Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Welcome to Codidact Meta!

Codidact Meta is the meta-discussion site for the Codidact community network and the Codidact software. Whether you have bug reports or feature requests, support questions or rule discussions that touch the whole network – this is the site for you.

Comments on Do we have/should we have community wikis?

Parent

Do we have/should we have community wikis?

+11
−0

Over at Software Development, I've tried to write a self-answered Q&A that addresses the by far most common FAQ of all time in the topics of C and C++ programming.

When posting it on SO, I would have made such a post "community wiki", meaning that I would up all claims & credits for the post and the rep generated by it and let anyone edit it and add further details.

The only benefit of doing so for me as the author, is that I will be able to use the post as a "canonical duplicate" target in the future and close posts pointing at the canonical one. But that might be frowned upon in case I'm partial - it might be regarded as if I use close votes as a way to draw more attention to my own posts.

While what I truly wish for above all, is to have a nice, detailed post that I can clobber down endless FAQ duplicates with. (A bonus if it is better and more detailed than the corresponding post on SO.) I'm certain that similar FAQs exist all across the various Codidact communities.

My questions:

  • Do we have the ability to create community wikis? I can't find anything about it on the site.
  • If we don't have that ability, then should we have it?

I'm particularly interested in scenarios like the one above, to create canonical Q&A that can be used as duplicate targets. And not so much in creating general "good to know" posts/articles/documentation with a wiki separate from Q&A, for the reasons described here.

History
Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

1 comment thread

General comments (10 comments)
Post
+2
−0

Alternatively, we could just make a policy that it's OK to close vote posts as duplicates even when you are the original author. This was never explicitly forbidden on SE, but sometimes frowned upon.

Maybe code a mechanism where anyone can suggest a duplicate target, even if they are the original author (of the question and/or answer) themselves? But make it so that the actual close vote has to be carried out by another, impartial user. Or maybe a certain kind of flag?

Yet another alternative might be to give questions a certain "FAQ" status (by community consensus) and those questions with that status are always fine as dupe targets regardless of the original author(s) of the Q/A.

History
Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

1 comment thread

General comments (3 comments)
General comments
manassehkatz‭ wrote over 3 years ago

To me the issues isn't so much "dupe targets" as making those particular posts more obvious/accessible. The typical user doesn't do a good job of searching for dupes prior to asking a question. But if they saw an obvious "article" about related topics, then hopefully they would read that before asking their nearly-duplicate question.

Monica Cellio‭ wrote over 3 years ago

Our planned workflow for duplicates is: anyone can propose a duplicate; if the author agrees it's marked (done); otherwise the author is invited to edit or can dispute the duplicate suggestion (this has nothing to do with that). So yes, an author who finds or agrees with a dupe target can just go ahead and mark it as such. Not implemented yet, but that's the plan.

Charlie Brumbaugh‭ wrote over 3 years ago

I have never seen a problem with closing a dupe where the close voter wrote the parent, unless I get the sense that the close voter is just trying to get upvotes on the original because its only a dupe in the most remote sense.