Conversation started Jan 21, 2015 at 8:55.
Martin Sleziak
Martin Sleziak
Jan 21, 2015 08:55
In this meta post the OP was wondering about deleted question: Determine if $\frac{k-1}{k}+\frac{1}{k(k+1)}=\frac{k}{k+1}$ holds. I've made some edits to the post. If anybody thinks that the question would be worth keeping after the improvement, you know what to do.
I did not vote. I did it mostly tried to do this as a sign of good will, since the user who made the post on meta probably encountered this for the first time and this might show him that improving the question is also a possibility.
 
12 hours later…
Lord_Farin
Lord_Farin
Jan 21, 2015 21:17
@MartinSleziak FWIW, I think this is bad practice. You should not be impersonating the OP. If you want it reopened, convince people under your own title, e.g. in a comment.
anorton
anorton
Jan 21, 2015 21:36
@Lord_Farin I disagree up to a point. That is, when I improve poor questions, I try not to put words in the OP's mouth (i.e. I don't say "I see that ___"), but I do think that adding detail/context to the question and not the comments is the appropriate course of action (i.e. saying "One can see that ___").
This improves the question, but does not impersonate the OP.
A great example from elsewhere on the network is this question, where the edit/answer combo were praised in the Winterbash wrap-up post:
> A great example of how this works is this answer, which was submitted while the question was at -7. After the answer (and a strategic edit to the question), the question got 10 straight upvotes to bring the score to +3 at the time of writing.
My tolerance for drastic edits also depends on the age of the post: if the OP asked the question just 5 minutes ago, then it's probably best to work with the OP in the comments to draw out more context. But, if the OP was a one-time visitor from over a year ago, I'd feel freer with my editing. (Of course, I realize that neither of those scenarios directly applies to the current situation, but speaking as a general rule...)
Lord_Farin
Lord_Farin
@anorton I see your point, and I think that we're on quite a similar line. However, it has to be kept in mind that the reason (at least, my primary reason) for asking for context is to help OP better.
Of course, the case of context is a bit different from the bona fide improvement in the post that you linked to.
Fundamental
Fundamental
Jan 21, 2015 21:55
@Lord_Farin In practice, the OP usually does not need to be helped better because they already have several answers by the time the question is put on hold. Such is the situation with the question edited by Martin.
Lord_Farin
Lord_Farin
@Fundamental Being helped $\ne$ Have answers.
Fundamental
Fundamental
Another aspect: an edit such as Martin's is a hands-on demonstration: "this is how you ask a question on Math.SE". If we want people to ask better question... someone has to teach them how to ask questions.
Lord_Farin
Lord_Farin
@Fundamental In that case, I would consider a comment indicating this purpose as mandatory.
Fundamental
Fundamental
All edits serve the purpose of being a hands-on demo for the OP. Intentionally or not.
anorton
anorton
@Lord_Farin Such a comment is a good idea for (at least) two reasons: 1) it clearly tells the OP "watch me, so later you may do as I do," and 2) it lets future readers understand that not all the effort in the question was from the OP.
Lord_Farin
Lord_Farin
Jan 21, 2015 22:04
@anorton Exactly.
SmokeDetector
SmokeDetector
Jan 21, 2015 22:17
[ SmokeDetector ] All-caps title: PROPOSITIONAL LOGIC by Marcel on math.stackexchange.com
Fundamental
Fundamental
It worked! Thanks again, @Undo.
@anorton Of course, one can't comment on deleted posts, and Martin edited when it was deleted.
anorton
anorton
Jan 21, 2015 23:10
@Fundamental True, but I support the idea of such comments for non-deleted posts.
Fundamental
Fundamental
Jan 21, 2015 23:50
@anorton duplicate, I'm out of close votes.
anorton
anorton
@Fundamental Done.
(err, I should say "I just voted," not "done," since it's still open.)
Fundamental
Fundamental
@Fundamental Closed now
 
5 hours later…
anorton
anorton
Jan 22, 2015 05:09
This question needs either one more reopen vote or one more delete vote. I am preferential to the "reopen" option, myself; the answers are good (I like the second one for pointing out that many different such mappings exist), and the question is tolerable enough I think it warrants keeping.
I did perform an edit that made the original close reason ("unclear") obsolete.
Fundamental
Fundamental
@anorton reopened
anorton
anorton
Thanks. In other news: today I learned about the "controversial edits" page in moderation tools... It's a great way to ruin my trust in 1.5k rep users submitting edits.
2
 
1 hour later…
Martin Sleziak
Martin Sleziak
Jan 22, 2015 06:30
@Lord_Farin To improve the question, one possible way is to add the context or show effort. If the OP has posted something in comments, I can copy it from the comments to the question. The OP mentioned nothing in the comments so this was not a possibility.
The OP mentioned common denominator but they said they cannot proceed. This is possible thing which I could imagine as effort shown for a user at that level.
I do not have time to find examples, but I would say that it is not uncommon to make edits similar to mine. (But, ideally, the addition is something which the OP has said in comments or at least what can be inferred from they comments.)
Re: If you want it reopened, convince people under your own title, e.g. in a comment. I agree with the people that the question in that form was not good enough. So if I wanted it to reopened, the question had to be edited to get closer to the quality standards required by the site.
And everybody can click on revision history and see who made the edits.
As the question was delete, I found it improbable that they will try to improve the question and ask for undeletion. (Especially as it was an inexperienced users.)
This could show both to the OP and to the people discussing that particular question on meta that, in some situations, improving questions of other users is a reasonable thing to do.
If you feel strongly about it, you can revert my edits - I don't find it a good option, but I can promise you that I won't go into edit war.
I think that there were some posts on meta which are at least to some extent related to this. (But probably not questions asking explicitly about: When is it good thing to edit other users posts? Should it be explicitly stated that the edit was not by the OP?
So if you feel that this should be discussed more, there is also an option to make a post on meta.
TL;DR: All I have to say to defend myself is that I was trying to follow an approach to improving questions which has become relatively common on this site during the last year.
I agree with what Lord Farin and anorton that I should probably have left at least a comment under the post or write something in the edit summary.
BTW here is a comment from the meta along the same lines as the above discussion:
The editing by @Martin was phrased in such a way as to make it seem as if it had been done by OP (in particular, the continued use of the 1st person). I'm not sure that I approve of editing in such a way as to leave that impression. — Gerry Myerson 8 hours ago
Martin Sleziak
Martin Sleziak
Jan 22, 2015 06:55
Let me just add that I was doing that with good intentions. (Despite the fact that I might have ended looking like a deceitful beep.)
SmokeDetector
SmokeDetector
Jan 22, 2015 07:13
[ SmokeDetector ] All-caps title: HELP WITH PROOF USING EPSILON-DELTA, PLEASE by ivivyy on math.stackexchange.com
 
2 hours later…
Martin Sleziak
Martin Sleziak
Jan 22, 2015 08:58
@anorton I've retagged the question. (I don't thing sequences-and-series is a good fit there.) After the question has been reopened, there already has been a vote to close as off-topic.)
 
3 hours later…
Lord_Farin
Lord_Farin
Jan 22, 2015 12:08
@MartinSleziak I wholeheartedly agree with such edits.
@MartinSleziak Improving questions is reasonable -- stronger, should be encouraged.
@MartinSleziak Fair enough, I trust you on that.
Fundamental
Fundamental
@SmokeDetector deleted by OP
Lord_Farin
Lord_Farin
@MartinSleziak This particular type of edit should display more or less clearly who has done what. But I feel that we're not too far apart any more. At least, not enough to warrant strong opinions over a small amount of edits as would arise from bringing this to meta.
Martin Sleziak
Martin Sleziak
@Lord_Farin Glad to hear that our opinion are not that different. (I value a lot both your and Gerry Myerson's contribution to the site. I would not feel good about starting an argument with either of you.)
I do not do this type of edits frequently. But in the future I'll try to indicate at least in the comment that the edit was not by OP.
Let me say that my initial reaction when this thing about "improving posts if you do not want to have you answers deleted" started was similar to yours.
I was somewhat hesitant. How can I do that? I cannot say what have the OP tried? (Well, unless they mentioned something in the comments or if I talked with them in chat.)
But, on the other hand, it might be better to judge questions by their content (and not by who edited the content in). If the question seems to be abandoned by the OP, then it is probably better if someone else edits the post, if this action might prevent some good answers being removed from the site.
Martin Sleziak
Martin Sleziak
Jan 22, 2015 12:49
I'll have to leave now. See you later!
Lord_Farin
Lord_Farin
@MartinSleziak See you.
Lord_Farin
Lord_Farin
Jan 22, 2015 13:29
@MartinSleziak Completely abandoned questions (e.g. where the user hasn't been seen in a long time) are fair game for complete rewriting, I would say. But perhaps that is something that could be discussed on meta.
 
Conversation ended Jan 22, 2015 at 13:29.