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

Would it be possible to have community wiki answers with over 100 or so upvotes to be worth at least a couple points?

Maybe 100 is not the right number... any thoughts?

share|improve this question
And "Why not?" is not a good answer ;-) – Sinan Ünür Mar 17 '10 at 2:27
Because. No, just kidding - I think if an answer gets that many upvotes, it must be worth a few points. – uɐɯsO uɐɥʇɐN Mar 17 '10 at 2:30
If I'm not mistaken, you get badges when you get that many upvotes, even if it's a Wiki. – Sampson Mar 17 '10 at 2:35
Oh. I never knew that. How many upvotes exactly? – uɐɯsO uɐɥʇɐN Mar 17 '10 at 2:36
"I never knew that." @George: You're input is welcome, but you'll come off looking better if you know more about how the site works... For this particular matter, try the "Badges" button at the top of the page. Also worth checking out the official faq (link on every page) and questions on meta tagged faq. If you have some time, much of the history of the sites is represented in the blog. – dmckee Mar 17 '10 at 2:40
I've read all that. I just forgot about the upvote badge. I don't memorize the badges :) – uɐɯsO uɐɥʇɐN Mar 17 '10 at 2:43
@George No harm done :) There are a lot of badges, and a lot of details. Take a few minutes just to run down them. Some of them will leap out with mentions to upvotes, etc. – Sampson Mar 17 '10 at 2:51
@george - What! Heathen! Off with his head! One should be required to memorize all the features of the site and take a quiz with a passing grade of at least 99.999% before even be allowed to read! To the guillotine! – Adam Davis Mar 17 '10 at 2:52
You could only have a passing grade of 99.999% and get one wrong if there were 100,000 questions. Be reasonable! – uɐɯsO uɐɥʇɐN Mar 17 '10 at 2:55
@George - There's no place for logic in a mob! The guillotine will answer all your questions! – Adam Davis Mar 17 '10 at 3:08
OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!!! – DVK Mar 22 '10 at 2:08
Come on, grow up. – uɐɯsO uɐɥʇɐN Mar 22 '10 at 5:12

I won't speak for anyone but myself, but I don't feel that there is any need to offer more encouragement or reason for posting non-technical opinion, random [best|worst] of lists, fluff, or crap.

People participate in CW content questions because they get some personal satisfaction from the interaction. I like helping people, even in the absence of rep. I understand that other people find satisfaction in just the interaction of opinion. I'd rather they took it to a traditional forum, but I can live with the way things are now.

I might also mention---by way of historical orientation---that the distinction between "hard" and "soft" content as sources of reputation was the first big source of tension in this community. The current CW-if-it-doesn't-have-one-right-answer regime is one of several adjustment and compromises that were made at that time.

share|improve this answer
+1 You inadvertently spoke for me... – Sampson Mar 17 '10 at 2:34
Not every community wiki question is useless... – uɐɯsO uɐɥʇɐN Mar 17 '10 at 2:35
@Geaorge: Thus the categories other than "crap". – dmckee Mar 17 '10 at 2:36
Well... then the legitimate questions should be fine for a few points. – uɐɯsO uɐɥʇɐN Mar 17 '10 at 2:44

The whole reason community wiki posts came about was because people thought that certain types of posts should be allowed, but should have no effect on reputation.

Reversing that would require a very, very good reason.

share|improve this answer
I know... but say you answer a community wiki question but you don't agree with it being community wiki. You're essentially wasting time by answering the question - you never gain anything for it. – uɐɯsO uɐɥʇɐN Mar 17 '10 at 2:36
@George - I know. That's why I rarely contribute to CW questions, and why I don't post CW questions. If someone answers my question, I feel they should receive whatever award the community bestows upon them. – Adam Davis Mar 17 '10 at 2:38
"You're essentially wasting time by answering [CW questions]" Well, Jon's feeling vindicated at this point:… – dmckee Mar 17 '10 at 2:42
@dmckee - in my defense, I feel that such superfluous questions simply don't belong at all, and usually vote to close them, so my position still doesn't support his argument. But he's not wrong - there's a reason SO is popular - because you get the instant feedback from your peers. Without reputation SO would be a shadow of what it is now. – Adam Davis Mar 17 '10 at 2:48
@Pollyanna: Yes, the addictive power of instant feedback in the form a rep is ferocious. Jon's got that nailed down. I just find that my intrinsic motivations asserts itself even when the rep isn't coming in (and I am pretty slow to collect the stuff). I, too, could do without the stuff we relegate to CW. But I'm willing to let it go as is. – dmckee Mar 17 '10 at 2:53
Still... I wonder if there could be some way of repealing a community-wiki tagged question if it was a legitimate question. (By repealing, I mean re-tagging) – uɐɯsO uɐɥʇɐN Mar 17 '10 at 2:56
@dmckee - I used to do it for the intrinsic motivation - I was helping someone. But as life gets busier I have to pick and choose where I spend my time, and while I don't avoid them for rep (I really don't care about rep anymore, actually) I do avoid them if it isn't worth my time. I know someone else will eventually come along and give them a suitable answer. – Adam Davis Mar 17 '10 at 3:04
@George - it was thought that allowing people to undo wikification would result in certain types of gaming the system, so like bounties it's a one way street. – Adam Davis Mar 17 '10 at 3:05

Honestly, now that the site is up and running I have a hard time understanding the whole point of rewarding points for questions. When you're in bootstrap mode and no one has points, getting rep for questions is pretty much necessary. That was especially true, and still is somewhat, in meta, although here it makes a little sense -- you're essentially expressing agreement or disagreement with a feature request or point of view. In SO and the others, though, it does little except encourage people to dream up questions -- thus the flood of poll/best/worst/funniest, etc. stuff.

I mean does anyone really look at the votes on a question when trying to find an answer to a problem you are having? The only thing that is really meaningful is whether the problem is close to your own so that the answers might be of some use. A question with 1500 upvotes is pretty meaningless to me if it doesn't deal with the same problem I'm having. Frankly, it's about 50/50 whether any of the most popular questions on SO would actually be useful in solving a real-world problem....unless your problem is what programmer cartoon or joke to use in your next presentation.

I wonder if SO has reached the point where the reward of getting answers is sufficient and we ought to stop giving out rep for them. I think we'd still probably see about the same number of questions per day and those we'd lose wouldn't be particularly valuable anyway. We'd still get some fluff, but I think they'd be more driven by curiosity and, somehow, that makes them more palatable to me. We could still allow voting on them, but the votes wouldn't translate to rep -- much like CW questions now.

share|improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

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