I noticed a couple of answers to the tweetable art question tweetable art question have been converted to community wiki. These are questions which, although interesting, didn't keep to the question requirements (the code was longer than 140 characters and additional functions were added outside the specified red, green and blue functions - which the question forbids).
I can understand why people would be frustrated at seeing answers that don't match the question, especially if they spent a long time golfing down their own submission to 140 characters... It doesn't seem a fair comparison.
However, I don't understand the approach of making these community wiki. That means the rep doesn't go to the answer poster, but the valid answers are still subject to a comparison which is not like for like, which may affect how they are received. At first glance it still may not be obvious that the invalid answers don't fit the question.
What approaches make sense in such circumstances?
Is there a benefit to making them community wiki that I'm missing?
I noticed a couple of answers to the tweetable art question have been converted to community wiki. These are questions which, although interesting, didn't keep to the question requirements (the code was longer than 140 characters and additional functions were added outside the specified red, green and blue functions - which the question forbids).
I can understand why people would be frustrated at seeing answers that don't match the question, especially if they spent a long time golfing down their own submission to 140 characters... It doesn't seem a fair comparison.
However, I don't understand the approach of making these community wiki. That means the rep doesn't go to the answer poster, but the valid answers are still subject to a comparison which is not like for like, which may affect how they are received. At first glance it still may not be obvious that the invalid answers don't fit the question.
What approaches make sense in such circumstances?
Is there a benefit to making them community wiki that I'm missing?
I noticed a couple of answers to the tweetable art question have been converted to community wiki. These are questions which, although interesting, didn't keep to the question requirements (the code was longer than 140 characters and additional functions were added outside the specified red, green and blue functions - which the question forbids).
I can understand why people would be frustrated at seeing answers that don't match the question, especially if they spent a long time golfing down their own submission to 140 characters... It doesn't seem a fair comparison.
However, I don't understand the approach of making these community wiki. That means the rep doesn't go to the answer poster, but the valid answers are still subject to a comparison which is not like for like, which may affect how they are received. At first glance it still may not be obvious that the invalid answers don't fit the question.
What approaches make sense in such circumstances?
Is there a benefit to making them community wiki that I'm missing?
Should we flag and delete Not an Answer posts?
Should we delete NonNot an Answer posts?
- 10.9k
- 3
- 49
- 85