3

When should community wiki status be removed from a post?

There seems to be an individual that is making a certain number of community wiki posts (answers). However, I am not sure these posts merit that status. For example, these posts are all community wiki posts: here, here and here.

At what point should a community wiki posts remain as such and when should this status be removed? Do these posts fit the general rules?

The following posts may be of use in determining the factors necessary:

4
  • I asked Lucian why he made them, we need to know why he did it before we talk about reversing it.
    – curiousdannii Mod
    Commented Aug 25, 2020 at 0:18
  • @curiousdannii I asked him some time ago here, to which he gave no response.
    – Ken Graham Mod
    Commented Aug 25, 2020 at 2:18
  • There's no point in posting comments on soon-to-be-deleted posts, since the inbox-messages announcing their posting will inevitably disappear soon after.
    – user46876
    Commented Aug 31, 2020 at 13:38
  • 1
    @Lucian Are you saying that you're posting answers intending to delete them shortly after?
    – curiousdannii Mod
    Commented Aug 31, 2020 at 23:55

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2

Community wiki was some sort of crazy consolation for list-posts invented in the early days of Stack Overflow. I don't think they really have much of any place on this site and I never would suggest anyone use it here.

Community wiki should not be used as a cop-out for not wanting to accrue downvotes. If someone answers a dumb questions that they don't want their name on (like Was Jesus a Time-Traveler) then they should bear the responsibility for answering that question.

Possibly, the https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/chrestomathy-request posts should be CW and some denomination surveys. The tools are to build up the site and the facts, not to avoid personal responsibility.

I do think CW can use used to mitigate the risk of answering, but not completely negate it. If the risk/reward ratio for answering a normal question is 1 and the risk/reward ratio for answering a terrible question is 0.2, marking it CW may bring the risk/reward ratio back up to 1. But if the risk/reward ratio for answering a kind of bad question is 0.8, then marking it CW may bring it up to 1.4 - so that's what I think we should avoid.

5
  • Community wiki should not be used as a cop-out for not wanting to accrue downvotes. - I was not aware that wiki answers are immune to accruing down-votes (clearly, they are not), nor was I aware that non-wiki answers are immune to deletion.
    – user46876
    Commented Aug 31, 2020 at 13:42
  • @lucian you're right, all I was talking about was the negative effects of the downvotes. If you CW a post, the downvotes just bounce off you.
    – Peter Turner Mod
    Commented Aug 31, 2020 at 14:09
  • First of all, I am neither a prophet, nor a psychic, to foreknow beforehand whether future votes will go either up or down (and please note that all my wiki posts have been so from the very beginning); secondly, reputation-wise, down-votes just bounce off anyone anyway, since it takes no less than five down-votes to counter as much as even a single up-vote (indeed, there was a[n] [in]famous case on Math.SE, where a particular user got thousands of reputation points, despite posting heavily down-voted, low-quality answers).
    – user46876
    Commented Aug 31, 2020 at 14:29
  • Yeah, I think that's what I'm trying to say. I'm not accusing you of using CW as a copout to not accrue negative points from answers. I don't think it's even a bad idea to use CW for the express purpose of avoiding downvotes on controversial posts or those that might require some additional input, but I do think it is a bad idea to use CW just to avoid any repercussions from answering. I'm not accusing you of doing it, I barely looked at the questions listed, this is just a general opinion.
    – Peter Turner Mod
    Commented Aug 31, 2020 at 14:39
  • There were two other points I was trying to make, before running out of space, in my previous comment: (1). There is no discernible correlation between a post's (non)wiki status and its reception by the community. (2). Far from posting controversial, debatable, or subjective opinions as community wiki (how can it be communal, if the community is divided over the issue, or, worse, it expresses the perspective of just one individual ?), all my wiki posts are basic and factual.
    – user46876
    Commented Aug 31, 2020 at 15:10

You must log in to answer this question.

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