Timeline for Remove Reputation gained from Questions and Answers turned Community Wiki
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:31 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Oct 7, 2016 at 2:52 | vote | accept | GManNickG | ||
| Apr 23, 2014 at 13:35 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration
|
|
| Apr 23, 2014 at 9:11 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Migration of MSO links to MSE links
|
|
| Dec 5, 2009 at 0:37 | comment | added | John Rudy | Oh, and @tvanfosson: I finally get to give you your deserved +1 now that it's tomorrow. | |
| Dec 5, 2009 at 0:36 | comment | added | John Rudy | @GMan: I didn't think you were taking it too seriously. I just hope you weren't thinking this proposal (which again, I support!) will stop the influx of people complaining ... | |
| Dec 4, 2009 at 22:58 | comment | added | GManNickG | Oh I don't take it seriously, at all. It's just that when a system has inconsistencies it means there's often some way to fix it and simplify it. Making a no-bump lock would merge well with a minor-edit feature, for example. After the edit-threshold is reached, subsequent edits are forced minor. | |
| Dec 4, 2009 at 22:54 | comment | added | John Rudy | @tvanfosson: Rep will always be unfair, inconsistent and basically meaningless. That's part of the fun! Sadly, some folks take it very seriously: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/31867/jealousy meta.stackexchange.com/questions/31842/misery meta.stackexchange.com/questions/31770/unfair, etc. I guess THE INTERNET IS SERIOUS BUSINESS | |
| Dec 4, 2009 at 22:42 | comment | added | tvanfosson | Or maybe just leave it the way it is and live with the fact that rep is unfair, inconsistent, and basically meaningless except as a game to play. | |
| Dec 4, 2009 at 22:36 | comment | added | GManNickG | Then maybe community wiki isn't the right answer, but a lock or the inability to bump. | |
| Dec 4, 2009 at 22:19 | history | edited | tvanfosson | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
typo
|
| Dec 4, 2009 at 21:57 | comment | added | tvanfosson | The edit rule is there to prevent people using the edit process to continually pop the question to the front page to get more attention (and votes). It's unlikely to be changed. | |
| Dec 4, 2009 at 21:49 | history | edited | Shog9 | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added link to faq
|
| Dec 4, 2009 at 21:46 | comment | added | GManNickG | But I think if that's the case, the problem lies in the edit->cw process, not the other way. If sufficient edits make a cw wiki, yet we disagree that it should be cw, then the edit->cw bar needs to be changed. Also, grouping together and editing peoples posts to make them lose rep seems to me an evil thing to do, though I can see it would be too much extra work to detect or deal with that. :/ | |
| Dec 4, 2009 at 21:35 | history | answered | tvanfosson | CC BY-SA 2.5 |