4

This question asked about actors in common to two projects. He had spotted 3. Now there is a "Community" accepted edit that added another actor into the question when the OP had only spotted 3. The edit also included someone else's answer that showed all eight people involved in both. The answer was edited into the question. "Does that seem right to you?"

If this is acceptable, why do we even need the answers now? This seems obvious wrong. I thought part of the process was not answering people or addressing them in their questions. Why was this allowed by "Community?"

7

In general, no. Editing answers into questions is frowned on, and probably should be rolled back. Those kinds of edits are typically due to someone not understanding the SE Question/Answer model. This is particularly true if there's an actual answer posted with all of that information.

The edit being approved by Community usually means that someone with low rep proposed an edit, and the OP came back and approved it before any other high-rep users could do so.

  • I guess I really don't understand how that "Community" tag works. Maybe it's the diamond after the word that makes me think Moderator. Ugh. It seems like something I should understand, but I rarely encounter it in something like this that actually makes me question it. – Meat Trademark May 7 '16 at 15:53
0

This suggested edit by anonymous was specifically approved by the OP:

Edit: proposed 11 hours ago by an anonymous user

Approval: Andrew Thompson reviewed this 10 hours ago: Approve

Original: asked Dec 13 '13 at 6:36 Andrew Thompson

These sorts of edits should always defer to the Original Poster when they explicitly approve it, as they obviously saw some merit to the edit.

Its listed under community as stack exchange allows unregistered, anonymous edits to enter the edit queue. It's by design.

Additionally, the "answer" that was editing in, was a single link. That answer is a link only answer and should have been deleted when first posted. Link only answers are frowned upon, and flagged as such.

  • Rolled back to the OP approved edit. – cde May 7 '16 at 19:31
  • I love the SE, but this seems like a shabby rule. Letting the answer into the question? After it's been answered. I'll play by the rules, but this one seems to nullify the efforts of people doing the research to answer the questions. I don't get it. – Meat Trademark May 7 '16 at 20:15
  • @MeatTrademark how does this one instance nullify your effort 3 years ago, which you got 7 upvotes, including 2 up votes for today as well? – cde May 7 '16 at 20:20
  • @MeatTrademark and frankly, that second answer should be down voted and deleted, as it is a link only answer, against the rules. – cde May 7 '16 at 20:29
  • 2
    "should always defer to the Original Poster" Er, not when OP (directly or indirectly) retcons the question till it's pointless. I've seen Mods rolling that back many times, because SE has claim on the Q too, not just OP. – Walt May 7 '16 at 20:33
  • @Walt yet SE gives the OP the ability to approve an edit single-handedly, while it requires at least 2 other users to approve the edit. It gives OP precedence over the question. – cde May 7 '16 at 20:36
  • I thought I'd read that answering a question within a question was not allowed. As it wasn't the OP seemingly doing the edit, it seemed fishy to me. It's really that simple. – Meat Trademark May 7 '16 at 20:37
  • 1
    OPs do and should have precedence over their own question, sure, but not the right to do whatever they want to it. Mods still have to decide if the change benefits SE or not, so let's wait and see. @MeatTrademark This is a walk in the park compared to the actual 2016 vote :P – Walt May 7 '16 at 20:49

You must log in to answer this question.

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