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

It has been suggested before that we should be able to vote to close as "not community wiki".

What if we allowed this and the close votes were removed after it was made community wiki? Unlike vote to community wiki we haven't taken the undoable action of making it CW and so it is limited as a rep denying tool.

share|improve this question
Oh, the Jeff has already spoken.…. No wonder I'm getting all these downvotes. Couldn't someone have chucked me a link? – Casebash Mar 25 '10 at 11:00
you mean the one on the right side, in related? – Gnoupi Mar 25 '10 at 13:57
That would have made it even easier – Casebash Mar 25 '10 at 20:38
up vote 3 down vote accepted

No. There's no good reason to give community wiki bullies a feature that makes their behavior acceptable.

Whether a question is CW or not is completely up to the person who posts the question. The close reasons are very narrowly defined, and should be used appropriately. None of the close reasons change based on whether a post is CW or not, so the close votes should not be removed or added based on CW usage.

If you disagree with the OP about their usage of CW, downvote them and/or notify a moderator.

Personally, a question either belongs on SO and has value (and therefore should accrue or cost rep as determined by the community) or it doesn't belong on SO. Very, very few questions actually benefit from letting everyone edit them and their answers, and generally it's better for the OP to choose non CW so the people who answer have incentive (rep) to give great answers.

Bullying is not a community-building activity, and it should not be encouraged.

share|improve this answer
I actually think that it would weaken them. Close votes seem to be used to enforce cw anyway, so it just makes it less bad to be on the receiving end – Casebash Mar 25 '10 at 8:21
@Casebash - If close votes are being used to enforce CW, then someone is abusing the system. You should post about it on Meta, flag it for moderator attention, or email the SO team. Close votes are different from comments saying "this should be CW," and the two should not be interchanged. – Super Long Names are Hilarious Mar 25 '10 at 17:54

Currently, all actions by non-moderators are undoable -- edits, votes to close, votes to delete. Voting to make a question community wiki is not so easily reversed, so I'd be apprehensive opening up to a large number of users.

I'd prefer to keep things the way they are -- if you feel that a question should be CW, flag it for moderator attention and make your case in the text box.

share|improve this answer
Maybe I should clarify - if a question gets enough votes it is closed - not cwed. The owner can try to get it opened again normally or just cw it and have the cw votes removed – Casebash Mar 25 '10 at 6:12
Maybe this is a stupid question, but why is CW undoable? It's kinda weird that everyone accepts this and tries to find workarounds instead of focusing on the obvious solution: make CW reversible, just like you can re-open a question you should be able to un-CW it – Andreas Bonini Mar 25 '10 at 6:18
@Kop - Because upvotes/downvotes on CW questions don't count, and the ability for a question asker to try to un-CW a question, thus suddenly gaining all it's upvotes, doesn't seem fair. Also, because once you give something away (to another person or to the community) you don't really have the right to take it back. – Super Long Names are Hilarious Mar 25 '10 at 6:24
Length's point about "gaining all its upvotes" is easily fixed, but taking back ownership isn't and would just be wrong. – Gnome Mar 25 '10 at 6:38
@Length: never mentioned this should be up to the question asker. I meant using a community vote, like for close and open.. – Andreas Bonini Mar 25 '10 at 11:06
Just for everyone's information, all actions by moderators are undoable as well (except, the CW flag, naturally). Even things like voting to close and delete (which only takes us one vote) can be reversed by the same community vote as normal. – Bill the Lizard Mar 25 '10 at 12:29
@Bill: exactly my point. Why is CW different? Why can't you reverse it, if you convert to CW by mistake or - more likely - if a user marks the question as CW for no reason, that happens quite often? – Andreas Bonini Mar 25 '10 at 12:48
@Kop: See @Length Limits... comment above for what I suspect are the reasons why. – Bill the Lizard Mar 25 '10 at 16:45
@Bill: but he's talking about normal users. And the reasons he listed make sense, no normal user should be able to convert it back to non-CW; what I'm saying is that moderators should be able to. – Andreas Bonini Mar 25 '10 at 16:49
@Kop - Name a situation where de-CWing power would be useful. (Say, a question where people have argued over whether or not it should have been CW and it was incorrectly converted to CW.) – Super Long Names are Hilarious Mar 25 '10 at 17:50
@Length: I already did in my previous comments but I'll re-state: when the asker marks a question as CW without understanding when it should be used. You want specific examples?,,,,, – Andreas Bonini Mar 25 '10 at 20:05
@Kop: In that first example, the author states that he made it CW intentionally "in case I have grammer errors." In the other cases it's hard to establish motivation, which is why we don't allow switching once the CW flag is set. – Bill the Lizard Mar 27 '10 at 11:41

These have been stated so many times that they're in danger of becoming trite, but obviously they need to repeated:

  1. CW-mode for subjective questions is a compromise, an uneasy truce between some users who want to use SO for topics that would otherwise not be allowed, and some users who would otherwise be willing to close them. This was born of heated arguments in the early days of the site, and does not reflect the original purpose of CW or necessarily fit with how that feature behaves.

  2. CW-mode isn't a license to post whatever you feel like. Step outside the ill-defined bounds of what compromising users (including site admins...) feel is appropriate, and your question will still be closed. Posting a question as CW doesn't entitle you to anything; it's just a tacit admission that yes, you're kind of abusing the site... but you aren't doing it to game the rep system.

So with that in mind, it's not the responsibility of anyone voting to close a post to make it CW, nor should it be: if they think it's an inappropriate question, then they should vote to close for that reason. It may be that they would be willing to withhold their vote if it was... but if so, they can easily ask a moderator to make the change.

share|improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

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