2

This question already has an answer here:

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?

marked as duplicate by Shadow Wizard support Dec 4 '17 at 8:17

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

  • 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.

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