Currently when community wiki posts are edited, the user icon is only shown for the last editor and not for the person who owns most of the content.

At a glance, I usually tend to mistake the last editor for the main author due to the icon presence. This is not desirable because it dilutes authorship.

current wiki

I suggest just removing the author of the last edit and just leave it like

suggested wiki

That way the only shown author is the main author of the content. If you care about who has edited you can review the edit history.

6 Answers 6


This was particularly a problem on the recent Moderator nominations, with answers like this one, where Peter Mortensen edited grammar/spelling on a bunch of posts, which made it look at first glance like he was nominating himself repeatedly.

alt text

Working out who was nominating themselves became a bit more difficult (though admittedly most users put their name or a link to their profile in their nomination, and those posts only have one edit, so the post still reads - currently, at least - "Shoban 88%" at the bottom).

  • 3
    I still don't understand why this was a problem; given that there were a far number of 3rd-party nominations, no one should have been looking at the author / last editor for nominee names anyway...
    – Shog9
    Commented Jan 20, 2010 at 20:15

I rather agree with that, for the reasons given, too often I mistake the last editing person for the author.

I would add that such change would push community wiki posts further in their role, it would become further less about the persons, and simply about the actual message.


This is in, but it has a side-effect.

Since the community wiki calculation does not display percentages when all the edits are by the same person, posts of that type will look ownerless.

You'll see.

  • Hmm, not sure about this. Wasn't there some other way of doing this?
    – ChrisF Mod
    Commented Jan 21, 2010 at 10:15
  • 2
    Hey man, I just implement the requests. I can't help it if the requests don't make any sense. Commented Jan 21, 2010 at 10:17
  • Since their "community" posts by definition, with loose ties to the author, is that really such a bad thing?
    – AnonJr
    Commented Jan 21, 2010 at 10:41
  • 6
    can't you just make it say "username 100%"?
    – Kip
    Commented Jan 21, 2010 at 15:08
  • So right now, the username and avatar are shown, but only until the user edits the answer. Then it becomes anonymous until another person edits it. I dunno about this...
    – mmyers
    Commented Jan 21, 2010 at 17:30
  • Here's an example: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/36209/… - notice that you cannot tell who originated it, and there are no edits at all.
    – Pollyanna
    Commented Jan 21, 2010 at 19:35
  • @Kip: You should create that as a new suggestion
    – Alex Angas
    Commented Jan 22, 2010 at 6:00
  • @Pollyanna: Since they are "community" posts, does it really matter that we know who originated the question?
    – AnonJr
    Commented Jan 24, 2010 at 17:42
  • @anonjr - I'd argue that if any one person has made more than 50% of the current text, then there is some value in knowing that this person made the majority of the post, even though it's community wiki. In most cases, this is the originator of the post. But if the original poster now owns less than 50% of it, then no, there's no significant value in knowing this.
    – Pollyanna
    Commented Jan 24, 2010 at 23:18
  • @Jeff: They currently don't look ownerless to me. If they did some days ago it seems you actually thought out a bit and saw the easy and sane way out for a change. Congrats!
    – Vinko Vrsalovic StaffMod
    Commented Jan 28, 2010 at 3:14

This is not desirable because it dilutes authorship.

I don't really have a problem with that for CW posts, but agree that it can lead to confusion and, sad to say, hurt feelings in some cases. So I'd be fine with this change.

However, I suspect if this was implemented, the number of complaints regarding the behavior of the attribution percentage calculations might increase...


What about hiding the icon for the last editor, and instead showing it for the original answerer?

  • What about showing none? CW posts are in a sense ownerless.
    – perbert
    Commented Jan 20, 2010 at 18:41
  • Then why show anyone's name at all?
    – Jon Seigel
    Commented Jan 20, 2010 at 18:59

If one person contributed more than 51% of the content, show that person's avatar, and none other.

Otherwise, show no avatars.

You must log in to answer this question.

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