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?
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.
Update: We didn't do what I proposed here, but we instead created a wiki post type. See there for details. I wro …
4y ago
Alternatively, we could just make a policy that it's OK to close vote posts as duplicates even when you are the original …
4y ago
At a high level, given the proposed use-cases of canonical FAQs and Wiki categories, this sounds like a somewhat more ge …
4y ago
I have no real objection if others want a community wiki (or whatever it should be called) post type, but want to point …
4y ago
Post
I have no real objection if others want a community wiki (or whatever it should be called) post type, but want to point out that these never really worked right on SE. I'm very unlikely to make of such a post type.
I can see how it sounds nice at first glance, but take a look at some real examples. The problem is that multiple authors don't always agree on style, content, presentation order, and any other of the many considerations a single author gives to their work.
These types of many-author posts suffer from the too many cooks in the kitchen problem. The result is usually too confusing or messy than the coherent vision of a single author.
I have had a few of my posts on SE converted to community wiki. None of those were good experiences. Especially when writing a canonical post, I think carefully about presentation order, formatting, how things are explained, what to get into and what not, etc. Others don't know what my design considerations were, don't care, and have different ones anyway. The result was usually adding something distracting I deliberately left out, put in the wrong presentation order, or whatever.
If others think they have a better way of presenting something I wrote, I'd rather they either mention it in a comment and let me decide, or write their own post.
I don't see a problem writing canonical posts that are then used to close duplicates, even if you're the one to suggest the closing. It tends to be the high-rep users that write the canonical posts, since they know what question keep popping up. Those are the people you want writing the canonical posts, and those are the people most likely to notice the duplicates. I don't see a problem here.
I also don't see a problem getting a rep bump from duplicates pointed at your canonical post. You're answering the question, and you did the work to make the answer available. The result is something beneficial to the site, so you should be incentivized to do that.
1 comment thread