My two questions were turned into CW: Question 1 and Question 2

  1. I looked through a previous related question here, and guessed it might be because I edited my posts too many times (>10)? Because I don't think my posts qualify other reasons to become CW.

  2. So I was wondering what is the rationale behind a post having been edited many times and therefore turned into CW?

  3. Generally, is becoming a CW make a question more attractive to people and therefore become more likely to have replies?

Thanks and regards!

  • $\begingroup$ Question 1 is because the number of edits passed a threshold. Question 2 is answered in the link Hendrik posted in his comment to InterestedQuest's answer; see also meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8654/… Question 3: I personally don't pay attention, and I don't know if there is enough data to get a reasonable answer to that question for the entire community. $\endgroup$ – Willie Wong Jan 13 '11 at 17:38
  • $\begingroup$ @Willie: Thanks! After reading the link, I am sure I don't like the feature. Possible to revert them for my posts? $\endgroup$ – Tim Jan 13 '11 at 17:44
  • $\begingroup$ Further reading: meta.SO, blog by Jeff. $\endgroup$ – Hendrik Vogt Jan 13 '11 at 19:17
  • $\begingroup$ There are several rationales behind the feature. A CW question will not give you or the answerers any reputation from up votes. This is supposed to discourage you from bumping the question too often. It is also supposed to encourage you to make sure that the first version of the question is correct and well-formatted. The idea is that if a question was so badly worded that it needed lots of editing afterwards (15 edits each, I mean come on!), then it shouldn't be rewarded with a reputation gain. $\endgroup$ – Alex B. Jan 14 '11 at 1:41
  • $\begingroup$ @Alex: To your last two sentences, just because you might be able to write clearly and easily in your familiar area, it doesn't mean you can so judge others who sometimes feel difficult. I don't force others to help me, have no intension to bump my questions over others', and even don't care if you cast your downvote on my posts just because you don't like them. $\endgroup$ – Tim Jan 14 '11 at 5:05
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Tim: I think Alex is merely explaining the rationale that those who have designed the site have given for this CWification; he is not specifically endorsing it that I can tell. For what it's worth, I agree with you: repeatedly editing a question or answer is not behavior that I would a priori want to discourage. (We want good questions and answers right? If each of 15 edits improves an answer, then they're all positive edits. That editing the question bumps it each time is not optimal, in my opinion.) $\endgroup$ – Pete L. Clark Jan 14 '11 at 6:35
  • $\begingroup$ Whether or not you have the intention of bumping your questions, that's what you do when you edit them. There have been numerous discussions about the desirability or otherwise of this automatism, but that is immaterial to the present discussion. By the way, I don't understand your last sentence "and even don't care if you cast your downvote on my posts just because you don't like them." I don't understand what it has to do with the discussion, but I am particularly puzzled by the words "just because...". You mean there are better reasons to downvote than "just because you don't like a qn".? $\endgroup$ – Alex B. Jan 15 '11 at 7:09
  • $\begingroup$ For the record: I didn't even read your questions, let alone downvote them. $\endgroup$ – Alex B. Jan 15 '11 at 7:09
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Tim I have removed WIKI status from both of your questions listed above. $\endgroup$ – Geoff Dalgas Mar 16 '11 at 4:18

We have added a feature that can be invoked by moderators to transform a question or an answer from community wiki back to personal ownership. Once this is done the post will become immune from the automatic wiki assignment due to edits.

This function is moderator only; when you feel a post should be immune from automatic community wikification, use the "flag for moderator attention" function on a post to let your community moderators know about it.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Excellent! Thanks for doing this. $\endgroup$ – Akhil Mathew Mar 16 '11 at 4:22
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thank you very much for adding the feature! $\endgroup$ – Arturo Magidin Mar 16 '11 at 4:24
  • $\begingroup$ I am not sure where best to put this comment, but I want to add that the FAQ explicitly encourage editing and updating your own questions: "To get better answers...edit your question to provide status and progress updates. Document your own continued efforts to answer your question." I try my best to do this, but then end up with it converting to CW. I'd still vote to see the feature turned off, or to at least change the FAQ so that it is understood that frequent editing is not a good thing. But I am glad there is at least a reversal :) $\endgroup$ – OctaviaQ Oct 13 '11 at 20:12
  • $\begingroup$ @Jand: I am not sure if you are aware, but there is a slight difference between "frequent" and "many" editing. If you submit two edits to the same post within a five minute (IIRC) time window, they are counted as only one edit. The CW threshold was (at least in part) intended to prevent people from gaming the system by repeatedly editing a question to bring it to the front page, instead of using the Bounty system. $\endgroup$ – Willie Wong Feb 7 '12 at 13:35

If you look at the edit history of both questions, you can see that you yourself 'made' the second question a community wiki (and the first one became such after Arturo's edit), so it is probably related to the number of edits (10 by the original user of 5 by different users).

  • $\begingroup$ Right, this behaviour (including the numbers) is described on meta.stackoverflow. (I only learned in the past days that meta.SO is really The Place to look for such information. In the beginning I was a bit frightened when I went there, but searching "+community +wiki" did it.) $\endgroup$ – Hendrik Vogt Jan 13 '11 at 17:01
  • $\begingroup$ @Hendrik: Not much new information where you linked, compared to the reply I found and linked in my post. I am still wondering about my question 2 and 3. $\endgroup$ – Tim Jan 13 '11 at 17:09
  • $\begingroup$ @Tim: I would guess that the rationale behind making it a CW after edits by 5+ other users is that it's 'unfair' for you to be getting reputation for something so many people contributed to. I am not sure if CW makes it more attractive, but it definitely removes the issue of reputation and all the linked pressures. $\endgroup$ – InterestedGuest Jan 13 '11 at 17:22
  • $\begingroup$ @Tim: Well, sorry, I didn't follow that link in your question. (The answer in that link contains the link in my comment above ...) I wonder, however, if you already found that link, why did you ask question 1? $\endgroup$ – Hendrik Vogt Jan 13 '11 at 17:27
  • $\begingroup$ @Hendrik: I cannot tell if it is the reason in my case. $\endgroup$ – Tim Jan 13 '11 at 17:28

You must log in to answer this question.

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