Timeline for Unspecific rejection on edit with multiple disparate changes
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 8, 2024 at 7:09 | comment | added | Sarvesh Ravichandran Iyer | @D.W. No problem, thanks for the input. There is good discussion here and there, but a very healthy population represents your opinion on other websites (unlike here). | |
| Oct 7, 2024 at 16:14 | comment | added | D.W. | But I have no special insight. And there are lots of other users who participate on multiple SE sites. Hopefully others will be able to give a more helpful perspective. Sorry that this wasn't particularly useful. | |
| Oct 7, 2024 at 16:12 | comment | added | D.W. | Some example reading: meta.stackexchange.com/q/15839/160917, meta.stackoverflow.com/q/367885/781723, meta.stackoverflow.com/q/269995/781723, meta.stackoverflow.com/q/288987/781723, meta.stackoverflow.com/q/416012/781723, meta.stackoverflow.com/q/381353/781723, meta.stackoverflow.com/q/272486/781723, meta.stackoverflow.com/q/404191/781723, meta.stackoverflow.com/q/338662/781723, meta.stackoverflow.com/q/263115/781723 | |
| Oct 7, 2024 at 16:05 | comment | added | D.W. | Stack Overflow has an interesting policy that largely encourages edits, but warns to take special care about editing code and largely discourages editing code, and reviewers may reject some edits that make too large of a change to code (because, much like it can be hard to check edits to math to make sure it hasn't inadvertently introduced errors, it can be hard to check edits to code in the same way): meta.stackoverflow.com/q/303219/781723, meta.stackoverflow.com/q/260245/781723 | |
| Oct 7, 2024 at 16:04 | comment | added | D.W. | @SarveshRavichandranIyer, My apologies. I don't have any great insights. Maybe others will have some perspectives. My impression is that the primary difference in other sites is that they are more welcoming and accepting of edits (so edits are less likely to be rejected on grounds of "you're not the author", and on meta, people are more likely to educate other about SE norms that encourage edits, and focus more on building a high-quality knowledge archive and less on protecting the original author). | |
| Oct 7, 2024 at 9:24 | comment | added | Sarvesh Ravichandran Iyer | @D.W. This is a really good answer, but you being someone who has seen a lot of other websites on SE, I'd like you to explain what those sites do well that allows editing culture to be more free, and also what counters something like Brian's argument on other websites. | |
| Oct 7, 2024 at 4:39 | comment | added | D.W. | @BrianTung, Thank you for articulating that perspective in greater detail and better than I did. | |
| Oct 7, 2024 at 4:39 | history | edited | D.W. | CC BY-SA 4.0 | added 18 characters in body |
| Oct 6, 2024 at 5:44 | comment | added | Brian Tung | I don't generally have a problem with this, but one reason that proactive edits can be received poorly is that it denies the original writer's agency. Rational or not, they might prefer to be informed first of the deficiency, and arrive at their own way of remedying it (if they agree it's a deficiency). After all (from their point of view), they know best how their original post was organized, so they should know best how to re-organize it to suit an updated purpose. (I realize you've already mentioned some of this, but I tend to prefer "agency" over "moral ownership" as an explanation.) | |
| Oct 3, 2024 at 20:46 | vote | accept | DroneBetter | ||
| Oct 3, 2024 at 9:42 | history | answered | D.W. | CC BY-SA 4.0 |