You’ve not actually given any use case. Sure – technically – all posts could be a wiki, but then again, so could they be polls. But you are making the good point, that they shouldn’t be.
Sure, technically, this is possible to implement. But same for polls, I’d consider this bad practice. Rather have a person “fork” the conversation and do a new “wiki-style” topic for it than start editing some post mid-way in the conversation as the “wiki” about it – it will be impossible to find for users…
I really like that idea and I see good reason to implement this independent from the wiki. But in particular, when allowing the post to become “unwiki-ed” by admins later, I feel this will be confusing after (as a post then has been edited by multiple authors and a visual cue was showing that but from that point on the visual cue would be gone). I would make the current status of who can edit a post independent from the wiki-flag. Having the admin menu with proper permissions per posts sounds like a much better idea.
Fair enough. Unfortunately what has been proposed as a “wiki” spec here wouldn’t be sufficient in the case of what we are working on (me, full-time from next week I might add) – as it is only about sharing edit permissions from what I can see. Instead what we do need for our installation is a “wiki” (or “article” as it is called here) which does have another layout and different behaviour and for sure, would be bound to the topic/first post. So, from all I’ve read and you’ve said, it should be implemented as its own archetype. I’m also not afraid of bigger amounts of work for that, that’s something I knew would be needed for it anyways. I’d just like to make it proper in the first place so we can merge this back into master and everyone can benefit from it.