3
$\begingroup$

This accepted answer I wrote a few hours ago was changed to a community wiki: Dynamics and radiation part of Jackson's book - reading advice

I realize the original question was not a particularly good one, and it is now closed. Nor am I upset about the 15 reputation. I am really just curious about why this was done—whether there is a particular reason related to site policy for that kind of answer.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Why was the original question that you seemed to have answered thoroughly "not a particularly good one"? Was it because it was later closed by the moderator and so suddenly became "not a particularly good one"? If there is some sort of red tape policy on how things are run in a given forum, whether one agrees to it or views it as rather heavy handed, does that mean that the objective original question is at fault? $\endgroup$ – user135626 Dec 17 '20 at 3:32
3
$\begingroup$

As mentioned, this is because there is a convention that all resource-recommendation threads should be made community wiki in their entirety, as agreed on this thread. The reasoning is that the voting pattern on resource-recommendation threads is very different to regular threads, since the votes often follow the quality of the book rather than the quality of the answer, and there is enormous potential for simple answers generating massive amounts of undeserved reputation. (You may or may not agree with this; this thread is not the place to litigate it.)

... and, with that in place, I would argue that the CW label does not fit this thread (since the reasoning for CW'ing does not apply to it), and by extension neither does the tag nor the accompanying banner. The question deals with books, yes, but it is not asking for recommendations of resources.

As to whether the question is on-topic -- yes, it is a subjective question, but I think it makes the bar in terms of objectivity and should maybe be allowed to remain open. The general standard here comes from the Good Subjective, Bad Subjective SE blog post, and this thread has already shown that it admits answers based on expertise that pull together a large body of objective fact into a useful, informative, actionable, verifiable opinion.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Concretely, it was made community wiki because OP added the resource-recommendation tag, cf. the policy from this meta post.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

It's not that your answer was made CW, but that the question was made CW and that automatically converts all answers to CW as well.

As Qmechanic says there is a convention that all resource recommendation questions are CW, and if you tag your question as resource-recommendation it will convert it to CW and as a result convert all answers too.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

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