After reading How much subjectiveness is OK? and specifically Richard JP Le Guen's answer, I thought I would start the discussion about how we want to use Community Wiki.
Kicking this around again now that we have another week of experience. How about the following simple rule:
"If your question is intended to gather a list of equally relevant answers, and you don't expect one answer to be the most applicable, it should be a community wiki."
Note the plural for answers: if I ask for a list of Shadowrun editions, I'm expecting one answer to be comprehensive, so that's not community wiki. If I ask for a list of cyberpunk-themed RPGs, that's community wiki. if I ask what's a good cyberpunk-themed RPG is for a game with this and that specific feel and requirements, that's not community wiki.
And we avoid "best," for reasons noted in other excellent answers in this thread.
Repeating what I said in the other thread, I've found that the questions which should be CW tend to be those which are more about listing people's experiences and ideas.
- What house rules do you used?
- What custom equipment/spells have you used?
- What are your experiences with dice-less games?
The biggest issue is that community wiki questions don't earn the asker/answerers any points. Since there's many questions out there that have no single/correct answer the community wiki would seem to be the best route to take, but those that like to answer questions in hopes of reputation may be less likely to provide input. As has been stated in a few other questions/answers already, there's going to be a lot of semi-subjective content that's going to be posted.
It would almost be better for this community if the emphasis on number of questions that a person has marked an accepted answer for isn't visible in their "badge". Along with this, lowering the required reputation to edit others posts. So that way the community still votes on the response that they feel are correct and the asker/answerers still get points. If the percentage doesn't show as part of the user's "badge" on the question it will won't deter people from answering in hopes of getting an accepted answer.
I think there's a need for a definitions list as part of the wiki; there's a big list of questions already up that are just asking "what is a..." indie rpg, death spiral, railroading, whatnot. That stuff should be in CW. Sure, it doesn't get as much rep, but ideally after the initial gold rush, people will stop being rep whores and just contribute to help out.
Based on my favorite use of the Community Wiki on StackOverflow, Hidden Features of X, I think that we should use this feature to create community lists of bests. For example, I would like to see a question about the best published adventures/modules with each answer providing a description, link, and unique features of a single adventure/module. Voting would show which ones are most popular with the community. I feel that these lists would be great for finding resources for a game. They could be especially useful for less experienced gamers.
I have been wondering about this problem myself. Until today I didn't actually know what a community wiki was because on SO I prefer questions that have definite answers. I might read CW questions but it's not why I visit SO.
As I see it this is almost the polar opposite of that. I would prefer to see more questions with a CW bias because I don't think that in the world of RPGs there often are hard and fast answers. I noticed there's been a bit of a fuss about a perceived D&D 4e bias on this site and I think, actually, the issues are related.
D&D style RPGs are handy to ask and answer questions about on a site like this because there often are hard and fast answers to questions about D&D and systems like D&D. As soon as an RPG becomes more narrative then a greater number of possible answers to possible questions become moot so several, even contradictory, answers could be of merit depending on your perspective.
The problem is that if you just CW all of these "floppy" questions in the traditional sense you could have absolute masters of narrative gaming, such as myself, getting no reputation because all of their questions and answers are CW and hence attract none, whereas this site's super high rep scoring mods are all experts on crunchy systems where Qs and As can have hard and fast answers.
It just seems like a bias built into the way the system operates. Of course in a software developer's Q&A that's not going to happen because definitive answers are almost always preferable. Here I would say that in the case of "crunchy" systems (so therefore mostly D&D) definitive answers are going to be preferable. But in the case of subjective systems or practice you always want it to be a more CW approach, or at least I do.