Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 158 Stack Exchange communities.

What is meta?
Here's how it works:
  1. Any Stack Exchange user can ask a question
  2. The community provides support, votes on ideas, and reports bugs
  3. Your voice helps shape the way Stack Exchange operates

Hypothetically speaking, what impact on the site would it have if all posts were Community Wiki?

I like how the site works now because I take ownership in my questions and answers, but I was wondering if the site would be radically different. If there was a good way to moderate it, would it lead to higher quality answers that stay up to date?

share|improve this question

closed as not constructive by Oded, Servy, animuson, Bart, Adam Lear Dec 31 '12 at 20:18

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

It would make asking bad questions and giving bad answers something that has no consequence (reputation wise), meaning crap would accumulate faster than it could get rid of. – Oded Dec 31 '12 at 20:06
@Oded That makes sense. But I think the nature of voting to delete/close would be different. – Austin Henley Dec 31 '12 at 20:07
Possibly. But this is naval gazing. We don't really know. The system is very complex and even little changes have very big impact. The only way to find out is to change the system in this way - I don't think anyone really wants to experiment in such a manner... – Oded Dec 31 '12 at 20:08
Even for meta, a purely hypothetical "what if" type question like this is a bit much. :) – Adam Lear Dec 31 '12 at 20:19
As well as the above, if all posts were Community Wiki then in it's current incarnation reputation would become obsolete. Whilst you could debate whether this is a good or a bad thing, it would lead to the collapse of the reputation linked privileges system as it currently stands, including most measures for peer review, quality control and moderation. – Rory Dec 31 '12 at 20:20
Hmmm, this seems like a good topic of discussion, i.e. NOT not constructive. Though I do hope it gets downvoted to oblivion. – Lance Roberts Dec 31 '12 at 20:29
Of course Austin might want to delete it himself and see if there is a secret hat for deleting your own negative post. Testing right now on another post. – Lance Roberts Dec 31 '12 at 20:30
Nope, no hat for deleting your own negative post (maybe if you get the PP badge, but you can only get that once). – Lance Roberts Dec 31 '12 at 20:42
up vote 7 down vote accepted

Not really sure where you're going with this discussion but it's like asking "what impact on the world would it have if there will be no money any more"?

Stack Exchange is based on reputation, this is the oil in its gears. For good or for bad, this is how the system was designed: post good contents and earn points; post bad contents and you would lose points. Clean and simple, and looks like it's working really well.

So, back to the question: if you ask me, without ordinary posts and/or without reputation Stack Overflow (and probably any other Stack Exchange site) will cease to exist, most likely faster than the speed of light. :)

share|improve this answer
We could have "coupins." – Robert Harvey Dec 31 '12 at 20:28

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