10
$\begingroup$

Has community wiki checkbox disappeared? I cannot find how to make a post a community wiki.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ This possibility is now active. $\endgroup$
    – Américo Tavares
    Oct 23, 2010 at 1:01
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Glad to see that it worked out. I removed the comments above. $\endgroup$
    – quid Mod
    May 1, 2019 at 11:15

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
-8
$\begingroup$

The corresponding meta.SO question.

Basically, it was felt that the CW check box was encouraging some abusive behavior. It is still possible for a post to be converted to CW by moderators, and to enter it as a consequence of multiple edits.

$\endgroup$
10
  • 14
    $\begingroup$ This is stupid. I hope they change it back. $\endgroup$
    – 97832123
    Oct 21, 2010 at 0:52
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ More work for the moderators, then, eh? $\endgroup$
    – J. M. ain't a mathematician
    Oct 21, 2010 at 1:41
  • $\begingroup$ @J.M. - alot of questions that were CW probably shouldn't have been asked in the first place, honestly (at least on SO, and a few of the SEs). Prompting some user abuse was enough to try disabling it (for askers). $\endgroup$
    – Kevin Montrose
    Oct 21, 2010 at 1:47
  • 12
    $\begingroup$ Then surely requiring minimum rep to set a question/answer CW should be implemented instead? Your solution smacks of throwing the baby with the bathwater, IMHO. $\endgroup$
    – J. M. ain't a mathematician
    Oct 21, 2010 at 1:50
  • 11
    $\begingroup$ Why are these changes always introduced without either consulting the users or even announcing the changes to them? It looks like the first time anybody knew what was going on was when that meta.SO question was asked. Getting rid of CW seems like a big enough change to merit a blog post, or something. I like the design of these sites, but for all their talk of democracy, the designers really don't seem to be practicing it. $\endgroup$
    – Paul VanKoughnett
    Oct 21, 2010 at 2:56
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ Personally, whenever I participate in an Internet community, I more often than not work with the assumption that the community is a (benevolent) dictatorship. I would be the first to agree that a wholly democratic community would probably degenerate to 4chan, but surely some consultation with your userbase isn't too much to ask? $\endgroup$
    – J. M. ain't a mathematician
    Oct 21, 2010 at 3:04
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @J.M. - did you actually follow the links in those posts? As a network wide change it was discussed on meta (and got over 50 upvotes) before being implemented. That's hardly no consultation. $\endgroup$
    – Kevin Montrose
    Oct 21, 2010 at 3:31
  • 9
    $\begingroup$ Apologies, I don't really hang around on meta.SO ... I however still think it should not have to be a "what's good for the goose..." situation. It may have been an SO headache, but I certainly have never seen CW abuse in here or MO (and if there were, they seem to have been thoroughly entombed). $\endgroup$
    – J. M. ain't a mathematician
    Oct 21, 2010 at 3:35
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ It seems that now one has to be an habitue of meta.SO in order to get advance warning of the next sabotage to the system :-( $\endgroup$
    – Robin Chapman
    Oct 21, 2010 at 17:46
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Apparently we can still mark answers as community wiki, just not questions. I often mark my own posts CW if I don't want to get rep for them, so this is satisfying enough for me. But it means more moderator load for soft questions. $\endgroup$
    – Carl Mummert
    Oct 26, 2010 at 2:38
5
$\begingroup$

This isn't exactly an answer to this question, but a response to some of the concerns in the comments. I just posted a question on meta.stackoverflow asking whether we may receive notice in advance of such changes, so that we may weigh in before they occur.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

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