Is it acceptable to substantially add text to a post when editing?

Question

I came across this answer in the low quality posts queue:

thanks everyone for trying but I remembered the show I was thinking of was called first wave

It had been previously edited by another user to add Wikipedia and IMDB links, as well as quotes from both to provide more context:

I remembered the show I was thinking of was called First Wave.

Former thief turned security specialist Kincaid Lawrence "Cade" Foster’s life was idyllic, with a beautiful wife, good job and a nice house. Unbeknownst to him, a race of extraterrestrials called the Gua have identified him as subject 117 in an experiment to test human resilience. As part of this experiment, his life is systematically ruined, including the murder of his wife, for which he is framed. He is the only one of the 117 subjects to solve the riddles of the experiment and escape arrest to live as a fugitive. The Gua are among humans in the form of hybridised genetic clones and plan to enslave humanity—the first of three “waves” intent on conquering and finally destroying the human race. Constantly pursued by the police, and a strange government agency called the Illuminati, Foster discovers previously unknown quatrains of Nostradamus, which tell of three waves that will destroy the planet unless the “twice-blessed man” can stop them. For this reason, Foster investigates strange occurrences that may have ties to the Nostradamus quatrains, hoping to find what he needs to stop the Gua.

The episode with the witches was Season 1 Episode 8, "Book of Shadows"

Cade and Eddie travel to Salem, Oregon, where high school student Diana Black stands accused of killing three high-ranking members of the community. Diana's defense is that she is a witch and the three victims were not human but demons. Cade and Eddie realize that Diana has somehow found a way to identify the Gua. Diana tells Cade that she learned everything from an old book called "The Book of Shadows". Cade finds the book in the police department's evidence room, but the pages that tell how to identify the "demons" are missing. Realizing that the Gua will do anything to keep their secret, Cade realizes that he must find a way to save Diana and recover the missing pages before the Gua can destroy them.

However, this edit was rolled back by a third user for "vandalism" because it added so much text to the original (very short) answer. See the revision history.

Are edits like this (substantial addition of text by another user) acceptable or is it "vandalism"?

Answer 1

The best course of action would have been a new community wiki answer, containing the extra information.

It's what I usually do when I consolidate a short answer given in a comment. This case looks little different, except that the answer was given as an actual answer.

Unless I had to do substantial research, I just do a quick bit of searching, quote a bit of Wikipedia, link to the imdb, isfdb, or what have you, and mark it cw.
Of course, if that embryonic answer was just the starting point of more research to arrive at an acceptable answer, I do not mark it cw, but claim it as my own.

Answer 2

I'm a frequent transgressor on this (as I was in this case). So often, we never see the answerer again, so it leaves a stub answer which, even if it is right, doesn't really tell us much. And it feels weird to add another answer

My viewpoint is, if it doesn't actually change the answer, adding a plot description and a link to another site is good. Adding additional text indicating how the work matches is a bit more iffy, but constructive. Removing natter is... I guess that one is more controversial, but I feel like it's a good thing, kind of like fixing the spelling and grammar.

Answer 3

Yes, it is acceptable (in some cases)

In the case at hand, the original content and meaning of the answer was not changed. The edit added (much) context, quotes, etc. These were unambiguously helpful to anyone coming across this question in the future. The answer, as it stood, was not very informative. The whole point of posting questions and answers that everyone can edit is that the community can add information to make the post better. That's exactly what happened here.

The only objection I can seem to find to this is that the OP gets undue credit/rep for work that someone else voluntarily put into making their answer better. Since the editor knew this would happen, it seems they are okay with it. Do we want to be so uptight about assigning internet points that we disallow people from improving answers for no credit?

Also, the other answer suggests this edit was in conflict with the what edits are for page. I don't see this. From that page,

Edits are expected to be substantial and to leave the post better than you found it. Common reasons for edits include:

• To fix grammar and spelling mistakes
• To clarify the meaning of the post (without changing that meaning)
• To include additional information only found in comments, so all of the information relevant to the post is contained in one place
• To correct minor mistakes or add updates as the post ages
• To add related resources or hyperlinks

The edit at hand seems to meet the criteria of being substantial, leaving the post better than it was found, clarifying the meaning (without changing the meaning), adding related resources or hyperlinks.

What are we trying to discourage?

I also don't see what preventing a substantial edit that adds context to a weak answer would avoid. The person doing the editing gets nothing out of it. All they have done is maybe cause the OP to get some unearned rep. This seems a rather minor side effect to getting a much higher quality answer.

Answer 4

I would say that it was unacceptable. Although the edits themselves were filled with useful info (and technically met the edit criteria regarding "adding relevant links and resources") what happened here was that the OP's poor answer was essentially used as a vehicle to post a much better answer.

Although there's no reason to assume that the intention wasn't wholly honourable, the editor still deserves credit for his actions in writing what is, to all intents and purposes a brand new (and high quality) answer.