Is it possible to block a user's reputation increase when he is upvoted, or on any other event? On what basis could it be done and by whom? I searched info on this without success.
I understand from the answer that an answer edited more than 11 times automatically becomes community WIKI and no longer gives reputation.
The first point is that the users should be better warned
The second point is that I do not see why I should keep working on my answers that are no longer mine, since it is precisely those answers that give me real work, and require originality, that gather no reward.
There is only so much interest in textbook answers, however carefully I did some of them.
Not all questions are equal. Not all answers are equal. When I answer a question that could be an open problem, I do not believe it should be treated the same as when I give a pointer to wikipedia.
I have always been evolving the documents I write. We all have our own way of working, and no one will be imposing on mine,especially a community to which I gave more than I asked.
This site is aiming for low quality as it encourages strongly fast answers and then discourages evolution of documents. I evolve documents in situ because it is too much management to do otherwise. And I have answered carefully enough older questions to know that it does not get many votes. And votes are not just reputation, they determine answer ranking, and thus the usefulness of the work contributed.
One of my major reasons for participating is understanding cooperation and peer reviewing in this system. As far as I am concerned, this is a failure. I have been a promoter of open publication long before anyone dreamed of this system. But I also believe in respecting authorship, not just the author's name, but his work and his way of working.
I have no problem leaving my contributions under a copyleft licence. But I do have problems not being respected when I do it. And I have other chanels for whatever I have to say.
I have no idea where this text should be going ... but I am in no mood to look. However, I am willing to discuss these issues.
Follow-up after a decision not to do anything.
I did spend significant time trying to find out how this site works. The most important thing users do is answering questions. I did not see any information, any hint, that editing was a problem. I had no idea that it bumped the question (I thought only new answers did). I do care about other people's time. I just checked that the bumping is mentioned in the editing help, but in such way that it does not look important, and there is much to memorize.
I do understand you have to protect the system from frequent update if it has been chosen to have this effect. But the best protection would simply be to warn the users. It would be so simple to have a few lines on things to avoid in the editing help. Not to mention that any system that can detect bad votes can obviously detect excessive editing.
I did not have TeX installed on my machine (I do now - I move), and I could not know using it on the site was a problem as it uses my cycles. I cannot tell what is exceptional. I do know I have acted in good faith after doing my best to be informed.
As much as I understand that you have to protect the system, I do not understand that you do not seem willing to set thing right, knowing that none of the problems is due to neglect on my part, since it is apparently the only thing in your power. Indeed, nothing will be done to change things regarding users information, and you cannot help it. The issue of brownie points is immaterial. But principles do matter to me too.
It was politically most interesting, as Larry Lessig might say.
Thank you for your time - really.