What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 133 Stack Exchange communities.

In this edit I merely swapped the code that the answerer intended, as he copied the wrong portion from the page he linked. The edit got rejected, and I'm not sure that was beneficial to the community. The answer currently offers the opposite of what the question asked for, and only because of a mistake copying the code. I don't understand... who benefits from this? Or who would be harmed if the edit was approved? Shouldn't the main goal of any Q&A site be having useful and correct answers for the OP and other visitors who have the same question?

share|improve this question
12  
Yes it should have been rejected. That's the perfect "radical change" example. This is not Wikipedia, user can't just change any post to anything he want on a whim. –  Shadow Wizard Feb 28 '13 at 15:27
5  
"The answer currently offers the opposite of what the question asked for"...then add your own correct answer instead. –  Bart Feb 28 '13 at 15:29
    
I understand, but that was what the answerer actually intended. I didn't change what he meant. –  waldyrious Feb 28 '13 at 15:30
    
@Waldir how do you know? Can you read minds? Even so, it's not your place to make such "corrections". –  Shadow Wizard Feb 28 '13 at 15:31
    
To make such corrections would have been to write your own answer –  Hugo Dozois Feb 28 '13 at 15:33
    
@ShaWizDowArd It's just common sense: The OP asked for HSL to RGB conversion, and the author of the answer linked to a page that contained both RBG to HSL and HSL to RGB code, and he copied the wrong one. That is obviously a mistake, no mind-reading needed! –  waldyrious Feb 28 '13 at 15:33
1  
@Waldir OK, maybe that's true. Still, on Stack Overflow the proper way of action is posting comment and having the post author fix such mistakes. Sorry you had to find out in the hard way. –  Shadow Wizard Feb 28 '13 at 15:37
1  
@ShaWizDowArd so the goal is to adhere to convention about proper way of action, rather than assessing each case by its own merits? If that was the case we could have bots rejecting edits that change too many characters, based on the size of the diff. I think the point of having humans perform the review is precisely to allow nuanced cases like this to receive better consideration. Above all, the goal of building a better resource should take priority over enforcing standard procedures. –  waldyrious Feb 28 '13 at 15:42
    
@Waldir there might be users who will agree with you. I'm not among them and will reject such edits. Let's just agree to disagree, and sorry I can't explain my point better. –  Shadow Wizard Feb 28 '13 at 15:45
2  
If you see that the answer is wrong, down vote it and comment why you down voted, or post your own answer with the correct code. –  Hugo Dozois Feb 28 '13 at 15:48
1  
@ShaWizDowArd ok, I guess. It saddens me though, because this kind of action really harms the improvement of the resource we're attempting to collaboratively build. (At least, I try to keep believing it's collaborative...) –  waldyrious Feb 28 '13 at 15:49
    
@Waldir collaborative to some extent, and this extent is open for discussion... –  Shadow Wizard Feb 28 '13 at 15:57

1 Answer 1

I think the correct way to approach this is to write a comment, and let the author make the change. Or write another "correct" answer.

share|improve this answer
    
That makes sense in general, but can you explain why that approach is more correct in this case specifically? In more subjective changes it makes sense since one can't read the author's mind, but in this case it's pretty clear that it was merely a mistake copying code from another page, he selected the wrong block. –  waldyrious Feb 28 '13 at 15:35
    
@Waldir there is long discussion about this here. –  Shadow Wizard Feb 28 '13 at 15:38
3  
@Waldir: when you edit something, you don't really want to change what was said (and its meaning). You usually want to change how it was said (but keep the same meaning). You changed what was said (and the meaning), which is a "radical change." Even if you're right (about him copying the wrong code block), it's still something where you want to let the author change the meaning. –  Cornstalks Feb 28 '13 at 15:38
    
Guys... the author didn't even write that code, he just copied it from a web page, and copied the incorrect block! I didn't do any restructuring to the code, I replaced a quote by the one whe actually intended. The only reason my edit changed so much of what he wrote was because he wrote it unintentionally the opposite way of what he wanted. How isn't this clear? You say "Even if you're right (about him copying the wrong code block)" as if there's any doubt that he was actually trying to answer the OP's question instead of offering the opposite solution! –  waldyrious Feb 28 '13 at 15:46
2  
@Waldir Still, general guidelines are that you don't make edits which completely change the meaning of a post. Either ask the author to do so, or make a new post yourself. That is what we have in mind when reviewing. –  Bart Feb 28 '13 at 15:52

You must log in to answer this question.

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