tea.mathoverflow.net - Discussion Feed (Editing other people's answers)

thierryzell comments on "Editing other people's answers" (13829)

thierryzell — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 06:03:56 -0700

I agree: edits on other people's post should be minor. Good thing that rollbacks are available.

fedja comments on "Editing other people's answers" (13826)

fedja — Sun, 27 Mar 2011 21:12:23 -0700

Ah, thanks! I didn't know the edits are archived this way. Then I can just say that I do not consider such editing appropriate.

Will Jagy comments on "Editing other people's answers" (13825)

Will Jagy — Sun, 27 Mar 2011 21:04:23 -0700

Fedja, If I click on the "6 hours ago" as part of the phrase `Edited 6 hours ago' under Faisal's answer, I get a history, showing an initial post, an edit by somebody else, and edits back by Faisal. The edits were substantial.

fedja comments on "Editing other people's answers" (13824)

fedja — Sun, 27 Mar 2011 20:56:55 -0700

I usually edit other people's answers only if I see some broken LaTeX or other similar thing that severely interferes with the readability of the post. In all other cases I either add a comment, or post my own answer. At any rate, it is pretty hard for me to tell you what I think of "edits of this type" because by now they are gone and I have no way to compare the edited post to the original one. Generally speaking, I adhere to the idea that it is the poster's right to write the way he/she wants (within some reasonable limits, of course) and I shouldn't edit posts beyond just making them readable when they clearly aren't originally. In particular, I see no reason whatsoever to edit your answer as it is now. I can easily come up with a few reasons to vote it up or down, to comment on it, to post one's own answer after looking at yours, but not with a reason to make any changes in your text. Just my humble opinion, of course :).

Faisal comments on "Editing other people's answers" (13820)

Faisal — Sun, 27 Mar 2011 14:52:56 -0700

With enough reputation points you can edit other people's questions and answers. My question is: When is this practice appropriate?

I can see it being fine if all you're doing is fixing a typo (mathematical or otherwise) or righting some kind of minor oversight. But is it also acceptable to significantly change or expand the original post so as to make it -- at least in your opinion -- clearer or more comprehensible?

I'm asking partly out of sheer curiosity and partly because my answer to this question was edited today. I'm not particularly annoyed by this edit (which I have nonetheless rolled back), but I was taken aback by it. (It also introduced a minor error: the hypothesis "connected" was missing from the first assertion, which also propagated later when it was claimed that "$X$ must be a point.") So I'd like to see what the community's standpoint is in regards to edits of this type.