10 replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/
source | link

This editThis edit to a question was rejected by three reviewers.

The irony is that the edit is entirely correct, and was made by one of the most knowledgeable people in the universe on the topic - a core developer, @avital. While the reviewers were trying to be helpful, they unfortunately lacked specialized knowledge.

How can we fix this systemic problem? Here's the best idea that surfaced (thanks @bart):

Propose reviews on edits only to users who have at least one of the question's tags.

Other ideas are below:

  1. Promote a guideline advising reviewers to only deal in their specific matters of expertise. Knowing JavaScript doesn't mean you're an expert in meteor's package system. More simply put emphasize to reviewers,

    Do make use of that "Skip" button if you're not sure about an edit

  2. Providing a mechanism of notifying reviewers that their rejections were mistaken.

  3. Checking who the editor was. Rejecting this edit is like a LISP programmer telling Douglas Crockford he's wrong about a JavaScript statement.

The current default sentiment when a reviewer doesn't have specific knowledge regarding a question, seems to be to just reject the edit.

It's notnot an isolated incident, andand I see it as a problem from multiple reasons:

  1. it discourages highly knowledgeable (but new to SO) individuals from contributing to SO
  2. it reinforces the sentiment that reviewers have absolute rejection powers, despite lacking specialized knowledge
  3. it perpetuates incorrect answers by rejecting useful changes.

How can we fix this?

This edit to a question was rejected by three reviewers.

The irony is that the edit is entirely correct, and was made by one of the most knowledgeable people in the universe on the topic - a core developer, @avital. While the reviewers were trying to be helpful, they unfortunately lacked specialized knowledge.

How can we fix this systemic problem? Here's the best idea that surfaced (thanks @bart):

Propose reviews on edits only to users who have at least one of the question's tags.

Other ideas are below:

  1. Promote a guideline advising reviewers to only deal in their specific matters of expertise. Knowing JavaScript doesn't mean you're an expert in meteor's package system. More simply put emphasize to reviewers,

    Do make use of that "Skip" button if you're not sure about an edit

  2. Providing a mechanism of notifying reviewers that their rejections were mistaken.

  3. Checking who the editor was. Rejecting this edit is like a LISP programmer telling Douglas Crockford he's wrong about a JavaScript statement.

The current default sentiment when a reviewer doesn't have specific knowledge regarding a question, seems to be to just reject the edit.

It's not an isolated incident, and I see it as a problem from multiple reasons:

  1. it discourages highly knowledgeable (but new to SO) individuals from contributing to SO
  2. it reinforces the sentiment that reviewers have absolute rejection powers, despite lacking specialized knowledge
  3. it perpetuates incorrect answers by rejecting useful changes.

How can we fix this?

This edit to a question was rejected by three reviewers.

The irony is that the edit is entirely correct, and was made by one of the most knowledgeable people in the universe on the topic - a core developer, @avital. While the reviewers were trying to be helpful, they unfortunately lacked specialized knowledge.

How can we fix this systemic problem? Here's the best idea that surfaced (thanks @bart):

Propose reviews on edits only to users who have at least one of the question's tags.

Other ideas are below:

  1. Promote a guideline advising reviewers to only deal in their specific matters of expertise. Knowing JavaScript doesn't mean you're an expert in meteor's package system. More simply put emphasize to reviewers,

    Do make use of that "Skip" button if you're not sure about an edit

  2. Providing a mechanism of notifying reviewers that their rejections were mistaken.

  3. Checking who the editor was. Rejecting this edit is like a LISP programmer telling Douglas Crockford he's wrong about a JavaScript statement.

The current default sentiment when a reviewer doesn't have specific knowledge regarding a question, seems to be to just reject the edit.

It's not an isolated incident, and I see it as a problem from multiple reasons:

  1. it discourages highly knowledgeable (but new to SO) individuals from contributing to SO
  2. it reinforces the sentiment that reviewers have absolute rejection powers, despite lacking specialized knowledge
  3. it perpetuates incorrect answers by rejecting useful changes.

How can we fix this?

9 replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
source | link

This edit to a question was rejected by three reviewers.

The irony is that the edit is entirely correct, and was made by one of the most knowledgeable people in the universe on the topic - a core developer, @avital. While the reviewers were trying to be helpful, they unfortunately lacked specialized knowledge.

How can we fix this systemic problem? Here's the best idea that surfaced (thanks @bart):

Propose reviews on edits only to users who have at least one of the question's tags.

Other ideas are below:

  1. Promote a guideline advising reviewers to only deal in their specific matters of expertise. Knowing JavaScript doesn't mean you're an expert in meteor's package system. More simply put emphasize to reviewers,

    Do make use of that "Skip" button if you're not sure about an edit

  2. Providing a mechanism of notifying reviewers that their rejections were mistaken.

  3. Checking who the editor was. Rejecting this edit is like a LISP programmer telling Douglas Crockford he's wrong about a JavaScript statement.

The current default sentiment when a reviewer doesn't have specific knowledge regarding a question, seems to be to just reject the edit.

It's not anan isolatedisolated incidentincident, and I see it as a problem from multiple reasons:

  1. it discourages highly knowledgeable (but new to SO) individuals from contributing to SO
  2. it reinforces the sentiment that reviewers have absolute rejection powers, despite lacking specialized knowledge
  3. it perpetuates incorrect answers by rejecting useful changes.

How can we fix this?

This edit to a question was rejected by three reviewers.

The irony is that the edit is entirely correct, and was made by one of the most knowledgeable people in the universe on the topic - a core developer, @avital. While the reviewers were trying to be helpful, they unfortunately lacked specialized knowledge.

How can we fix this systemic problem? Here's the best idea that surfaced (thanks @bart):

Propose reviews on edits only to users who have at least one of the question's tags.

Other ideas are below:

  1. Promote a guideline advising reviewers to only deal in their specific matters of expertise. Knowing JavaScript doesn't mean you're an expert in meteor's package system. More simply put emphasize to reviewers,

    Do make use of that "Skip" button if you're not sure about an edit

  2. Providing a mechanism of notifying reviewers that their rejections were mistaken.

  3. Checking who the editor was. Rejecting this edit is like a LISP programmer telling Douglas Crockford he's wrong about a JavaScript statement.

The current default sentiment when a reviewer doesn't have specific knowledge regarding a question, seems to be to just reject the edit.

It's not an isolated incident, and I see it as a problem from multiple reasons:

  1. it discourages highly knowledgeable (but new to SO) individuals from contributing to SO
  2. it reinforces the sentiment that reviewers have absolute rejection powers, despite lacking specialized knowledge
  3. it perpetuates incorrect answers by rejecting useful changes.

How can we fix this?

This edit to a question was rejected by three reviewers.

The irony is that the edit is entirely correct, and was made by one of the most knowledgeable people in the universe on the topic - a core developer, @avital. While the reviewers were trying to be helpful, they unfortunately lacked specialized knowledge.

How can we fix this systemic problem? Here's the best idea that surfaced (thanks @bart):

Propose reviews on edits only to users who have at least one of the question's tags.

Other ideas are below:

  1. Promote a guideline advising reviewers to only deal in their specific matters of expertise. Knowing JavaScript doesn't mean you're an expert in meteor's package system. More simply put emphasize to reviewers,

    Do make use of that "Skip" button if you're not sure about an edit

  2. Providing a mechanism of notifying reviewers that their rejections were mistaken.

  3. Checking who the editor was. Rejecting this edit is like a LISP programmer telling Douglas Crockford he's wrong about a JavaScript statement.

The current default sentiment when a reviewer doesn't have specific knowledge regarding a question, seems to be to just reject the edit.

It's not an isolated incident, and I see it as a problem from multiple reasons:

  1. it discourages highly knowledgeable (but new to SO) individuals from contributing to SO
  2. it reinforces the sentiment that reviewers have absolute rejection powers, despite lacking specialized knowledge
  3. it perpetuates incorrect answers by rejecting useful changes.

How can we fix this?

8 Migration of MSO links to MSE links
source | link

This edit to a question was rejected by three reviewers.

The irony is that the edit is entirely correct, and was made by one of the most knowledgeable people in the universe on the topic - a core developer, @avital. While the reviewers were trying to be helpful, they unfortunately lacked specialized knowledge.

How can we fix this systemic problem? Here's the best idea that surfaced (thanks @bart):

Propose reviews on edits only to users who have at least one of the question's tags.

Other ideas are below:

  1. Promote a guideline advising reviewers to only deal in their specific matters of expertise. Knowing JavaScript doesn't mean you're an expert in meteor's package system. More simply put emphasize to reviewers,

    Do make use of that "Skip" button if you're not sure about an edit

  2. Providing a mechanism of notifying reviewers that their rejections were mistaken.

  3. Checking who the editor was. Rejecting this edit is like a LISP programmer telling Douglas Crockford he's wrong about a JavaScript statement.

The current default sentiment when a reviewer doesn't have specific knowledge regarding a question, seems to be to just reject the edit.

It's not anan isolatedisolated incidentincident, and I see it as a problem from multiple reasons:

  1. it discourages highly knowledgeable (but new to SO) individuals from contributing to SO
  2. it reinforces the sentiment that reviewers have absolute rejection powers, despite lacking specialized knowledge
  3. it perpetuates incorrect answers by rejecting useful changes.

How can we fix this?

This edit to a question was rejected by three reviewers.

The irony is that the edit is entirely correct, and was made by one of the most knowledgeable people in the universe on the topic - a core developer, @avital. While the reviewers were trying to be helpful, they unfortunately lacked specialized knowledge.

How can we fix this systemic problem? Here's the best idea that surfaced (thanks @bart):

Propose reviews on edits only to users who have at least one of the question's tags.

Other ideas are below:

  1. Promote a guideline advising reviewers to only deal in their specific matters of expertise. Knowing JavaScript doesn't mean you're an expert in meteor's package system. More simply put emphasize to reviewers,

    Do make use of that "Skip" button if you're not sure about an edit

  2. Providing a mechanism of notifying reviewers that their rejections were mistaken.

  3. Checking who the editor was. Rejecting this edit is like a LISP programmer telling Douglas Crockford he's wrong about a JavaScript statement.

The current default sentiment when a reviewer doesn't have specific knowledge regarding a question, seems to be to just reject the edit.

It's not an isolated incident, and I see it as a problem from multiple reasons:

  1. it discourages highly knowledgeable (but new to SO) individuals from contributing to SO
  2. it reinforces the sentiment that reviewers have absolute rejection powers, despite lacking specialized knowledge
  3. it perpetuates incorrect answers by rejecting useful changes.

How can we fix this?

This edit to a question was rejected by three reviewers.

The irony is that the edit is entirely correct, and was made by one of the most knowledgeable people in the universe on the topic - a core developer, @avital. While the reviewers were trying to be helpful, they unfortunately lacked specialized knowledge.

How can we fix this systemic problem? Here's the best idea that surfaced (thanks @bart):

Propose reviews on edits only to users who have at least one of the question's tags.

Other ideas are below:

  1. Promote a guideline advising reviewers to only deal in their specific matters of expertise. Knowing JavaScript doesn't mean you're an expert in meteor's package system. More simply put emphasize to reviewers,

    Do make use of that "Skip" button if you're not sure about an edit

  2. Providing a mechanism of notifying reviewers that their rejections were mistaken.

  3. Checking who the editor was. Rejecting this edit is like a LISP programmer telling Douglas Crockford he's wrong about a JavaScript statement.

The current default sentiment when a reviewer doesn't have specific knowledge regarding a question, seems to be to just reject the edit.

It's not an isolated incident, and I see it as a problem from multiple reasons:

  1. it discourages highly knowledgeable (but new to SO) individuals from contributing to SO
  2. it reinforces the sentiment that reviewers have absolute rejection powers, despite lacking specialized knowledge
  3. it perpetuates incorrect answers by rejecting useful changes.

How can we fix this?

7 proposal
source | link
6 two more incidents
source | link
5 two more incidents
source | link
4 another incident
source | link
3 Add another instance of SO reviewers overstepping their boundaries
source | link
2 Incorporate changes from @Bart
source | link
1
source | link