Thanks for the responses @AloizioMacedo and @quid. I'll create the question sometimes during the next week. (Of course, if someone else wants to create the post, feel free to do so.)

@DanielFischer I first voted to close this question as too broad. I explained the problem to the asker. I also suggested that it could potentially survive as a community wiki post. Apparently, askers can't designate a post for CW. (This particular asker looked for the CW box to click, and didn't find one. Is it best just to proceed with closure votes?

Or encourage the asker to edit to narrow it down, while having the question marked CW?

@DanielFischer For now, you can ignore my comments... The asker has since deleted the question.

@amWhy Questions can only be made CW by moderators. Answers can also be made CW by their authors. I'm not a fan of using CW to keep too broad questions. This one could probably be made useful by narrowing it down.

@DanielFischer That's kind of where I was leaning. I'm not terribly fond of questions, which, from the get-go, admit of too many different yet appropriate answers to the question.

@amWhy Yeah. If you see potential for a narrower version to be useful, suggest narrowing it down. If not, just vote "too broad".

@DanielFischer I already had voted to close as too broad. And I tried to notify you, below my initial comment here: the asker has deleted the question.

@amWhy I saw that this question has been deleted, and that you wrote so here. But I decided to interpret your message here to also refer the principle, not only this specific question. And wanted to confirm that depending on the question, one of the two routes is preferable. [And confirm that questions indeed cannot be made CW by the asker.]

@DanielFischer Thanks! I don't know why, virtually yearly I assume question askers can in fact select "CW". (Likely because that option is omnipresent for answers, and I overgeneralize). Thanks for your suggested routes.

Questions can only be marked "community wiki" by moderators, it seems.

Yes, Thanks, @XanderHenderson. @DanielFischer reminded me of that in his third from last comment. I do remember in the past, flagging for moderator attention to mark a post as CW happened more frequently. I cast a handful of such flags myself a while back. That doesn't seem to happen much (for the last two and a half years, at least.)

@amWhy Yeah, @DanielFischer answered the question while I was looking for the link. But I figured it didn't hurt to put it on the record.

$\color{blue}{\text{ Feature request: }}$ Any and all questions on math.se that are moved to HNQ should be automatically transformed into Community Wiki posts.

Ha!

[tag:feature-request], yeah? feature-request

Then you don't have to use silly TeX code. ;)

Or, perhaps better: feature-request (done with [meta-tag:feature-request])

@XanderHenderson Indeed! Plus, users would no longer have incentive to answer a large majority of poor questions that end up in the HNQ. Nor to post them in the first place.

I can't say that I am compelled to support the suggestion, but it has a certain karmic quality that I appreciate.

I mean, every once in a while, there is a question which makes it onto the HNQ for good reason. I feel like the users who ask those questions should be rewarded for it.

@XanderHenderson Well, then, we can admit a procedure for removing CW status to the (rare) questions that should be rewarded, such that upon removal of CW status, recoup votes that came in as CW votes, as fully fledged votes. I'm simply arguing that it is fair to say that at the very least, a majority of posts that make it to HNQ from this site, are poorly asked questions (and opportunistic answerers) that ought not be rewarded from wider viewership

The other problem I see with that proposal is that the asker of a question is not really at fault if their question makes it to the HNQ.

The fault typically lies with the answering machines who deign to upvote-and-answer such questions, thereby placing them on the HNQ.

I think that it would be better to try to find a way to de-incentivize the answerers, not the askers (it really isn't their fault).

@XanderHenderson True, but they are free to keep votes they received on MSE, just not via HNQ. And there indeed have been askers who carefully write click-bait question titles, and who have an inordinately high ratio of HNQ/(not HNQ) questions, because those few askers design them as such. But I'm game for de-incentivizing the answerers, by rendering only but all answers CW.

Click-bait examples in titles: Fake proof that foo = fum. Questions that use "philosophy" as a tag, but not "logic" or "foundations": e.g. "How can we really know that numbers even exist, in the first place?", "Is math discovered or created?", Oh, don't let me even begin....!

@XanderHenderson Please know, my feature request, while significant, is also fun and funny to imagine. Or at least, imagining such a rule helps users frustrated with many, not all, HNQ's, find some humor.

Yeah, like I said, there is a certain karmic justice to it that I really like.

I just can't imagine it flying.

Wait until my feature-request comes about the some of the culture in the review queues. I've been more active there, because I just want to see the one queue below 1000, brought to 1000. But, oh, my, gosh. One user on this site who strives to be the user leading in rep "this week", "this month", and so on, also seems to really be in need of leading the vote counts in each day, but more importantly, having his photo at the front of the First Queue, for as long as possible each day,

... so much so that he waited a week ago, until only one minute was left before the new UTC day would start, and fired off his final 6 votes to close. (No one should be casting six close votes in one minute!).

Are you speaking of the user who is in front of that queue right now?

@XanderHenderson No, but I am referring to the user's photo immediately to the right of snoopy.

Ah.

@XanderHenderson I have to be honest; I've been having fun trying to put tangles into said user's compulsions. That might be not-nice, but folks with silly compulsions don't know how crucial those compulsions are to their daily functioning, until they have to change paths. That's a start. At any case, I kind of feel bad for him. As I suspect his time here is spent in "compulsion-driven-mode", with little left for enjoying his work on the site.

@XanderHenderson Don't get me wrong. I came fairly close earlier on in my time here when I considered a good day, a day I capped in rep, but when I didn't, it felt pretty devastating. So I'm not so much judging, but this site is sooooo rich in research-worthy for social-psychologists, sociologists, and the study of the practice of mathematicians/wanna be mathematicians.

Indeed. As I keep saying, gamification is evil. ;)

@XanderHenderson It is!! Indeed!!

@XanderHenderson tell that to Tao

@user1732 yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

well, in my defence, i did say "trend" :P

Sure. And I am being a bit hyperbolic when I say that "Gamification is evil."

It isn't always, but it has predictable consequences which need to be designed around.

Or, at least, acknowledged and thought about.

yeah, we need more data also

Human beings, to become mature adults, need to be able to function when they don't get candy, rewards, bells and whistles, on leader boards, in fact, they need to know how to function when no one is watching, or recording them and they get no software or internet-generated "points" to award them. Maybe that's why we are seeing childhood and teen-age hood extending so far into young adulthood.

We need only consult research in social psychology, sociology, etc attesting to the frightening increase in the human need for instant gratification for longer and longer durations of their lives.