From this Redesigned Tags Page post, we take that the tags are an essential map of what your community is, and is not, about.

And, of course, editing a post (Q or A) is not the same thing as editing a Tag wiki (400k questions, only one tag).

So, I ask: Do tag wiki edits need to be substantial?

For instance, if we see just a typo in a tag wiki (specially in the excerpt), should we let it go or should we fix it?

Let me show you an example. Right now, the tag excerpt for is:

programming tool to track and analyse the performance of a software program

I know there's big room for improvement there (and a good edit should try to take care of it all). But if one edit just added the capitalization of the first letter and a dot at the end, would it be a bad, unecessary, edit?

  • Hmmm, there isn't really that much of an improvement available there. I would add an "A" to the front and a full-stop to the end. More to the point I wouldn't have posted this question but instead one asking for the meta community's approval in the complete removal of the tag. It seems fairly useless... the profiler you use depends on the IDE/language/client you're using... a generic "profiler" doesn't exist so I don't really see the point in the tag at all. Commented May 4, 2013 at 22:26

1 Answer 1


There's a very real, important reason why edits to questions and answers should generally be substantial. Every single edit to a post bumps it back up to the top of the "Active" page. So to prevent abuse, and to prevent the front page becoming littered with a series of older posts which have been only slightly edited, it's best to make edits substantial.

The other reason, a much less important reason, is that minor edits clog up the review queue.

So, keeping the above points in mind, edits to tag wikis have a much less effect on the front page than edits to questions and answers. When we edit tag wikis, there's less disruption to the actual Q&A. The review queue is seen only by users who choose to participate in reviews, whereas everyone, even visitors from Google, will see a cluttered front page.

Therefore, when I see tag wiki edits in the queue, as long as they're valid, I generally approve them. However, if I see a pattern of a user who spends time on just trivial edits in the tag wikis, to the point where it's bothersome, I might consider rejecting the edits, but it would take lots of these edits for me to do that.

Also, if it's clear someone is editing just for the +2 rep boost, I may reject the edit, but only if I'm absolutely certain. I prefer to err on the side of assuming people do what they do because they genuinely want to make the site better.

In general, it's best to make edits as substantial as possible. Why? Because someone may disagree with me and reject your edit anyway. So, don't just fix one typo; fix all the typos. But if there are no other problems that you see with the tag wiki, then fixing the occasional typo in a tag wiki shouldn't theoretically attract any negative attention. Just don't make it your life mission to go through all the tag wikis and make 2 character edits in one-sentence tag wikis. :)

  • Very good point about the "bump" of edited posts. One of these days I edited a tag and even though I changed 70% of the except, but just the excerpt, I got approved, bot with one "too minor" reject. I guess it all boils down to who votes (as everything else, anyway)!
    – acdcjunior
    Commented May 11, 2013 at 23:49

You must log in to answer this question.

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