On this page, it is stated that posts enter community wiki mode when it has been edited six times by the original owner.

Why is that? I often edit posts for small, merely cosmetic reasons and do not want them to be turned wiki. I'm well aware of the automatic preview, but even after carefully considering an edit, I often (multiple times per post) notice something a few minutes or hours later.

The number stated in above link may not be actually correct. The current value (and implementation details) seem to be unknown. If the actual number were, say, 20, I would not mind, since a value that high ought not to cause any trouble. On the other hand, if it were 5, I definitely would.

Edit: It seems a main concern is that users would be able to bump often. In this case, there are some rather easy ways to prevent gambling in the comments to Ian's post, so I don't this this should be an issue.


There is a 5 minute window in which all edits are counted as one, so you can make more than 5 edits but only (say) 2 show up in the revision history.

Of course making so many edits in quick succession means that you are likely to hit the captcha screen multiple times.

  • Ah, was not aware of that. Very helpful. – mafu Jul 24 '09 at 6:48
  • I'm going to accept this answer. I'm still a bit concerned, but I suppose the general opinion is that there is no issue. – mafu Nov 2 '09 at 16:22

Just to update this old question: It was acknowledged as an issue and gladly fixed

Myself, I noticed I had been somewhat careful to avoid editing (and improving) my own as well as others' posts too often for this reason - a completely ill effect.


When you edit a post it gets pseudo bumped. I'm not sure of the exact logic behind changing to wiki, but it is probably to prevent you from continually bumping your posts to the top. Your post should also be fixed up within the first 2-3 edits. I don't see how you would ever need to edit a post 20 times for logical fixes.

I would recommend you read over your post before you submit in order to reduce the amount of times you need to edit it. This will also help you strive for quality from the start, instead of posting a mess and fixing it slowly over time.

  • 2
    What about adding more information requested in comments / answers to help clarify the question - may need to be done multiple times – a_m0d Jul 23 '09 at 13:31
  • If you have to do it multiple times then your question wasn't as clear as it should have been. One or two edits to clarify things you may have overlooked may be necessary, but 5? I don't see how a good question could require that much clarification. – Ian Elliott Jul 23 '09 at 13:57
  • 3
    @Ian: disagree. It's not unheard of to have 3-4 edits in the first hour or two as you refine a post based on feedback. Later edits might be made as new information comes to hand. My concern is the 6 edit rule arguably discourages maintenance of one's post. – cletus Jul 23 '09 at 15:39
  • @Cletus, fair enough argument. With that I would add the proposition that edits in the first 'x' hours aren't counted towards wiki'ing, but remain as edits (not included in the 5mins of safe time). This will allow users to fix up their post when it's still relevant, and prevent users from 'gaming' by bumping it for no reason. – Ian Elliott Jul 23 '09 at 18:39
  • 2
    I think editing should be encouraged. I would prefer to see a limit to bumping after a certain number of edits. – Robert Cartaino Jul 24 '09 at 0:47
  • 2
    Well I only recommended limiting editing because of the bumping nature. If bumping is removed I would strongly agree that edits would be useful. However I would like to limit bumps by weeks/months, as it may be useful to bump after long periods of time even after making several edits between bumps. – Ian Elliott Jul 24 '09 at 0:56

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