1
$\begingroup$

First thank you for creating the Computer Science group. I finally feel at home among all the stack family communities I have seen and participated.

My question is actually somewhat related to Usage of Community-wiki, but since I was unsure if it would be appropriate to post it there as an answer I opted for it as a question.

I noticed on other communities that sometimes topics grow related. For example, on Cross Validated there is a section one of the moderators created that had the community listing statistics tool on each answer. This is one type of the grouping I am suggesting and wondering about if this would be allowable here and how one would proceed on doing this (is it only for moderators? are users welcomed to do this? should they have a minimum reputation?)

On the other side I am also considering, say, moderators or users that want to group related knowledge on a single point. For example, again on cross validated there were two questions very similar to each other: Python as a workbench, Excel as a workbench. I end up originating a third: Ruby as a workbench. They are similar, but they are not appropriated as a single question. However, having a grouping question such as 'Workbenchs' and have being listed could be proven helpful.

I didn't notice this yet here since this community is still in its infancy, but questions such like this that thanks to the similar question automatic advice were noticed that could be grouped could maybe help making the CW more usable and easier to browse, avoiding extra redundancy on questions if users would find them easier?

Thank you, I hope this is relevant for the discussion.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ It appears you refer to list questions. We have been discussing those but no policy has emerged yet. $\endgroup$ – Raphael Apr 7 '12 at 13:16
3
$\begingroup$

I don't follow Cross Validated and don't understand what type of questions or answers you're referring to. On a general note, community wiki is deprecated: please read The Future of Community Wiki.

To put it succinctly, CW has outlived its usefulness, at least on questions. CW was a way to sneak in questions that were considered unsuitable for the site, without granting participants reputation; nowadays it's become recognized that if a question is unsuitable for the site, it should not be on the site at all, and CW isn't relevant.

CW was sometimes used on questions that asked for lists of books, tools, etc. Nowadays such lists live in tag wikis (which didn't exist back then).

CW on an answer is occasionally useful for answers that are collaborations between several users, without anyone being the main author. This is rare.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Why the last one is rare? I grew up with this concept of wiki for all the other wikis I know. Thanks for the pointer. $\endgroup$ – Oeufcoque Penteano Apr 7 '12 at 17:00

You must log in to answer this question.

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