The webapps site has a lot of poll-style questions (mainly tagged as [webapp-rec]). I'm guessing that the majority of users are asking these questions for legitimate reasons and aren't trying to game the system. However, since the policy is that these questions should be CW, shouldn't high-rep users be able to help the new users out and change it to CW?

This would at least stop users who are only after the rep from posting these kind of questions.

I noticed that some mods don't do this in obvious cases, how come?

Some stats:

  • [webapp-rec]: 177 / 998 questions = 17%
  • [webapp-rec] wiki:1: 37 / 177 [webapp-rec] = 21%

... meaning 140 questions should be changed to CW.

I guess this will be less of a problem once we have active mods.

  • 2
    Personally i think a few people are trolling for upvotes. Or maybe it is just the more relaxed/conversational tone of the site that i am not used to yet. – slugster Jul 16 '10 at 7:49
  • Nope, it's just for the upvotes. @slu – random Jul 17 '10 at 1:01

CW is not an option for high-rep users because it is a one-way path: once a post becomes Community Wiki, it cannot be reversed except by the Stack Overflow Internet Services, Inc. team; not even diamond mods can bring it back.

Since high-rep users, even in groups, can and do make mistakes, special powers they have can all be reversed (closed questions can be reopened, deleted posts can be undeleted, edited posts can be rolled-back).


I have an alternative suggestion, in the light that CW conversion is permanent:

Allow high-reputation (10k? 20k?) users to temporarily lock a question, answer or thread for a short period of time (say 1 hour), until a moderator can come along and evaluate the situation.

This would let the community react quickly to new problems, while also preventing users from abusing the privilege - no permanent action is taken, and if a moderator deems the situation not serious enough to act, the lock can be removed immediately and everyone continues on his merry way. (Ideally though, the moderator would convert the thread to CW, add the 'protected' flag, make the lock permanent, or possibly delete the post.)

(If others think this is a good idea, I can re-post it as a feature request so that it gets more eyeballs.)

  • Interesting suggestion. I think it would have to be structured such that the lock is not only time-limited but also a one-time thing, unless a diamond mod resets the status. So say you have, maybe ten 10k user all vote to lock the question, it gets locked for an hour, and if a diamond hasn't done anything about it, that's tough sh!t. It could theoretically work. Although I think that several people will argue that you should just vote to close. – Aarobot Jul 17 '10 at 0:04
  • @Aarobot: voting to close is the only thing that regular users can do quickly, but unfortunately it does not prevent votes -- so it's quite possible (and indeed common) for off-topic or subjective questions to be posted and closed instantly, but continue to be a rep farm until a moderator steps in (if one ever does). – Ether Jul 17 '10 at 0:58
  • Ahh, right, I hadn't even considered the voting issue. If you do decide to post a feature request, you should definitely make that point clear. – Aarobot Jul 17 '10 at 14:04

You must log in to answer this question.

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