@JonEricson, I just edited this to remove some of the worst doctrine (with IMO no loss in answer quality): hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/2813/208 . It could probably use a more thorough review from someone else.
@MonicaCellio Good call. (I have to admit, I struggled to even read the answer. I'm not sure I was doing more than scanning for potential links by the time I got that far.)
Personally, I think the sort of consistency the poster is looking for is over-rated. But it's only fair to point out the ways it could be reconciled if you are into that sort of thing. It was nice to have some sources too, even if they aren't very convenient.
@JonEricson I agree. I don't think it's a particularly fruitful path, but I'm glad he made the effort to answer.
@JonEricson I had trouble reading it too (and I didn't read the linked doc). I started to read but ended up skimming. The stuff I removed jumped out at me.
@DanO'Day Well, that is another concern. I honestly can't read the document he is pointed to without installing Adobe Reader, so I can't tell if the product he's "advertising" is helpful or not. Feel free to weigh in on it in the comments and downvote.
@DanO'Day funny you should mention that. I kept typing and deleting a comment (here) about self-promotion; on the one hand we want people to bring in their outside work, but on the other this read like "read my book", but on the third maybe it's valuable (I wouldn't know). So I didn't say anything before because I thought it might just be me. I don't know where the line should be.
@MonicaCellio I consider it a victory when new users include any sources. It would help if we could evaluate them, however. This is very close to the line.
The core criteria for writing answers on the Stack Exchange model, not only on this site but across the entire network, is one of usefulness; this can be reflected simply by hovering over the vote buttons on the side of every post:
Usefulness, unfortunately, is highly subjective. Unlike our p...
@MonicaCellio I think it's fine to attribute oneself if you've previously written something that sheds light on a topic. At first his post seemed incoherent and made no sense, but after checking out his PDF it actually is a decent and relevant source. I just don't think he writes very clearly, but the PDF isn't a bad explanation.
@DanO'Day thanks for the report. I don't have a problem with self-attribution either (and I've done it on SE). This read to me as more promotional than is ideal, but I think you're right that it's probably just bad writing. I mean, he wrote a real answer rather than just linking, which is huge!
@MonicaCellio You may not be best pleased to find I've rolled back your edit. I'm afraid I don't think we have a clear mandate to edit content out of posts we disagree with: much better in my view would be to gently encourage the poster to do it themselves, which I've tried to do:
@David, I've rolled back Monica's edit as I'd prefer you to make your own choice about the content of your answer. Please do take the time to review her edit and consider making changes yourself—it is certainly true that an answer is less likely to be less received if it contains bald doctrinal statements as they encourage disagreements. — Jack Douglas2 mins ago
(I've since fixed typos in the original comment)
cc @JonEricson ^^^^^^
@H3br3wHamm3r81 Very good question, on re-reading I'm not exactly sure. Either way though I think the question lends itself to speculation, though perhaps there is a good on-topic question lurking away under the surface :)
@Wikis Thanks for speaking up—I know I often make the wrong call and all of us mods appreciate the input. In this case I think although it is perhaps borderline, most folk are happy for the Q to stay closed—so I've cleaned up the comments on it (hope that's ok with you).
@JackDouglas It's a tough call. I honestly think Monica's edit helped the answer be better in terms of quality. But I also agree we should let people write their own answers to be voted up or down. (I upvoted the original because it represented an important counter-point to mine.)
There's also a subtle difference between an answer that "depends" on a particular doctrine and one that is heavily supported by a doctrine. It's a tension that we need to continue to examine and might never be able to resolve.
@JackDouglas @JonEricson It looks like we still haven't resolved the doctrine question and I'm not sure how to proceed. Jon approved of my edit; Jack rolled it back. There's no real consensus here meta.hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/373/… (well, except that my answer isn't going to fly). I'm not trying to cause trouble; I think my edit was in line with Jon's answer there but Jack has an equally-scored answer there too. What to do?
@MonicaCellio I think most of the community does agree that bald, "this is my opinion, and I'm right, so there!" statements in answers aren't very helpful—we just aren't entirely sure what to do with them.
There's another relevant (perhaps more relevant) meta question here, but of course with such a small active community at the moment it's not certain how these debates will eventually pan out.
I'd love to be able to persuade you and @JonEricson that there is an ultimately more effective way of dealing with this issue than confronting it directly—I believe there are two kinds of people who post these answers, not one.
And we can't tell at first glance which is which. The first kind just want to say their piece. They will never be persuaded to change and don't really care about our community. The second kind are happy to fit in, they just don't know how yet.
I want to hold fire when it comes to anything that might drive folk away, or drive them into a corner (including DVs, edits and any comment saying anything like "...is not welcome here") until we know which type they are
If they respond positively to gentle and welcoming guidance (even if the eventual state of their answer is only marginally better), that is a good sign they might be valuable in the long term. Rome wasn't built in a day, and they can be helped and 'educated' one step at a time.
If they don't respond at all or are unhelpful or stubborn then is the time to DV in my opinion. Coupled with a polite comment saying why perhaps. Or just ignore—these bad answers don't do any harm and even do some good underneath highly upvoted answers.
.
None of the above affects off-topic or poor questions or answers that are not answers. I favour dealing with these immediately. Bad questions in particular can damage the entire site.
@JackDouglas, on other sites I've seen the "helping edit" be well-received and that's what I thought I was doing here -- we had a sound, useful answer but for one bit of personal opinion mixed in, that bit of personal opinion did not help the answer in the least, and an edit could fix it without calling the author out on it. (No matter how gentle the comment is, it can still be taken negatively.) If the BH policy is "don't edit but comment" I'll certainly respect that. But --
Sometimes it's way harder and more time-consuming to craft the constructive comment than to edit the post. If someone isn't prepared to take that much time, it'll probably turn into a DV instead. Is that what we want? In a perfect world everyone always has time to give that helping hand in every circumstance, but we don't live in a perfect world.
Thanks for the link to the other question. We should have this discussion on meta; is that question the best way to do it?
I agree that there are two types of posters in this regard and we don't want to drive away the ones who want to participate in appropriate ways but don't yet know what's appropriate. We are hindered by the long cycle time here; it sometimes takes days for posters to come back and respond to comments. During that time should we let the content stand?
I am generally reluctant to DV, because unless an edit bumps the post I may never see followup discussion. But if I don't DV and it doesn't get fixed, will I remember several days later to come back and cast that vote? Is that a reasonable thing to expect people to do, keeping a list somehow of pending actions that we're waiting for people to come back and fix themselves first? What tools would help keep track of that?
@MonicaCellio, thanks for coming back—and right away I have to confess I don't have all the answers to your questions, but I appreciate the debate. As for meta, yes anything we want to have a permanent record of should be discussed there as this chat in practice disappears into the ether (though I often find it very helpful talking things through here first).
I pretty much agree with @Soldernal's post 100% though he does not address the community building aspect of how we approach these issues which is a special part of our job as pro-tems. @Soldarnal one of your links has a typo btw
I consider our site to be aimed at experts in biblical studies. In terms of the academy, both biblical theology and the theological interpretation of scripture are budding areas of study today. So if we're trying to draw experts in biblical studies it makes little sense to set a policy that would...
@MonicaCellio I think on the whole I'm suggesting we should stay in line with the rest of SE with our editing policy, which is pretty much 'don't change the meaning of the post' if I understand correctly. At issue here is that I think it is impossible in general to divide portions of a post into 'doctrinal and non-doctrinal' and remove the former. On the contrary, I think I find the 'doctrinal' bits key to understanding the angle of the whole post.
Like Soldernal I find posts from folk I have little in common with useful and interesting. I prefer to know where they are coming from up front.
@JackDouglas I guess we need to clarify what "change the meaning of the post" means, since I don't think I did that. Imagine a post on StackOverflow or Programmers that asked about some code construct, and in the course of answering somebody told an anecdote about a coworker who always hated that and would do such-and-such instead, and nothing in this anecdote spoke to the original question? I would edit that out as irrelevant and distracting; would you? If you would, what's the difference here?
@JackDouglas for the record (and to help in your evaluation), the downvote here is mine. I also downvoted Kazark's answer.
My previous answer was based on the premise that we aren't doing doctrine here, and that's a fundamental difference between BH and Christianity (and, for that matter, Mi Yodeya and Islam). A year later I now wonder how much that premise holds. If it is determined that this is a site that welcom...
Err, didn't anticipate the alarm that the juxtaposition of that Q title could have. I linked it because I added a new answer because of this discussion, is all.
@MonicaCellio I agree that your edit didn't significantly change the meaning of the post. It seemed to me to be correction on the order of fixing a bug or removing the "Thanks!"
@JackDouglas On the topic of community building, I think the OP requires/would have required significant hand-holding to bring into the community. There were basic issue with both the question and the answer that required editing before Monica's edit. I'm not sure either would have gotten votes or traction without these edits.
@JackDouglas This, I need to self-answer. Christmas is coming, however, so it won't be today. ;-)
@MonicaCellio I think the difference here is that it is more of a subjective judgement which bits of an answer are necessary and which are not. Another difference is that in the case you quote your edit is unlikely to worry the OP much—whereas passions run deeper about firmly held beliefs. Of course you know I liked your edit I just want to be cautious about us as a community being too forceful about imposing what we like on others: the ideal balance for me is a firm hand with questions
(And non-answers) and a light touch with answers. I know you prefer a different approach, but isn't it true that there are only a small number of 'problem' answers that aren't down voted? Even then, they are often upvoted despite the explicit doctrine I think. I kind of like the thought of a community that is willing to tolerate to a degree posts they disagree with, don't you agree?
@JonEricson you have very high standards ;)
I refer you to Dan's last comment in case you missed it: communication is certainly an issue, but intelligent and thoughtful on-topic contributions are far from being out of the question from the OP.
@JackDouglas You haven't seen passion until you've heard programmers argue in great detail and vehemence about anything from language choice to architecture to text editor. :-) But seriously, I think it's possible that the programmer would object more and the religious poster less to editing than you think.
@JackDouglas I figured you were up assembling toys and cursing battery requirements or something. :-)
So anyway, I think part of the job of moderators and high-rep users is to apply course corrections before things get out of hand. I don't mean rewriting posts, just tuning.
@JackDouglas It's been a while. I remember the heresy kerfuffle, though didn't remember who was involved.
There aren't that many problem answers, but with our low traffic when they show up they stand out, sitting there at the top of the main page for rather a while. If we were SO I'd probably feel differently -- blink and you miss it.
@JackDouglas That one stands out so much is certainly a challenge, yes. And that's with him giving bunches of rep away on bounties! We need several more like him.
No. Never change the meaning of someone else's post.
Editing is for clarity -- spelling and grammar fixes, improved wording and formatting, and so on -- apart from Community Wiki posts, where it can be used to add new information.
Comments are for disagreeing, adding minor notes, and so on.
...
I'm not saying it is the definitive answer for the network mind…
Ok, refreshed my memory. In think in the case of Lance's original answer it was (or would have been -- didn't chase the edit trail) to edit out the offensive "heresy" reference -- in part because it's doctrine but mainly because it was being used in a rude, provocative way. (I can't speak to his intentions, only how it came across.) I see in your comments here that you think editing is worse for users than deletion; I'm curious about that.
Yeah, I was surfing MSO on editing tonight too. There's less than I thought I remembered.
I think when there's reasonable potential for offense and it can be done surgically and without damage, a quick edit is still the best way to go. That thing with Lance went on for a while; could we have collectively done better? I've seen long arguments sometimes on Mi Yodeya too that, on reflection, we could have made less bad.
I did err on the recent case in not leaving a comment -- I explained in the checkin message but a new user wouldn't necessarily know to look there. But the paragraph I cut was "out there" and unhelpful, and the "precious blood" (capitalized, no less) bit was over the top. And nowhere near the text at that point. So I thought a quick fix could prevent problems, rather than causing them.
Bruce's JW example toward the end of this answer is the kind of thing I'm worried about.
I am very proud of how we handled the issue with Lance as a community: I think the whole thing showed us working together in the best possible way. For me that is the central issue: how we behave as a community, not whether one particular user (ie Lance in this case) is happy. I want us to be respectful, helpful and inclusive (up to a point). I think we probably want the same things, just view 'edits' differently in how to achieve it. I think your edit could easily come across as painful.
I know you find that strange, but there are a lot of very sensitive folk out there
@JackDouglas On the other hand, the paragraph that @MonicaCellio removed was just plain wrong without a qualification such as "I believe" or "According to..."
@JackDouglas Was the edit more painful than leaving a comment proposing that edit would have been? The comment is there for all to see; seeing previous versions of the answer requires a little work. So assuming that silence isn't an option, which is less bad?
I'm also assuming that y'all wouldn't want flags in this case; on other sites I've had flags declined with "you have edit privs so why are you bothering us?" (not exactly in those words).
There is an inherent tension in a site that seeks to exegete a body of texts without a common ground. The main participants at this site seem to be Jews and Christians, but an atheist or a Buddhist or a Muslim could participate here too if they were interested in hermeneutics of ancient texts.
W...
"All Biblical Perspectives (Judaism, Messianic Judaism, Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant) are reconciled in our one Lord and Savior Jesus Christ on the day of His Crucifixion. There is one Body, one Spirit, one Hope, one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, and one God and Father of all."
@JonEricson I hadn't considered that. Doesn't change its status as some combination of opinion, doctrine, and hope, though. It's not good hermeneutics.
@JackDouglas I can see that. I made a number of edits, but didn't touch that paragraph or the meaning in general. So I even agree with the final result.
@MonicaCellio not all hermeneutics start from the text—you could make a case that none do! They are all concerned with the meaning of a text, but they are not necessarily derived from it.
For example many Christians consciously and deliberately interpret texts through the lens of their tradition.
@JackDouglas Huh. So close reading isn't the usual starting point? Ok, I guess that explains some things (like sensus plenior).
@JackDouglas I don't see a way of resolving this disconnect. You see any non-grammar edit as "dictating"; I see removing a small amount of unnecessary-and-offensive material as improving the site. I've been on the receiving end of "corrective edits" when new to a site and I never felt attacked, but I'm just one person. I am not the common user, and neither are you. How do we find out how new people perceive the various options?
If you can get a clear mandate on meta for this sort of edit I'll follow the wishes of the community. And I'm not just saying that because I don't think you'll get it!
Btw I hated having my posts edited—until I got used to it :)
@JackDouglas I don't have time right now, but do you think that an edit that provided support for the view would be welcomed? I think that there's stuff in Paul and Revelation that would "Back it up".
The fact that the FAQ contains a section on "wait, people can edit my stuff?!" suggests you're not alone. But since everything happens in public there's no way to privately correct users either, so it's a choice among public corrections.
@JonEricson Does any of it (the doctrine and your backup) address the question that was asked?
@MonicaCellio Not really. That whole paragraph is a tangent. It's probably more a response to my answer than anything else, now that I think of it. :-(
@MonicaCellio there are 3, not that it matters much: it's the basic distinctive of SE that answers are sorted by votes. The reason surely is that they know that the higher up an answer is, the more likely it is to be read.
Plus there is always hope we'll get another good answer :)
@JackDouglas Oh right; I forgot about the third one even though I commented on it. (It still feels like a non-answer to me, though maybe he means to challenge the premise of the question?)
On resolving the impasse: I'm open to the idea of getting the SE team involved if you think it might help: I wouldn't want to do that before we have fully discussed the issues but I think we are approaching that point. Would it be helpful to have their advice on this topic do you think?
@JackDouglas Hmm, interesting idea. Having the benefit of their knowledge of the norms across the whole network does seem like it would be useful. Should we have a discussion on meta about editing first?
Yes, good idea—are you willing to ask the question? I'll definitely answer (though probably not for a few days after you ask) and then we should leave it a few weeks at least for others to contribute before asking the team to add their views?
Great, thanks also. And thanks for engaging in this debate: its an important one I think. I'm off to read Deuteronomy 20 and then see if I can get back to sleep. Have fun :)
I just wanted to leave a note that I've deleted a couple of comments on the answer that on reflection don't help very much. Unfortunately, it makes some of the other comments irrelevant. Please review your own comments. @JackDouglas and @MonicaCellio
I need to write a better comment to address the content of the answer, but that will need to wait.
On Stack Exchange it is possible to edit other people's questions and answers, as discussed in the FAQ. Questions are edited for many reasons and I don't think there's much disagreement about that. This question is about editing answers.
The goal of editing a post, either question or answer, i...
The core criteria for writing answers on the Stack Exchange model, not only on this site but across the entire network, is one of usefulness; this can be reflected simply by hovering over the vote buttons on the side of every post:
Usefulness, unfortunately, is highly subjective. Unlike our p...
No. Never change the meaning of someone else's post.
Editing is for clarity -- spelling and grammar fixes, improved wording and formatting, and so on -- apart from Community Wiki posts, where it can be used to add new information.
Comments are for disagreeing, adding minor notes, and so on.
...
The Library
The Library