<p>I don't think these threads need to be made community wiki.  While the initial idea of CW was to lower the threshold for editing so that there could be a single group answer, it hasn't really been used that way on any site, as far as I'm aware.  It's certainly never been used that way here.  For what it's worth, I don't even think that's a good goal or ultimately workable.  Posts should have an identifiable author who is responsible for its content.  If others disagree with the content, they should post their own answer so readers can see the two positions spelled out rather than have two people edit and re-edit a post back and forth.  </p>

<p>I'm not generally that concerned about lost reputation.  CW posts are typically the kind of thing that shouldn't be a primary source of reputation gain.  Regarding canonical threads specifically, they tend to be authored by high-rep users who don't really need the reputation.  However, you are right that the CW status prevents these threads from counting towards tag badges, which can be a real disadvantage in the case of canonical threads.  </p>

<p>What community wiki has evolved to be is a <strike><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzlG28B-R8Y" rel="nofollow noreferrer">twilight</a></strike> gray zone for posts that under a stricter application of SE policy would be closed and deleted (what happens on SO), but that we perceive as having real value such that deletion would be an unambiguous loss to the site.  This leads us to thinking that this fudge is the lesser of two evils.  It should be an exception, not a common status.  Note, moreover, that CW remains controversial (<a href="https://stats.meta.stackexchange.com/q/2953/">What is and what should be our policy on making questions community wiki?</a>).  In either case, canonical threads clearly do not fall into this category.  </p>
