While "ordinary" questions have their birth time readily visible above the original poster name, it seems like the only way to find out when a CW question has been asked is to view its revision history page. Is this intended?
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
5
-
1$\begingroup$ I guess that (community-wiki) would be a good tag for this question. (I don't have enough reputation to edit on meta, that's why I only made suggestion in a comment.) $\endgroup$– Martin SleziakCommented Oct 17, 2016 at 1:46
-
$\begingroup$ @MartinSleziak Good suggestion, thanks! $\endgroup$– მამუკა ჯიბლაძეCommented Oct 17, 2016 at 6:38
-
1$\begingroup$ Main meta: wiki questions don't show creation date. $\endgroup$– Martin SleziakCommented Oct 17, 2016 at 8:02
-
$\begingroup$ @MartinSleziak I see, thanks. So this seems to be intended. If you feel like making this an answer I would accept it. $\endgroup$– მამუკა ჯიბლაძეCommented Oct 17, 2016 at 8:07
-
$\begingroup$ Per your request, I have posted an answer. Although I am not entirely sure to which extent it really answers your question. $\endgroup$– Martin SleziakCommented Oct 17, 2016 at 8:25
Add a comment
|
1 Answer
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
Per the OP's request I am posting the link to the post on main meta about this issue: wiki questions don't show creation date. It is marked status-bydesign.
But, to be honest, the explanation of this choice given there does not seem very satisfactory to me. The answer there seem to suggest, that since community wiki post is supposed to be common work by several users, the date of creation does no matter.
More than with the answers I tend to agree with this comment:
The question is tagged "by design" without explanation, what are design reasons. IMHO, creation date may be more important than the name of the most contributor, since it's agreed, that the author is a Community. -- Michael Freidgeim
But since the question was inactive for a long time (all answers are from 2009, and it was marked as status-bydesign around the same time, the above comment is from 2013), I find it rather unlikely that some additional explanation will be given there.
answered Oct 17, 2016 at 8:23