Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 153 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

I am allowed to change my vote on some question or answer when it is edited. Apparently, this allowance does not extend to a change of the Community Wiki state.

Case in question: Someone asked a question which would have been good as a CW, but bad as a non-CW question. It wasn't a CW, so I voted it down. People explained the CW thing to the questioner and she or he edited the question checking the CW checkbox.

You have to click on "edit" to do this and then click the "Save Edits" button. Yet, this edit seems not to be enough for me to change my vote on the question. I had to make a dummy edit in order to be allowed to change the vote.

Since I can't see a good reason why clicking on an "edit" button and then clicking on "Save Edits" isn't considered an edit, I file this under bug. If this is by design, I'd be very curious about the rationale.

(BTW: I have seen Request change in behaviour: Vote too old to be changed, unless post is edited and Vote too old to be changed, unless post is edited and don't think they're exact duplicates.)

share|improve this question
I don't think voting down a question only because it should have been CW is good behavior. The tooltip says "unclear or not helpful" – Andreas Bonini Feb 26 '10 at 15:11
@Koper: I beg to differ. A question that cannot be answered correctly ("Which books should I read to learn X?") is a bad question. But when it is CW, it might be a good one (because it might turn into a list of good books of X). – sbi Feb 26 '10 at 15:15
@Koper: for better or for worse, voting is generally considered to happen at the whim of the voter. while the site tries to cajole users into making meaningful votes (eg, with the tooltips), at the end of the day, nothing is required to vote beyond the voter wanting to. – quack quixote Feb 26 '10 at 16:37
-1 - PLEASE DO NOT SUPPORT WIKI-BULLYING – Adam Davis Feb 26 '10 at 17:02
-1, that's not what CW is for, when will people learn! And -1 again for downvoting only because it's not CW – juanformoso Feb 26 '10 at 17:26
-1 I have too much rep on meta. – Tyler Carter Feb 26 '10 at 17:42
@chacha, can you give me some, I want to reack 10 K, do you accept gold coins? – juanformoso Feb 26 '10 at 17:47
To everyone down-voting this: The case in question was Originally, that should have been closed as "not a real question". You might feel different, but I think if a question isn't a real question, then that's a good reason to down-vote that question. However, the questioner liked the suggestion to make it a CW, and I think this could be a nice CW question, so I wanted to remove that down-vote. So if you still think that was dumb, then feel free to keep down-voting me until I'm stuck with 1 rep. I'm here to get my question answered, not to gain rep. – sbi Feb 26 '10 at 18:08
Oh, and @Pollyanna: I often speak up against questions being closed for no or the wrong reason and against wiki-bullying. So there really is no need to yell at me. While that might not harm your rep, it's definitely bad for your karma. – sbi Feb 26 '10 at 18:09
@sbi - 1) If the question doesn't belong, then it doesn't belong. CW should not even come into the decision. 2) "I often speak up against ... wiki-bullying" and yet you say in the OP, "Cannot change my vote after Wiki status was changed" - ie, the ONLY reason you want to remove your downvote is because it changed to CW. Therefore you are penalizing the question because it is not CW, and removing the penalty once they bow to your demand. AKA, bullying. 3) Sorry for the yelling, but this is one behavior I very strongly discourage. – Adam Davis Feb 26 '10 at 18:55
@Pollyanna: 1) I don't buy it. If the CW flag wouldn't make a difference, then we wouldn't need a CW flag. Since it's there, I can't help but reason that there must be questions where it would be good to have it set. 2) <shrug> Feel free to condemn me. All I was saying is that I'm not generally on an admin mission, closing questions and "bullying" users to make their questions CW. Of course I still stick to my believe that there are questions that are better suited to be CW questions, since I think this falls logically out of #1. 3) Glad to be such an easy target for your holy war. – sbi Feb 27 '10 at 21:57
@sbi - and when you find you need to reverse your vote, you merely need to perform an incidental edit (or ask the OP to do so in a comment) and then you can revert your vote. I just don't see a need to make it easy and thus encourage this behavior. – Adam Davis Feb 28 '10 at 0:08
@Pollyanna: I did just that. Still, clicking on "edit", changing a flag, then clicking on "Save Edits", and then to be able to do something you should be allowed after editing, seems plain wrong to me. But then, I'm a programmer, so I'm anal. – sbi Feb 28 '10 at 11:02
up vote 4 down vote accepted

I'd say this is by design. While you are free to vote however you like, the site encourages you to vote down only if the question is unclear or not useful. It does not encourage nor does it need to support users that downvote because they believe it should be wiki, but is otherwise clear and useful.

If forcing a question into CW mode was a desired feature, then it would exist. It does not, by design, and so I submit that wiki-bullying is not going to be supported by design.

A position I may well be downvoted into oblivion for, but one which I wholeheartedly agree with.

share|improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

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