On Unix & Linux I stumbled upon an ancient question with recent activity. I was trying to figure out why that was. I looked through it and its answers and saw recent edits.

In the revision history there were two new entries that, IHMO, greatly improve the quality of the answer, but which, to my mind, disregard what's said in "not to do".

| |
  • 2
    Both of those edits seem fine to me. Even in looking at the metaSO about acceptable editing. – slm Jan 9 '19 at 3:49
  • 2
    Neither of those edits is a particular improvement to the answer and both make it worse in significant ways (the first doesn't really seem to understand what it's working with, and the second builds on that but is also poorly spelled). Revision 4 is at best misleading in ways the previous revision was not. There could have been better edits that would have achieved reasonable improvements but these are definitely questionable. – Michael Homer Jan 9 '19 at 4:33
  • 4
    Could you clarify what is wrong with the edits? To me, they look like good faith attempts to improve the question. I agree with Michael that they didn't really succeed, largely because of language problems, and they should probably be rolled back, but I don't see what general rule they break. Also, note that that is one edit, not two. One of the users ho approved the original edit chose "improve edit" when reviewing the edit suggestion. – terdon Jan 9 '19 at 9:18
  • 1
    Wow, I thought I’d rejected that edit, and I had — the editor submitted the exact same edit again! – Stephen Kitt Jan 9 '19 at 10:03
  • 1
    @terdon the above changes the “good faith” nature of the edits somewhat :-/. They were no doubt made in good faith the first time, but I would have hoped for some improvement the second time round... – Stephen Kitt Jan 9 '19 at 10:27
  • 2
    I rejected this suggestion (the second time it was proposed) because I didn’t consider the phrase “To start with” to be particularly problematic. I also thought that turning sentences into bullet points actually disimproved readability (though I appreciated the thinking behind the rest of the edit). – Anthony Geoghegan Jan 9 '19 at 14:47

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .