3

I am new to reviewing edits. I've just seen three separate changes proposed which add or modify the authors original intended question/answer (but isn't wrong or contrary to what the author intended).

How I personally handle this sort of input is to write a comment under the question / answer suggesting the change or providing the new information to the original author.

I'd like to reject the edits but do so with comments suggesting that the additional information be provided in a comment under the original question / answer (but I don't see a mechanism to do this).

I only feel qualified to approve edits in grammar, formatting, etc. that don't substantially change the content of the author's work. Is this the correct approach or are my standards too strict?

||||||
  • 1
    As far as I'm concerned, when it comes to editing someone else's post, no rule is too strict. When in doubt, leave it alone. When you do a review for a suggested edit, you should be able to reject with a custom reason as the last option. If not, open the question in a separate tab (the link to it should be up top) and leave your comment. – phantom42 Apr 20 '15 at 11:40
  • 1
    I agree. In particular, an edit should never change the meaning of the original question or answer without some indication that the author was OK with it. We give a bit of leeway to people that substantially edit "on-hold" questions to get them re-opened, but that's an exception to the general rule. – KutuluMike Apr 20 '15 at 11:43
4

The general rule of thumb is that an edit should improve the post in some fashion, either by clarifying the answer, adding additional relevant information or improving the readability.

For example, on a question;

  • Answer A mentions a book by name. The editor adds a hyperlink to the book's wikipedia page

  • Answer B also mentions a book. The editor copies some info from the wikipedia page to clarify why it's a match

  • Answer C is the correct answer but has poor use of English. The editor inserts commas and periods to create paragraphs.

All of these would be acceptable because they don't change the Author's intent.


If you want more info about the theory behind editing, there's a section in the FAQ and some meta discussion here.

And if in doubt, why not pop into the chatroom to ask a question about what your fellow users think you should do, or you can simply skip the edit and come back later to see what other users did.

||||||
  • I've skipped all three of the ones that came up. I planned to do it my sea legs on approving / rejecting edits. I figured it'd be better to get that information proactively. Thanks! – Jim2B Apr 20 '15 at 13:06

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .