A lot of times as I read through questions, I see that someone else has edited it.

This being a pseudo-wiki, maybe the system should "force" a user to comment on why said question was edited?

I don't like the idea of forcing, but I also would like to see why the main part of the question was edited.

  • 1
    But if you keep boiling it, you ruin all the taste.
    – random
    Commented Dec 24, 2009 at 7:36
  • 2
    no. this is a bad idea - besides, the edit history contains all, well, historical entries of edits
    – warren
    Commented Dec 24, 2009 at 13:35
  • What benefit would this have given that edits need to have a description, which gets displayed in the (public) revision list?
    – starball
    Commented Nov 4, 2022 at 3:07

1 Answer 1



Is that ok? Forcing people to write an explanation for their action usually backfires. The system, as it is now, is more than ok. If it really needs explaining, a lot of people will voluntarily fill in the edit summary field.

  • 7
    I usually fill in the edit summary if I'm editing other people's posts, but sometimes not if it's really obvious (like correcting a typo). Commented Dec 24, 2009 at 10:30
  • 3
    Usually I enter a typo when filling in the edit summary, only to notice it as I click the submit button. :-(
    – tvanfosson
    Commented Dec 24, 2009 at 15:15

You must log in to answer this question.

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