But you still get badges because you are still the owner. And you can get a bounty for it. So in order to make the post votable we should drop ownership completely.

Not sure if that is a good idea either.

share|improve this answer
    
Then drop ownership-for-badges when applicable. It's a bit ridiculous to see this feature as a way for me to get badges on some posts, honestly. –  Alenanno Dec 20 '12 at 12:50

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .