[dmurray]

This already exists as "Community wiki" [0], which is almost exactly what you describe, at least in theory.

It seems like a useful feature that often has a positive effect. It's not clear to be that it's improved the general attitude of the community or of management.

[0] https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/11740/what-are-comm...

[the_jeremy]

The community wiki is strange to me because it completely removes the gamification aspect. If your post becomes a community wiki, you stop getting reputation. If you edit a community wiki, you get no reputation.

[rzwitserloot]

Ah, very interesting.

But does it matter? The SO I know still aggressively hints at the 'I dont know what we actually are' problem; if you answer very obvious questions, you get downvoted with notes to 'VTC and move on', for example. I also get no option to vote to promote an answer into the wiki.

The community wiki feature as implemented does not fulfill what I'm proposing, I'd say. Or at least, the current policies do not mesh with the existence of the wiki in a way to solve the dilemma.

[ballenf]

I don't think community wiki's are what was described at all.

I'd describe as every question starting out as a forum post and only upvoted questions become Questions.

No one's question gets deleted. Question quality doesn't get diluted.

[richardw]

I was active from very early on but lost trust in SO when my best answer got turned into a community wiki. It’s an amazing resource but now I mostly consume.