5
$\begingroup$

Dave Benson recently raised the issue that one of his answers on a community wiki question was attributed to another person who edited the answer (and after edits, there was more material provided by the editor). Is there a way to change this re-attribution affect?

$\endgroup$
7
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ I believe this is a bug. It says 72% of the answer is mine. In total there is 153 characters and I added at most 30. So ~1/5. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 7, 2025 at 19:36
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Wait, it goes by line count, not by characters. That seems like an odd choice. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 7, 2025 at 19:38
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I agree that going by lines rather than characters is an odd choice, though edge cases where it makes a difference are probably less common on other sites which don't have frequent line breaks for equations. Either way, anyone who wants to see who contributed what can view that in a single click. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 7, 2025 at 20:42
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I answered the question in good faith, then the question was made wiki, and then there was a small edit to my answer by another user, which caused my answer to be attributed to him/her/them. I'd have been much less offended if no name at all were attached, than what happened to me here. I don't think I feel like answering questions at all until this is addressed. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 7, 2025 at 21:36
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ And even though, as Isihac listeners are well aware, points mean prizes, as @PaceNielson rightly surmises, it's really not about points. In general, I'm not possessive about mathematics. But if something is going to be attributed at all, it should be attributed to the right person, at least by the idiotic robotic mechanisms of this website, historical precedents notwithstanding. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 7, 2025 at 22:28
  • $\begingroup$ @StevenLandsburg rolled back the edit. It still hasn't cured the problem. This is a farce. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 7, 2025 at 22:43
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Relevant post on Meta Stack Exchange: What does the % in the Community Wiki box mean? (Although it would be nice if the answer included more details.) $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 8, 2025 at 7:42

4 Answers 4

Reset to default
13
$\begingroup$

This is exactly what community wiki means: that the answers are supposed to be a community effort rather than primarily the work of one user. So it make perfect sense that the user name shown—if any—should be the one who contributed the most to the answer, rather than the original author.

The only bug here seems to be that the automatic counting of who contributed what percentage is quite faulty, e.g., using lines rather than characters (though it’s clear that this is in general an ill-defined problem, and any possible solution will be a heuristic at best).

$\endgroup$
2
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ There are two issues with this. First, not every answer starts as a community wiki. The decision to convert answers to "community wiki" is often made unilaterally after an answer is posted. Second, why list authors at all after it has been converted to community wiki? Even if I contributed "more" to an edit, I still wouldn't want to be listed as the main author. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 8, 2025 at 13:40
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I can't argue with that. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 8, 2025 at 13:49
8
$\begingroup$

In this case the edit added no content, so I rolled back. But the rollback left the attribution unchanged! So it seems one could essentially vandalize an answer and then retain the attribution forever, even after the vandalism was repaired.

Just to ward off misinterpretation, I am not suggesting that the current issue is a case of vandalism. Just that some future vandal could come along and rack up hundreds of attributions that would be hard to undo.

$\endgroup$
3
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Agreed. I really don't think @infinitezero had any bad intentions, but ran into an infelicity in the way things are set up. Others may have different intentions. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 7, 2025 at 22:46
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The attribution can "change" only for Community Wiki answers, for the reason that Emil Jeřábek explained well in his answer. So, no real possibility of vandalism can occur. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 8, 2025 at 11:54
  • $\begingroup$ The attribution is an ephemeral information that can only be seen on the answer itself: it does not appear on the user's profile, it does not yield any reputation points, etc. So there is hardly any incentive for the vandal to do this. And if they do, meh. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 8, 2025 at 12:09
4
$\begingroup$

This isn't really an answer, but I thought it worth bringing to people's attention this previous discussion on essentially the same subject: Discreet editing.

It got plenty of attention at the time, but doesn't seem to have led anywhere...

$\endgroup$
2
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ This is a different issue. It discusses whether editors should be shown alongside original authors on regular posts, whereas this question discusses which user's name should be shown on community wiki posts. The UI and the intention behind it is quite different in each case. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 8, 2025 at 5:30
  • $\begingroup$ @EmilJeřábek Fair enough. There may still be some useful overlap, I don't know. At least, the fact that a related lengthy discussion doesn't seem to have led anywhere feels worth noting. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 8, 2025 at 6:15
4
$\begingroup$

It seems, then, that I can change the authorship of any community wiki answer by adding some lines from the Jabberwocky and then rolling back the edit. I hope nobody with bad intent catches on to this. The original post was asking for absurdities. It seems to have been successful.

$\endgroup$
7
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ This does not change authorship, but a semirandom user name indicated below the post. Community wiki answers do not really have the concept of authorship, though the system still treats the original author in a priviledged way. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 8, 2025 at 10:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I suspect that this distinction passes most users by. If you see an answer and a name below it, it seems natural to jump to the conclusion that this is the name of the author of the answer. This was certainly my assumption until yesterday's rude awakening. I would certainly feel less offended if there were no name at all under my answer (which I shall now delete). $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 8, 2025 at 11:48
  • $\begingroup$ Given how inaccurate the information is, it might indeed be better (and much simpler) not to display any name there at all. But FWIW, it usually works reasonably well. Your answer hit an edge case due to a combination of factors (the answer itself is extremely short, and the line-based edit measure exaggerated an addition of a single equation). $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 8, 2025 at 12:02
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @EmilJeřábek Well, I certainly won't be answering any more questions until this changes. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 8, 2025 at 12:04
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ I think that contributing is more important than seeking credit for contribution, especially for such a short answer to a big-list question. And I see no point is this over-reaction — given that the bug is not likely to appear in more elaborate answers. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 8, 2025 at 14:22
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @YCor I don't mind no attribution. I do mind mis-attribution. I stand by my reaction, and I don't thing it's an over-reaction. In this case, it was mostly harmless, but need not be next time. Moreover, if something can happen, it eventually will, even in more elaborate answers. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 8, 2025 at 14:25
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ I'm sorry you feel that way, as it will be a loss for everybody. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 8, 2025 at 16:40

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.