2

This and this edit both have a code edited. But why was the former rejected and the latter accepted?

Both are sensible edits because I being the author of the latter am perfectly fine with it(was never a part of the review process though) and the former was edited by the author with the same changes I had initially made, after notifying through a comment, therefore mean he would be fine too.

I could hardly make proper sense out of the given for rejecting the former, when asked. But lets suppose that they were sensible enough and a de facto princple. If so then what happened to those principles in case of the latter?

A slightly off topic question: How can I find out who took part in the edit review process of a particular edit? Couldn't find out for the latter.

  • 2
    The latter was made by a >2k rep user. There is no review process there. – Bart May 30 '13 at 21:54
  • @Bart what happened to democracy? shouldn't a >2k rep user be cross checked or at least there should be way to find out who it was. – Bleeding Fingers May 30 '13 at 21:58
  • 3
    At >2k you have earned the privilege to edit without an explicit review. But given that edits bump the post, it is brought to the attention of the community. The editor is clearly indicated in the post and clearly visible in the revisions. I see no problem there. If they do harm, their edits can be rolled back. – Bart May 30 '13 at 21:59
  • @Bart that answers the second question. – Bleeding Fingers May 30 '13 at 22:05
  • 2
    Yes, there's inconsistency in the review process; that's generally what happens when you have such a large community voting to approve or reject things. People have different ideas on what they think is acceptable for an edit, others simply approve or reject without even paying much attention to the post, etc. On the whole it works quite well, but sometimes valid edits will be rejected and invalid ones will be accepted. It just comes down to who actually ends up reviewing them. – Anthony Grist May 31 '13 at 10:47
  • @AnthonyGrist then I think this should be filed as a bug. – Bleeding Fingers May 31 '13 at 11:13
  • 2
    @hus787 What should be? Human decision making can't be considered a bug with the system... – Anthony Grist May 31 '13 at 11:21
  • @AnthonyGrist user privileges e.g. edit should be kept under watch and be subject to change(privileges being taken away). Not just a one way road. – Bleeding Fingers May 31 '13 at 11:35
  • That's still not a bug, though. I'm not saying you're wrong, I happen to agree that some privileges should be more tightly controlled, but changing that would be a feature request. – Anthony Grist May 31 '13 at 13:34
4

why was the former rejected and the latter accepted?

First of all, the latter was not accepted. That is, it did not go through a review process. At >2k users have earned the privilege to edit without an explicit review. But given that edits bump the post, it is brought to the attention of the community. The editor is clearly indicated in the post and clearly visible in the revisions. As a result of that, such edits are not without their review, even when they don't pass through a dedicated queue. If the editor does harm, their edits can be rolled back. So all in all, there is no real problem here that needs any action.

I could hardly make proper sense out of the given for rejecting the former

As for the former edit, you changed code. That is, you made the answer something it was not. That might be a great correction of the code, and not a wrong edit in that sense. But the community has long settled on not touching code, but rather leaving comments for the author to fix it. Which is something you did as well, and more than likely why the author made the correction. That is the correct approach to such edits. So well done there. In addition, your edit comment is not very descriptive, making such edits even less likely to be accepted.

what happened to those principles in case of the latter?

Coming back to the latter example, if the editor would have made this a suggested edit, I would have rejected it for the exact same reasons. Given that you however explicitly approve of the edit, we can leave it as it is.

In conclusion, there's not really an inconsistency here since the situations are different from the start.

How can I find out who took part in the edit review process of a particular edit? Couldn't find out for the latter.

Go to the "suggested edit" page of that particular edit. You can find a link in the revision history. There you can see who participated in the review and how they voted. I guess you understand why there is no such page for the latter edit.

| improve this answer | |

You must log in to answer this question.

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