4 ms·
It's worth noting that it is possible to edit other people's answers. So it is possible to correct answers with incorrect or dangerous information. With suffic
by SifJar 7y ago
It's worth noting that it is possible to edit other people's answers. So it is possible to correct answers with incorrect or dangerous information.
With sufficient "rep" (2000, where an upvote on one of your questions or answers is worth 10), edits don't even require approval from others (before that, they must be peer reviewed before the edit takes effect)
- TheCapn 7y agoI believe the idea is that if you're editing questions early on you learn what the expectation for edits are. I reject a lot of edits in the system for being edits that should be submitted as their own answers or as comments to the post they're editing. Ideally, once a user has gone through the system for long enough and had enough edits rejected for improper use of the system they'll know what to do once they reach the higher rep threshhold. In practice however??? --- The system works well for fast and easy. A system like StackOverflow will never work well for highly specialized tasks and that's alright.
- CJefferson 7y agoWhen I asked: https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/276496/how-to-deal-with-dangerous-answers https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/276496/how-to-deal-... I was explictly told "Inform and educate, don't censor!." -- which from context clearly means "don't edit answers just because they are wrong".
- baud147258 7y agoPersonally I find the "edit without peer review" too powerful, since you can do it for any question, regardless if you're supposed to be competent there or not; it would be better if it was limited for tags where you've got a bronze badge. Perhaps it's the lack of oversight which makes me a little wary. And 2000 rep isn't that hard to achieve, it just requires some persistence.