2

This revision has Community User as an editor, not a reviewer*, and it even has summary of its edit:

Community user made an edit

So I think that there is actually a human behind this. But even so, why would its edit need to be approved?

In the approvement page, it appears as an anonymous user:

proposed by an anonymous user



*So it's not a dupe of Why does the Community ♦ user approve and reject edits?

  • Your answer is right there in the details you provided. It was proposed by an anonymous user. Community just owns the edit if it gets approved. – animuson Dec 4 '17 at 4:03
  • @animuson but why not just display "anonymous user" at the revision page? – Ooker Dec 4 '17 at 4:11
  • 1
    We want to avoid using unlinked anonymous text as much as possible. Community is used for a variety of tasks when a relevant user is unavailable. That's its purpose. – animuson Dec 4 '17 at 4:13
  • @animuson I see. Bit why should unlinked anonymous text be avoided? – Ooker Dec 4 '17 at 4:26
  • 1
    presumably its messy (and might make databases have null values where its messy). ;p – Journeyman Geek Dec 4 '17 at 7:09
3

Community owns things that aren't owned by any other user.

Anonymous edits, by definition, do not come from logged-in users.

Therefore, Community owns them. And because they came from people who don't have enough reputation to directly edit posts, they need to be approved.

| improve this answer | |

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