Why was this edit that added references and links to a valid answer rejected?

Question

First, I understand originators of content—questions or answers—hold higher weight than others when it comes to edits of their content. But I am at a loss to understand why my suggested edit to this answer was rejected with the reason being:

This edit does not make the post even a little bit easier to read, easier to find, more accurate or more accessible. Changes are either completely superfluous or actively harm readability.

I added copy edit fixes but mainly added contextual links to items in question that clearly support the answer’s assertions.

To be fair and in context, I made this edit after the user in question—in my humble opinion—behaved like a troll on a question I posted and have since asked to be deleted. So yes, I clicked their profile, saw they are knowledgeable about Star Trek and simply made an edit to add more context and validation to a good answer they provided. But for the community member to have rejected it for the reasons outlined seems odd at best; maybe they took it as a personal slight on their work?

But regardless, why was this edit—which added references and links to a valid answer—rejected with the reason given? Are users not encouraged to provide a larger context for the answers given by providing clear links and supporting evidence?

Answer 1

This is pretty borderline. You've made two edits; one relatively minor, one larger and more contentious. Let's take them in order:

1) You've added active (Memory Alpha) links to two specific areas of the text; The episode title and the code used to teleport into space. In principle these are fine and I would have no problems with personally accepting these.

2) You've copied some text from memory alpha into the body of the answer. I can see several potential problems with this;

• You're essentially repeating what the answer already says. Because the wording is very similar, it could look (to an outsider) like @Tritium is merely repeating something he's read elsewhere.

  • As @DVK mentioned in his comment below, some people really don't like using the Wiki as a quote source given that it's not a canon source of information.

Personally I think this was an acceptable edit but as I said, it's on the verge of not being.

Answer 2

I wasn't involved in this, but I personally see nothing wrong with your edits. Providing the links was a genuinely helpful way of improving the answer (a reader who wants to know more now has a direct route to do so), and providing the quote supported the answer but without materially changing it. I would have been more inclined to post these as comments, let the original answerer edit them in if they see fit, then clean up my comments when done, but that's my own preference and you're perfectly within your rights to suggest them as an edit instead.

I would have approved this edit if I had seen it in the review queue.

However, I must also add that the person who rejected the edit was the original answerer, and while you are perfectly within your rights to suggest the edit, the original answerer is also perfectly within their rights to reject it, for whatever reason they see fit, and without providing an explanation if they don't wish to.

I've read over the other (now deleted) question and I also don't see much wrong with the other user's behaviour. They provided a reasonable answer to your question, as it was worded at the time, and there doesn't appear to be any trollish behaviour there. I'd actually be inclined to call foul on you for moving the goalposts and then bombing them with a downvote after doing so (I also note that a moderator had to put some friendly advice your way on another answer to this question).

At this stage the whole thing looks more like some personal argy-bargy between you and another user than anything else, and the best thing I can say is: it happened, it's not worth making an issue of, let it be and move on.