Upon discovering, a few days ago, that all issues of IF Magazine have been made available on the Internet Archive, I thought that there could be answers to story-identification questions that could benefit from having a (fully legit and long lasting) link to the full text of the suggested story.
I searched for story-identification answers containing either "IF magazine" or "Worlds of IF", and edited those that did not already have a source link, adding something like this at the end:
The Month Year issue of Worlds of IF is freely available on the Internet Archive; Title starts at page N.
"This edit was intended to address the author of the post and makes no sense as an edit. It should have been written as a comment or an answer."
"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 will surely survive these rejections, but I fail to see how the provided reasons apply to the suggested edits:
- I certainly did not intend to address the author of the post (= the answer's writer) as she/he already knows the title;
- the changes would make no sense as an answer, as I would repeat an existing identification hypothesis (sometimes already accepted)
- I think having a chance to verify if the suggested story is indeed the one the OP was looking for would make the answer more accurate and more accessible, not less so
So, why were these edits considered not useful or even harmful?
Related meta questions (only partially, as this situation is different):