Is it possible to make a question Community Wiki to avoid the appearance of, and discussions about, rep-gathering (especially when it's a "easy" question likely to get many upvotes) but not the answers, because it is a regular question and not a CW one?

Disclaimer: I am of course asking this for a serious question over on SO, and not for any of these possible MSE questions that would turn out to be instant favourites with the community, and net a ton of upvotes:

  • 3
    Not really, no. When you make the question CW, all the answers after that will automatically be CW. If a moderator makes the questions CW, all answers, even the ones given before the question became CW, will also become CW.
    – alex
    Commented Feb 13, 2010 at 10:55
  • +1 Pekka: I think that is a great idea. Unfortunate, though...
    – IAbstract
    Commented Feb 13, 2010 at 16:09
  • @dboarman cheers. Unfortunate why?
    – Pekka
    Commented Feb 13, 2010 at 16:18
  • *loads shotgun* someone mention unicorns? :) Commented Feb 13, 2010 at 19:02
  • @Pekka: ...unfortunate that it's an all or nothing on CW. An alternative mode for asking questions considered easy, basic, common knowledge, etc. would diminish gains from up-votes. While the questions may be basic to most of us, there are going to be members who don't understand the purpose of static classes, patterns, etc. As a self-taught, above average hobby developer, these are some of the building blocks I miss out on (esp. patterns). C# Unleashed just does not cover some things in detail. So you turn to the Internet to start filling in gaps. :)
    – IAbstract
    Commented Feb 13, 2010 at 19:17
  • @quack I added one for you! :) @dboarman Good point. The question I have in mind is actually kind of a PHP security reference, which exists in the form of dozens of separate questions but not as a "compendium". I'm ready to chip in a 550 bounty to get it started but need to get it through the first 24 hours alive :) Which is why I'm asking. I wouldn't want to make it CW because it would take away incentive to answer. Rep whoring is a non-issue anyway really, because if you're somewhat active on SO, you'll hit the rep cap either way.
    – Pekka
    Commented Feb 13, 2010 at 19:36
  • See also the feature request "Option to not gain rep for votes on a question, but still have answers gain rep." at meta.stackexchange.com/questions/41220/…
    – Arjan
    Commented Mar 17, 2010 at 21:58

1 Answer 1


It used to be possible, but evidently no longer is. Sorry about posting an incorrect answer earlier, and thanks to everyone who jumped in to correct me.

Yes. When you make a question CW, all of the answers are CW by default. Each person can still manually uncheck the CW box on their answer before posting.

If you're trying to avoid the appearance of rep whoring, but you think the question is still valid (maybe for a question you intend to answer yourself, or whatever reason), I don't think it would be out of line to put a note at the end of the question pointing out the CW state of the question and reminding people to make their answers non-CW.

  • 1
    Cheers @Bill, didn't know that! And good advice.
    – Pekka
    Commented Feb 13, 2010 at 13:03
  • 4
    @Bill: are you sure? It used to work that way, but I haven't seen the CW checkbox when composing a new answer to a CW question in ages...
    – Shog9
    Commented Feb 13, 2010 at 18:22
  • 4
    No, this does NOT work. Answers posted to CW questions do not have the option box for CW or not.
    – Pollyanna
    Commented Feb 13, 2010 at 18:32
  • 1
    You can test this by posting an answer to meta.stackexchange.com/questions/13390/…
    – Pollyanna
    Commented Feb 13, 2010 at 18:33
  • 1
    Or post to this SO wiki question: stackoverflow.com/questions/713232/…
    – Pollyanna
    Commented Feb 13, 2010 at 18:34
  • @Pollyanna Awww. That's too bad! Thanks for the heads up.
    – Pekka
    Commented Feb 13, 2010 at 18:37
  • 1
    Seven up votes for an incorrect answer. This voting thing works. NOT!
    – raven
    Commented Feb 13, 2010 at 18:48
  • @Pollyanna In the spirit of leaving correctly answered questions for future generations, can you post an answer saying "no"? I'll switch the accept if I still can.
    – Pekka
    Commented Feb 13, 2010 at 18:50
  • @raven is right on this one. You can downvote me when I'm wrong folks. ;) Commented Feb 13, 2010 at 18:50
  • @Bill: yet nobody does. High rep users can do no wrong, now can they? (Lest anyone not get it, I'm just playing Devil's advocate here. I have nothing but respect for Bill.)
    – raven
    Commented Feb 13, 2010 at 21:57
  • @pekka - Shogs got you covered in the other answer, thanks though.
    – Pollyanna
    Commented Feb 13, 2010 at 21:58
  • @raven - eh, I don't downvote.
    – Pollyanna
    Commented Feb 13, 2010 at 22:01
  • @Pollyanna: I like that attitude, and I am trying to adopt it, but haven't quite got the hang of it yet.
    – raven
    Commented Feb 13, 2010 at 22:07
  • @Pollyanna: I'll take comments explaining why I'm wrong over downvotes any day. Both together is fine, but downvotes alone would have definitely left me scratching my head, particularly in this case when I know I used to be right. Commented Feb 13, 2010 at 22:16
  • @raven @bill - I'm not convinced that never downvoting is the right thing to do. Mostly I leave negative comments and let others do the dirty work so I don't have to sully my hands... ;-D
    – Pollyanna
    Commented Feb 14, 2010 at 1:32

You must log in to answer this question.

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