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

I imagine a scenario where the original poster is compelled to roll back multiple edits to his post, causing it to become a community wiki, thereby losing any future rep points from that post.

  1. Can this happen presently?

  2. Should this happen?

share|improve this question
Yes, rollbacks count as edits. But you can roll back multiple changes with a single edit. It's very unlikely that you're going to hit 20+ edits this way, thus it seems unlikely you'll be community wiki-fied. – Cody Gray Apr 30 '11 at 8:08
@Cody it takes 20 edits? I thought it was ten. I often end up making about half a dozen edits on my own and I could see getting pushed to 10, but I guess 20 would take a real edit war, and moderator action would be likely. By the way, why not post that as an answer? – Mr.Wizard Apr 30 '11 at 8:12
@Cody, this FAQ question says: "The post has been edited ten (10) times by the original owner." Has that changed? – Mr.Wizard Apr 30 '11 at 8:15
That's why I didn't post it as an answer. I wasn't really sure, just guessing. I've never had a question or answer become community wiki automatically, so I have no idea. The point was that this problem seems quite unlikely. – Cody Gray Apr 30 '11 at 8:15
up vote 13 down vote accepted

Rollbacks do not currently count at all towards pushing a post to Community Wiki. This was tested way back in August 2010 and still holds true today. They certainly count as edits for the purpose of existing in the post's revision history, no matter how many you make, but for the intent of converting a post to Community Wiki, it is as if they never existed.

Revived the tests today just to confirm that nothing changed. And indeed, nothing changed. Thresholds still are the same, and the post remains completely unconverted no matter how many rollbacks happen.

As for whether or not they should, I'm fine with the status quo mostly from the perspective of "Don't need to fix what isn't broken" - it's been this way since the dawn of the system and there's been no widespread inclination to abuse it. Abusive use would thus be the outlier in the statistics and so that should be the "exception" that is handled by moderator intervention.

share|improve this answer
Thanks for the definitive answer. – Mr.Wizard Jan 30 '13 at 20:20

Yes, rollbacks will count as an edit, and add to the total required to auto-convert to Community Wiki.

I don't think they should work that way, but that's present behavior.

share|improve this answer

Yes rollbacks count as an edit.

Yes, it's important for it to stay this way. One of the main reasons for CW-ing a post that has been edited a lot is because editing a post bumps it to the top of the "active" list. Some people try to edit their own post a lot with trivial edits to keep it at the top of the list (to try to get more upvotes). If a rollback didn't count towards that then a user would be able to keep rolling back their post between two previous versions to bump it indefinitely without it ever becoming CW.

If a post of yours becomes CW as a result of a number of improper edits from other users, flag the post for moderator attention, explain that it became CW because of the inappropriate edits of others, and they may decide to un-CW the post (they can do that).

share|improve this answer
I hadn't considered that at the time I wrote this question. +1 – Mr.Wizard Jan 24 '13 at 15:34
Funny story about that - said window of opportunity does exist. Thing is that unlike editing in minor fixes, rolling back to bump is... extremely obvious that it is being done for such. So they don't go under the radar (especially since the whole point is to be detected), which in turn means that they can be handled appropriately when abused as such. – Grace Note Jan 30 '13 at 18:11
"then a user would be able to keep rolling back their post between two previous versions" does not make sense. One would be a roll back. The other would be a roll forward. no, roll-backs should not be counted, even if roll-forwards should. – A.M. Jul 16 '13 at 18:18
@A.M. If you have one change, that leaves you with revision one and revision two. If you roll it back there is now a revision three, which happens to be identical to revision one. You can then roll that back to revision two, for the fourth revision. Rolling back doesn't delete all revision after whatever revision you've chosen, it simply adds a new revision. There is no concept of "rolling forward". – Servy Jul 17 '13 at 3:39
@Servy I guess I was saying there should be. ;) – A.M. Jul 17 '13 at 3:52
@A.M. Why? What would be gained from doing that? Also, feel free to propose that as a feature request if you're prepared to justify how implementing it is going to be worthwhile; personally I see almost nothing to get and lots to lose from such a change. – Servy Jul 17 '13 at 3:55
@Servy Since rollbacks do not count towards making a community wiki this is moot, and things are best as-is, but I was simply saying: If people abusing unlimited 'free' edits in the way you pointed out is ever a big problem, then one solution (better than the auto-wiki solution, I say) lies in your wording of the problem. With each edit associated with a given time, you can distinguish between roll-backs and "roll-forwards" and allow the original poster to do 'free' roll-backs, since there is a legitimate use-case for that, but not 'free' roll-forwards. – A.M. Jul 17 '13 at 13:18

You must log in to answer this question.

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