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

Following this answer, I was wondering whether it would make sense to force answers to CW along with the question. All previous reputation will be kept, but no new reputation will be gained.

share|improve this question
re:P.S. - I have observed the "traditional" behaviour today. A question was made cw and my previously posted answer didn't become cw automatically. I marked it as cw later manually. – Daniel Daranas Aug 6 '09 at 9:13

This reminds me of the Code Wedding Cake topic on StackOverflow. I was the first answer in there along with a few others who slipped in before the author changed it back to CW status and we continued to gain rep for it until we either hit our daily limit or some other users felt the urge to go in and continuously edit our posts until it automatically switched over (which I am pretty resentful of, I see the act of repetitive edits to force a CW switch a form of abuse).

As far as your answer, I don't necessarily see any problem with it aside from a slightly greedy perspective, so overall I wouldn't be bothered if it stayed the way it is now or was revised.

share|improve this answer
I'd go further than that: I see CW itself and the "decay" of posts to CW as a fundamentally flawed idea. – cletus Jul 10 '09 at 14:37
@cletus, care to elaborate? – SilentGhost Jul 10 '09 at 14:45
cletus: I'm not much of a proponent of CW either simply because it appears as if nobody knows what the hell it is actually for other than rep-shielding. – TheTXI Jul 10 '09 at 15:04
I see CW itself, and especially the "decay" of posts to CW as a fundamentally brilliant idea... albeit with a limited, flawed, slightly-schizophrenic implementation: it should happen consistently, easily, and allow anyone with a few good answers to edit the results. – Shog9 Jul 10 '09 at 15:49

Also currently moderators can convert questions to CW, which switches both the questions and the answers. If it is really an issue with a particular question flag it for moderator attention and the problem is solved.

share|improve this answer
hm, does such conversion force existing answers into CW? – SilentGhost Sep 4 '09 at 15:45
Edited to highlight that it switch BOTH the questions and the answers, existing and new. – BinaryMisfit Sep 4 '09 at 16:04

I'd like to bump this question for a further review from the meta community.

I just finished a search for this topic after having received rep from an answer to a question that had previously been made CW got me wondering why my answer hadn't automatically gone CW along with the question.

I belive it would be a good idea to CW all answers to a question that is later marked CW, even though it originally had not.

I'm not so much concerned with rep as I am with the fact that Community Wiki has inconsistent behavior. An answer to a question that has been marked CW is automatically (and unavoidably) marked CW, effectively ensuring that all answers are CW as well. An answer to a question that was not CW when the answer was posted but the question is later marked CW leaves a gap in this behavior whereby one or two answers are not CW, but the rest are.

I think this creates a situation that is against the spirit of CW. Those non-CW answers are no longer editable by any but high-rep users.

Anyway, two cents a little late on an old issue, but since I haven't seen a mod comment on this topic, I thought maybe it had simply slipped under the radar.

share|improve this answer
Just flag for mod attention, they'll be able to switch all posts over to wiki. – random Apr 7 '10 at 15:28
@random: So... make the process more manual? I don't always agree with new feature requests, but this one seems pretty logical. – Randolpho Apr 7 '10 at 16:37
@Randolpho: i don't particularly disagree with this feature-request. around here the right way to handle feature-requests is to vote up the request to show the site devs what the community wants. consider "flag for mod attention" a workaround. – quack quixote Apr 7 '10 at 17:56
@quack quixote: I suppose flagging for mod attention could also bring attention to the mods that the feature might be a good one... 'specially if we link to this question. – Randolpho Apr 7 '10 at 18:59
@Randolpho: .. a bit long, but it might fit! – Gnome Apr 7 '10 at 19:19
@Randolpho: yeah, an increase in manual interventions would probably increase the need for an automated fix. :) – quack quixote Apr 7 '10 at 19:43

There are a lot of triggers that cause CW mode, notably multiple edits to the question will eventually force it into CW mode.

This trigger, and some others, shouldn't necessarily cause the answers to go into CW mode.

Given that this is not a significant problem, and not all CW triggers should cause existing answers to go into CW, I'd say flag them for moderator attention and let the mods deal with it on a case by case basis.

share|improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

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