Timeline for When should one edit someone else's answer vs. Adding your own?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 19, 2014 at 21:45 | comment | added | Dan Dascalescu | What if [foo] turns out to cause certain errors (e.g. data loss), but nobody has mentioned them yet? You could leave a comment to that effect at the end of the long list of comments, and have it buried under "Show more", or you could edit the post and add the warning. | |
| Feb 19, 2014 at 20:53 | comment | added | HopelessN00b | @DanDascalescu This is true, though I'm not sure how applicable it is outside of StackOverflow. I'm having trouble, for example, thinking of anything on ServerFault that falls into this category. Perhaps I lack imagination, but generally, for the SE sites I haunt, it seems that obsolete information isn't much of an issue, because as new versions of [foo] come out, you get new questions and new, appropriate answers about [new version of foo], while the questions and answers about [old version of foo] are still perfectly valid, and remain applicable to that version. | |
| Feb 19, 2014 at 7:10 | comment | added | Dan Dascalescu | The problem with this is that a highly popular post that fails to mention critical information will stay popular, if I merely add that critical information in an answer of mine. I prefer to edit the popular post, which will keep getting upvotes, instead of adding yet another obscure answer. Example - Datejs not being updated since 2007, Example - years-old obsolete information about how to install npm | |
| Feb 17, 2014 at 23:19 | history | answered | HopelessN00b | CC BY-SA 3.0 |