Some folks make posts through community wiki to deny reputation for the post. One example may be to post something that is too long for a comment, but not exactly an answer to the question. Another example might be when a question has been answered already in the comments, and someone reposts the comment as an answer to take the question off of the ...
I wouldn't worry about the reputation earned this way. How many upvotes would "Yes, that's right" get anyway? And how many years of study did it take you to be able to say "Yes, that's right"? Besides, you're answering the question that was asked (which you have no control over).
That being said, if the correct answer is simply "Yes, that's right", why ...
You were not "robbed" of any reputation. More than just that, reputation is not the main point of the site. If you only ask questions on the site so you can earn points, might as well not ask questions at all.
Your question about how to pronounce 5/2 is ultimately subjective. Moreover, people are not going to vote one answer over the other because it's more ...
Personally, I do not see any reason to turn any question into CW.
Why would we want to not recognize the effort put by a user in coming up with an answer?!
The idea that CW applies when the question «does not have one answer» has always seemed incomprehensible to me. That a question may have many possible answers somehow makes each answer less valuable?
As I see it, the major difference is that one question was almost immediately flagged by some user to be made CW, and the other wasn't similarly flagged for 1 day, 11 hours, 14 minutes and 49 seconds (or thereabouts) after being posted.
I will note that the time between the flag and conversion to CW isn't much different between the two questions.
This is ...
I am pretty certain that any edit to any question or answer (regardless of whether it is Community Wiki or not) will bump the associated question. The MSE bumping faq gives no indication that Community Wiki posts are treated any differently. (And because the requirements to edit (not just suggest edits to) Community Wiki posts is significantly lower than ...
How does Community Wiki mode affect bounties?
Bounties are not affected by community wiki mode. When you award a bounty to an answer marked community wiki, the reputation bonus will be awarded to the user who posted the original revision of the answer.
How does the bounty system work?
On MSE, it is recommended to accept answers (even your own), in order to mark questions as "solved" (and close them).
When you accept your own answer, you don't get the usual 15 reputation points. You get up- or down-votes, though.
Currently, your own answer is the one with the recent activity; if I choose to rank answers according to activity (it's a tab ...
Marking an answer as CW is mainly intended to lower the reputation barrier for others to edit that answer. I don't think that it is your intention that every newbee can change your "Yes, your solution is correct" to a "No, better luck next time". Nor do I think you expect others to greatly elaborate ("Yes, as the following introduction to foobar theory shows:...
The main idea behind a Community Wiki (CW) post is that it has many different contributors.
As a consequence a CW post:
has a lower point threshold for editing (100 versus 2000).
does not give its owner reputation from votes.
There are some other minor differences, for details you can see What are "Community Wiki" posts?
The default is that ...
Currently, there are only two ways an answer can become community wiki:
the author can do this by checking the community wiki box that appears below the post-editor box.
a moderator (or some other diamond-encrusted -entrusted user) can manually convert it to community wiki at any point.
(This has been the case since all automatic CW-conversions were ...
As mentioned in another answer there is no need to delete an answer when you accidentally turned it into CW. Moderators can change it back to a normal post.
All you need to do is get our attention. The best way to do this for things like that is to raise a flag "in need of moderator intervention" on the post and to briefly explain the issue.
To understand the purpose of community wiki, think of posts in terms of ownership. When you post a question or an answer, you are the owner of that question or answer. After all, it came from your head, it was your idea, and it is knowledge that you felt that it would be useful to contribute to the site.
That said, community wiki posts do not belong to one ...
Here's a post from Meta Stack Overflow that addresses it: Is there a way to remove community wiki status?
Here's the relevant snippet from the answer to that question (by Jeff Atwood)
Yes—community moderators, at their discretion, can now remove
community wiki status from particular posts.
(blurb explaining when posts are automatically made ...
Your question was made CW because it is a request for a list of sources and thus is not definitively answerable. Making a post CW is a judgement on the content and format of a question, not a disincentive to answer it. If people are interested in your question, they will answer it whether it is worth reputation or not.
Undoing a community wiki is a moderator-only thing. If you accidentally made a post community wiki, you can raise a flag on that post. Unless we see a reason why that post ought to be CW, we will undo it.
In this case, though, don't raise a flag, just drop a link to the post here.
You do not earn or lose reputation on Community Wiki (CW) posts. However, if some votes were cast before the post became a CW, you keep the points. This may be relevant for your answer to another soft question which I expect to become CW in near future.
For details of the CW feature, see What are "Community Wiki" posts?
I think your CW approach is especially attractive in the second linked Question, "What is the determinant of infinity?", where you must explain to the OP that the problem is not sensible.
The first Question, closed (on-hold) for lack of context, is sensible and can be answered well despite the OP's failure to show work or other evidence of thinking about ...
The use-case seems marginal to me, so I do not see a need to have it on the profile, but if you want to know just use search: "user:me wiki:yes" will return all your CW posts; you can further refine the query in various ways.
Side note in view of comments: you would also note major amounts of up-votes arriving via badges.
I was about to ask this exact question, but this question came up as having been asked before. I feel that it makes no sense that someone should be able to gain large sways of reputation for an answer that
Requires minimal effort (in general)
Is purely an opinion
May not even indicate any knowledge whatsoever - I may have heard that X is a great book on Y ...
I occasionally do this, but I doubt that awarding badges for this is a good idea. Let me describe a few cases as I think they explain, why this may not be a good idea - at least not as a rule.
A relatively common reason for turning your answer CW right away is that the answer is a summary of comments from several users. Henning coined the term Credit ...
I'm the OP of the question on main. This was the formulation of my disagreement.
You could ask on meta. (Where I took a peek.) My tentative answer is no. 1) The community has chosen to place each puzzle in one separate answer (as opposed to listing all puzzles in one answer). 2) The answers are also not opinions, favourites, etc. As such the rep system ...
I just noticed that the formulation has been changed:
(On main, only the part about answers is in the tooltip.)
In addition to fixing this bug, it now also includes the total score for the non-wiki questions you asked.
If I speculate a bit, this opens up potential for new badges.