12

In the [php] tag we have created a canonical for SQLi prevention. The accepted answer was converted to a community wiki answer. However I just linked to the answer and noticed the answer is again "owned" by OP.

I suspect OP flagged it to convert it back (not sure about that one though, be according to this it is one way). So my question is: when does a post qualify to be converted back to normal ownership?

UPDATE

As wax eagle commented:

CW is pretty much past it's usefulness, it exists to lower the bar on rep required to edit, with suggested edits that's sort of moot. The only thing it does now is prevent someone from getting rep for any additional upvotes on an answer.

Is this a correct assumption, meaning there is no reason for posts to be converted to CW although the community had a big part in a post and the auto CW option should be gone?

Improve this question
10

This is pretty much up to mod discretion.

However, if the edits are done in good faith and not in a trivial or abusive manner (so as to continually bump the post), I feel like most moderators are going to respect the work done maintaining a question and will respond favorably to a flag requesting the CW status be removed.

Improve this answer
6
  • I don't get what you are saying. :P Are you saying that when members of the community made valid edits to some post mods will be responding favorably to OP instead of community? Pretty sure that not what you mean, but that's how I read it :P – PeeHaa Aug 23 '12 at 13:40
  • 1
    No. I'm saying if the series of edits were valid, or part of post maintenance or whatever, the mods will respond favorably to request to remove CW status regardless of the source of the request. – wax eagle Aug 23 '12 at 13:42
  • Isn't the point of CW that when lots of users contributed a reasonable part it should be CW? Or am I totally missing what CW is about? ;-) – PeeHaa Aug 23 '12 at 13:44
  • @PeeHaa CW is pretty much past it's usefulness, it exists to lower the bar on rep required to edit, with suggested edits that's sort of moot. The only thing it does now is prevent someone from getting rep for any additional upvotes on an answer... – wax eagle Aug 23 '12 at 13:47
  • Ah right. Now I understand what you were saying. Basically the automatic converting of posts to CW should be removed, because the original intention at some point was so that everybody could just edit the post (which is something everybody can do now through editing)? – PeeHaa Aug 23 '12 at 15:45
  • 1
    Basically. It still exists as a protection against potential abuse (don't bump it 800 times just to rep whore), but yeah, the original reason is gone. – wax eagle Aug 23 '12 at 15:49
10

The OP of the answer did flag it to ask that the CW flag be removed. There are several factors that we look at, so I'd expect most of the questions that are currently CW to stay that way.

In this case, the post was made CW because several different people had contributed edits. Looking through the edit history though, you can see that you and the OP were the only ones to make really substantial changes. Since the post changed over the course of several years, and recent changes were over the course of several months, I didn't see a reason to penalize the OP. The edits weren't trivial "bumping" edits to game reputation, but just good post maintenance.

Only mildly related: I'd love to know how you managed to make three edits in a row that were exactly 96 characters. Some manner of sorcery is my guess.

Improve this answer
4
  • Full disclosure: I also declined a flag asking it to be remade into CW in line with the reasons @Bill the Lizard sets out in his answer. – George Stocker Aug 23 '12 at 17:31
  • 1
    "Some manner of sorcery is my guess" I cannot tell you how I managed to do that. Well... I can, but I don't think you are ready for it young one, because you missed the two edits before those which both had 593 characters added. ;-) Thanks! – PeeHaa Aug 23 '12 at 17:38
  • 5
    Since Bill is not a PHP developer, I guess is should explain: the original answer was BAD. It even contained potential security holes. It was completely rewritten by multiple people. It was not "maintenance". It was "fixing harmful, but popular answer". ... and now the OP is earning free rep for it. – teresko May 18 '13 at 20:17
  • 1
    Fixing bad code isn't called maintenance anymore? – Bill the Lizard May 18 '13 at 22:20

You must log in to answer this question.

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