103

Community wiki isn't a tool for reputation denial. We originally had all these automatic triggers mostly to leverage existing systems to handle abuse situations. While it can be said that it "worked", it also very largely didn't work, and a lot of pain was had by people who had legitimate contributions or labored tirelessly on their posts only to be ...


82

I agree that this feature is entirely undiscoverable for the normal user; no warnings are given that CW conversion takes place, nor is this highlighted anywhere in the editing help text. Even worse, when this happens, you are not notified. I discovered one of my posts was converted because I saw an upvote in my reputation tab without a score before I had ...


67

We have disabled all forms of community wiki automatic conversions, not just for answers but for questions as well. The feature was never really about encouraging substantive edits as much as it was about prevent abuse. And in fact it punished people who made not just substantive edits, but lots of substantive edits. To handle the cases spoken about the ...


29

Reading another, related question on meta made me wonder if we should be checking the time between edits. All this is also assuming that it's the author making all the edits. For example: 10 (or some reasonable number) of edits in a short time, they get the CW. 10 (or some reasonable number) of edits over the last year, they don't assuming at least N days ...


29

Won'ts answer to "Do moderators earn a salary?" seems to be appropriate here. Taking away the possibility of earning a reward from someone who did both halves of making a high-quality contribution to the site is, to put it mildy, not a very good idea. If I go out of my way to post a clear question that is applicable to others, when I already know the answer ...


27

That user posted the 31st answer. When a question goes over 30 answers, all the answers and the question become community wiki. Since user aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa is the one who put the final nail in the coffin, he becomes "responsible" for converting everything to wki.


24

It is a rate limiting measure, to prevent users from bumping a post to the top too often. It was introduced a long time ago, during the Stack Overflow private beta period, in fact. Jeff and Joel discuss this in Stack Overflow Podcast #20 (which I happened to listen to just yesterday). If this bites you for legitimate reasons (your answer evolved over time, ...


24

We want to discourage minor edits for purposes of bumping, but at the same time we want to encourage users to maintain their answers over the years. Unfortunately, these 2 ideas are incompatible. What incentive does someone have to maintain their answer over the next edit is going to push them into CW world. When the site was new, anyone needing to make ...


22

If you're making substantial edits over a long period of time, you can just flag for a moderator to de-wikify your post after you hit the limit. The auto-wiki is meant to discourage people from making insignificant edits every day to bump their post, milking it for more reputation/attention. Since most of your revisions were substantial, and they were over ...


18

Why to steal people effort What effort? The example you show consists mainly of this sentence: What is the best tool for creating an Excel Spreadsheet with C#? this took about 15 seconds to write down, and (no disrespect to the OP) didn't exactly take a genius to come up with. Why, in your opinion, should it be rewarded with 1800 reputation points?* ...


18

4. Last editor It's not the last editor, it's the most prolific editor, based on a very naive calculation involving lines of the post that were changed. The percentage is the amount of content attributed to that editor, so in this case it's saying that sbi's content is responsible for 23% of the visible post.


17

No, they should not. Google highly frowns upon huge chunks of exactly duplicated content across pages. Having that answer there prevents the automatic redirection to the duplicate question (where there is more than just that one answer) for users not logged in. Ultimately, it's not our problem if the asker is too lazy to click on a link and find their ...


16

I think the auto-CW is a terrible misuse of the community wiki feature, and is part of the reason why CW is so often-misunderstood. The CW feature isn't used because there is anything wiki-like about the post, but to prevent a user from intentionally bumping his posts again and again to earn more reputation. The big problem with disabling the automatic ...


16

I agree with Bart that the number of high-quality posts that have been converted to CW is probably very low. Still, perhaps it is low because authors have been afraid of putting too much effort into maintaining their posts. I think it will be impossible to speculate with any confidence about users' motivations. We could go check the data on DataExplorer but ...


16

You posted the first answer on a CW question. All new answers on that question are converted to CW posts. That question became CW because the OP edited the question 10 times. Your second post, you edited a grand total of 13 times. This is a rate limiting measure; don't bump your question with minor edits to get attention so often. See Why does repeated ...


16

Having just "discovered" this "feature", I completely agree with @MartijnPieters comments: I agree that this feature is entirely undiscoverable for the normal user; no warnings are given that CW conversion takes place, nor is this highlighted anywhere in the editing help text. Even worse, when this happens, you are not notified. I discovered one of ...


15

I disagree. The main purpose of voting is to separate good content from bad content. The rep you can gain from those votes is just a side effect, so it shouldn't matter whether the post is Community Wiki or not.


15

These questions have been 'not constructive' for quite a while, except perhaps if you focus one to a very specific, very practical, very concrete situation.


15

When you reverse a vote (either an upvote or downvote), it reverses the original event, which means any reputation change attached to that event also gets reversed. In a case where you downvoted before a post became community wiki, it would have a -2 attached to it and it would be reversed when the vote is retracted, whether the post is currently community ...


15

Community wiki is a red herring here. We aren't explicitly excluding CW posts from this flag, but it didn't meet the auto-flag criteria because the very first rollbacks on this post were months before the "war" started and happened to be done by the same users involved later on. So, this post failed the "did X rollbacks happen within a short amount of ...


14

It appears that long, long ago when a user ticked the "community wiki" checkbox on their post (which can no longer be done for questions), it just got attributed to the Community user rather than listing their name for it (or maybe they didn't get recorded at the time and are just now getting attributed to Community). This is also demonstrated by this ...


14

Huh. I'm shocked that nobody noticed um posted to meta okay, posted-to-meta-and-I-saw-it about this before. That does feel like a broken situation at first glance. Here I think it helps to go back to the original reasons for both systems in the first place. Community Wiki was originally envisioned as a feature for great posts that had substantial ...


14

Since Community Wiki is largely deprecated (The Future of Community Wiki), it's not worth going into all the nuances of how it was supposed to be used. But in the earliest days, it was designed for posts that were sooo collaborative, it would have been near-impossible to determine who deserved the credit — so we removed reputation awards from those ...


14

The questioner doesn't get a +2 for accepting a CW answer. I have not been able to find a definitive answer, neither this answer: What are "Community Wiki" posts? nor this answer: No reputation from accepted answer help. They talk about is whether votes on or acceptance of the answer generate reputation for the answerer, but not whether the ...


13

Rollbacks do not currently count at all towards pushing a post to Community Wiki. This was tested way back in August 2010 and still holds true today. They certainly count as edits for the purpose of existing in the post's revision history, no matter how many you make, but for the intent of converting a post to Community Wiki, it is as if they never existed. ...


13

As an answer to What can be done to improve moderation of self-answered questions?, Jeff Atwood suggested: One possible solution is to "unify" reputation in these cases so intentional self-answers (that is, answers that come in within 1 second of the question being posted) don't get rep for both the question and the answer, but just the answer. This would ...


13

First off, I want to note that this specific situation (maintenance edits by one author triggering CW) was first addressed back in 2011: community moderators, at their discretion, can now remove community wiki status from particular posts. This also inoculates those specific posts from ever being auto-converted to community wiki again, so they can be ...


13

Did you read the post notice? This question exists because it has historical significance, but it is not considered a good, on-topic question for this site, so please do not use it as evidence that you can ask similar questions here. This question and its answers are frozen and cannot be changed This sort of question was once askable, and answerable on ...


13

I don't think this is a bug, but rather they did it fully on purpose. The diamond, in this case, is not relevant. For Community Wiki posts, the author is not really relevant, so there are also no other details, just the name. No reputation, no badges, no user card. If someone wants to see details about the author(s) of a wiki post, they can just click the ...


12

Does automatic community wiki answers discourage more responses? Yes, and this is by design. I'm not saying my answer is the best, but I do feel it brings a unique response that satisfies the question nicely and shows a considerable amount of research / documentation. That's fine, and you brought it up here on meta as an exceptional situation, and it ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible