-7
\$\begingroup\$

This question is inspired by this rejection of a suggested edit, in this case, the suggested edit was rejected by the person who initially wrote the answer, a person who is doubtlessly biased.

Whether or not that rejection was appropriate is not part of my question.

What is the policy that users should employ towards accepting/rejecting suggested edits on their answer/question that is part of the Suggested Edits review queue?

Further: is it reasonable to propose a feature request that removes the possibility of the bias that is introduced by being able to moderate suggested edits to your answers/questions?

\$\endgroup\$
  • 7
    \$\begingroup\$ Note: one of the software-supplied reasons for rejecting an edit is because it contradicts authorial intent, so I don't think 'bias' is the right word here.The author having a say in edits seems to be in line with things working as intended. \$\endgroup\$ – vicky_molokh May 11 at 13:38
  • \$\begingroup\$ Why is bias not the right word? That the author has intent is not the same situations as to receive a paper with red marker on it, improving their language. Also please refrain from answering a queestion in the comments. Working as intended doesn't equal working well. \$\endgroup\$ – Akixkisu May 11 at 13:47
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ Bias implies a thing that is not part of the intended purpose. E.g. sprinting doesn't have a bias towards rewarding fast people, it intentionally rewards them; a language exam isn't biased towards fluent and well-taught writers, it seeks out which pupils are more fluent. I'm not trying to provide an answer, I'm pointing out what I see as an issue with the question. \$\endgroup\$ – vicky_molokh May 11 at 13:52
  • \$\begingroup\$ Bias also implies that you are invested in the outcome of the answer. As a researcher you should list who funded you - this is essential to your reputation. You may also harbour unreasonably hostile feelings or opinions about a social group or editor that interacts with your text - because you may take it as someone claiming to know it better than you - you are hurt. \$\endgroup\$ – Akixkisu May 11 at 14:10
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Akixkisu Just as an FYI, while we are quite strict about comment answers on the mainsite, we actually allow that here to some extent. Though, if you want a chance to maximize your impact on the situation, one should post an answer rather than a comment. \$\endgroup\$ – Rubiksmoose May 11 at 14:23
  • 9
    \$\begingroup\$ Doesn't the system deliberately give user's approval power on proposed edits to their own posts, even when they haven't earned the privilege of accessing the suggested edits review queue? The capability you're pointing out is an intentional feature of the system, not a bug. \$\endgroup\$ – Oblivious Sage May 11 at 15:34
  • 9
    \$\begingroup\$ No really, any user, regardless of their reputation, gets approve/reject votes on edits to questions and answers that they are the original author of. See this SE meta question for more info. You may not think that the system should work that way, but the SE devs made a deliberate decision to make it work that way. Arguing against it on the meta of a relatively small stack is unlikely to change their minds. \$\endgroup\$ – Oblivious Sage May 11 at 15:44
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Interesting, I was unaware of this. \$\endgroup\$ – Akixkisu May 11 at 15:45
13
\$\begingroup\$

I have rejected edits to my own questions and answers that sought to vandalize them or pervert their meaning. Likewise, I have seen edits to my questions and answers approved by others that vandalized and perverted my questions and answers.

When a user posts a question or answer, the user should be allowed to retain some control over the edits that are made to it because the user is most familiar with the question or answer's intent. The user is in the best position to head off attempts to change the user's own question or answer's intent by rejecting what the user views as inappropriate edits.

Note that I get where you're coming from—it's unusual to have users both generate content and be part of the editorial process!—, but that's how it's done 'round these parts.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 11
    \$\begingroup\$ I'll go one step further: I've rejected edits on my own questions that were obviously good-faith efforts to "improve" the post. But they re-worded something in a way I didn't like or changed around an order I disagreed with. So I rejected. \$\endgroup\$ – nitsua60 May 11 at 14:43
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @nitsua60 O, yeah. I was just going worst-case malicious scenario because it's obvious. To pile on to that, I've had approved extremely subtle edits to my answers that the nonexpert in the game system failed to realize are incredibly significant and that utterly changed the answer's meaning. Since anyone of sufficient rep can edit and approve an edit, the door's open for nonexperts to do both, with potentially embarrassing consequences for both the nonexpert and the user who's edited! \$\endgroup\$ – Hey I Can Chan May 11 at 14:52
12
\$\begingroup\$

It’s entirely appropriate for the author of a post to have review power over suggested changes. It’s words being put into their mouth: they should be able to approve or disapprove the change.

Removing authors from the review process would be useless and bad.

Useless, because authors can always edit their posts. Even if they were prevented from reviewing suggestions on their own posts, they could just directly edit it back after.

If that was somehow prevented, it would be bad for the site. It would make it possible to force people to say things they don’t want to say. Right now, each of our reputations are based on our own words; changing that would make our reputations based on what others forced our posts to say against our will. People would quickly abandon a site that made them responsible for things others forced them to say.

\$\endgroup\$

You must log in to answer this question.

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