@XanderHenderson I'd leave it because: (a) the question asks for a reference and the answer provides it (specific publication title) and not just a link; (b) the poster disclosed that he is the author and he may be biased. =)
@user21820 I don't see anything all that wrong with $\gamma$. It ain't great, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that it is "lousy". Though, perhaps, the edits changed things?
Oi... yeah, okay, it was edited by a third party to add a bunch of context that have nothing to do with what the original question asked.
@DanielFischer Are you evading the important part of my claim, namely "to try to save the question"? It's not fine for the answerer to edit in a whole lot of things that did not come from the asker, just to prevent the question from being deleted.
It had at least 3 delete votes before it was reopened.
2
@DanielFischer: Furthermore, I seem to recall seeing some comments explaining why the question was a bad one. Why were they removed? @quid
@user21820 Trying to save a question is legitimate. It's in principle laudable. In this case there's the problem that the editor used the first person, but I don't find that so heinous. Still, it may be better to make the added context neutral, so that it doesn't put words into the OP's mouth.
@DanielFischer Sorry but we've been over this before. It is especially bad for a moderator to take sides with those who protect highly upvoted questions, in effect telling everyone that gaming the system is lauded.
2
Notice that one of those who reopened it regularly posts requests here for closure and deletion, that are no worse than this one.
@user21820 All but one of the comments were directly or indirectly about the originally missing exponent. They were already obsolete before the last edit. The last one was stating the reason (plain PSQ) for a close vote, it became obsolete by the last edit.
@DanielFischer: In case you're still missing my point, let me make it very clear. The answerer knew that the question was on the verge of getting deleted. He/she felt a pang of loss of precious internet points coming, and hence edited the question so that subsequent users who view the question wouldn't realize that it was a plain PSQ (that you also admitted it was) and the new content totally did not come from the asker.
Originally, it was abundantly clear that the question should have been closed and not answered, but now to the unwary user it appears as if the question was a good one. I will not be surprised if some of the reopen voters were tricked in this way.
@user21820 Yes, the answerer noticed that the question was on the verge of deletion. So they decided to try and improve the question in such a way that it no longer needs to be deleted. Whether the reason was the possible loss of internet points, or that they thought their answer was worth some effort to be preserved regardless of points is irrelevant. What matters is the result. Is it now a question that adds value to the site, or isn't it?
@DanielFischer That's the short-term view that is in my opinion a very foolish one.
It legitimizes poor questions, and there already is a glut of them.
2
If SE was meant to be a forum like sci.math, that is a totally different story.
As it is, even right now the downvote button next to the question includes "does not show any research effort". Editing the question to change how it appears with respect to that aspect is just dishonest.
@DanielFischer There are conflicting notions of what adds value to the site. On the one hand, I agree that the question is much better now (and, unfortunately, I think that it should be left open). In that sense, editing to improve the site is was good thing.
@user21820 Poor questions don't need to be legitimised, they'll be asked in abundance anyway. But if occasionally a poor question can be edited to no longer be poor, I see no problem with doing that.
@DanielFischer In the long-term, if highly-upvoted questions are often allowed to stay by respected members of the community, subsequent people will keep pointing at such questions as evidence that what they are doing is accepted.
On the other hand, there is also the issue of encouraging people to ask very low quality questions. When a moderately high reputation user comes along to save a poor question, it sends the message that you can ask poor questions here, and they will be welcome.
In the long term, this leads to more and more low quality questions.
@user21820 In this case, I don't feel too bad letting it go. The original asker has an account that has been around for a while, but which has only asked a couple of questions. This seems to imply that they aren't just popping on to answer a homework question, and that they can (perhaps) be taught. I did leave a note for the editor.
@XanderHenderson In principle, I agree. But that doesn't happen often enough to be significant when poor questions routinely get answered and upvoted anyway without being improved, IMO.
In any case, I'm in two minds about this. On the one hand I do want to stick to my principles and roll-back to the original asker's version (since the asker never even opened his/her mouth to respond to any of the commenters). On the other hand, Daniel and Xander don't seem to support that course of action right now. So does that mean I should close an eye this time? =)
The most recent discussion on the issue I see on meta seems to be this: Editing someone else's question to add context. The most upvoted answer (by quid) seems to be against this. At least that is how I would interpret that answer.
Discussing pros and cons of gamification is probably for a separate discussion. (And gamification is so deeply tied with the design of SE that it does not matter whether or not somebody likes it. That is, if they want to use the the SE network.)
I don't know the details, but presumably they do not want to be tied down to the SE system/philosophy should they dislike how it evolves in the future.
And even if they wanted to stay separate, they still were using Stack Exchange platform. Whether or not inside the SE network does not actually change that much regarding the gamification aspect. (Only now some stuff is simpler and MO does not have to pay the hosting.)
@user21820 Yes, they are unusual in that they have a legal agreement with SE about what happens if they want to part ways. The whole text is linked in this answer: Who owns MathOverflow?
But we have digressed quite a lot. Let's leave MathOverflow's problem for MO.
@user21820 I am not sure I oversee all the details, but as far as I can tell I agree with @DanielFischer. It's a good thing if bad questions get edited. Arguably it opens up some potential loopholes, but this is not a major problem in practice.
I don't think it's a good thing if a an answerer edits a question as though it is being said in the first person by the asker, according to the answerer's own understanding. That's the asker's job. If an edit is to improve formatting, or add context an asker put in comments, that's great and I have no problems. But to put words in the mouth of an asker, that the asker never "spoke" (wrote), are tried to write, is not okay, and may even change the question from what was actually asked, @quid.
So, would it not be wrong, let alone "not ideal", e.g., for an editor (or answerer) to edit [this question], by providing their own suggested strategy for addressing each step, as though the asker wrote it (in the first person), in an effort which assumes the asker actually tried those suggested steps?
When is fabricated reality allowed to be reality? On MSE!
@quid So maybe I misinterpreted your answer posted here (the most recent discussion no meta about this topic that I found): Editing someone else's question to add context. "To edit posts to improve them is appropriate. However, one should make sure to respect the author's intent." I took it to mean that adding context by others than OP is frowned upon.
Although today's discussion in this room shows that there is no clear consensus among experienced users on this. (Or at least that several users feel quite differently about the edit that started this.)
I just wonder why mod's so often appear "wishy-washing", saying one thing in one setting, and then minimizing what they actually said in that setting, in another setting. Mods aim try to clarify, not obfuscate matters, and try be consistent, rather than inconsistent.
Mods "should" aim, or "hopefully" aim, to clarify.
Is it okay for me to completely alter this question by adding some of what I know about how to answer this, as though spoken by the OP, and then write an answer with more information that I know how about then to solve it?
That's the kind of editing that I consider to be hijacking a question posted by another.
@amWhy SE is a platform that provides content in a Q&A format; there is some leeway. For example, some questions are written in first person by somebody that new the answer full well. In that sense the questions were "fake."
Okay, thanks, @quid. You're making it clearer and clearer to me that I will probably need to leave this site. @DanielFischer earlier said that there are too few users trying to maintain quality on this site. That's partly a matter of comments like your last, and your back and forth on this issue, and partly because some of us are less than welcome by many users, like those who dominate this site demanding we do their homework, and answerers who oblige, and their expressed hostility through
punishment in the form of downvotes, and upvotes those who are extremely rude to us, or at least me. Thanks for yet another comment (or four), that essentially blames those seeking quality, to clear the way for crud, instead of valuing some of our efforts.
@MartinSleziak I think what I had in mind there is on the one hand, questions that are turned into something else entirely. At some point there was a trend, more pronounced on MO maybe, of interpreting all kind of hidden wisdom into confused questions.
On the other hand, if OP expressed something else than one should of course not write something different in the question.
If OP has a problem with an edit, they can always roll it back.
In the case above, maybe inclusion of Legendre is excessive.
@amWhy personally I'd think it above all a waste of time. That's why I said, "Moreover, I recommend to focus such activities on questions that one actually finds worthwhile. "
But if you find it a worthwhile activity I don't think I'll stop you. (Unless of course OP complains.)
@quid Sure, I agree. Participating on this site is not worthwhile to me. Thanks.
Others have different conceptions of what's worthwhile, and what is not. If you are telling me that trying to "weed" the site, close bad questions so that the better ones can then shine and have space, and other janitorial work that saves mods a lot of unnecessary, solely, and directly focusing on good (and ignoring the sewage) will create a site overwhelmed with sewage, so that nothing good can take root herebad, or otherwise. So be it.
I highly appreciate efforts to get rid of poor content. I think it is efficient to focus on the poor content that no one takes care of.
I think, at least from a pragmatic point of view, it is not a good strategy to continue to moderate against harmless content that somebody took care of.
2
It can also be seen as sending the message that anyway no level of improvement will suffice, etc.
Confer my conversation on June 26th here.
Finally, the inconsistency is what I like to consider as pragmatism.
When I ran for moderator I explained that I think taking clear decisions can actually be harmful.
@quid I highly doubt that speaking and acting inconsistenly is pragmatic. In fact, it confuses everyone, even Martin. I'm done here.
If inconsistency is okay, then I'll go back and forth between closing crap and answering crap. You can be inconsistent, and face no repercussions, @quid. Because you're a mod. Moderation does not entail inconsistency; it entails consistent moderation to earn the trust of the community, and any semblance of greater community consensus because one party can't appeal to your comment A, to support them, and others appeal to your comment B, which contradicts A, to support them.
... and so, in fact, you create more conflict through inconsistent actions and words, than you actually mediate. You promised to be moderate $\neq$ inconsistent $\neq$ pragmatic. But you always have something to say to defend yourself. That's okay, that's a human instinct. It doesn't actually help matters, but I'll grant you we all tend toward defensiveness.
@quid That's, unfortunately, not consistent with what you've said here and elsewhere. It may be consistent with things you've said yet elsewhere, but you have to understand that doubt about the veracity or the sincerity of what you say at any given time on this site, is a direct consequence of inconsistency in words and/or actions taken on this site.
@user21820 Again, I don't see this as a clear cut case, and am also tempted to roll back the edit. However, such an would likely lead to an edit war and require moderator intervention. At the moment, we have two moderators who seem to be saying that they would not support the rollback, so I am willing to back down and let it be.
That being said, @quid @DanielFischer it would be nice if a moderator$\tiny\blacklozenge$ would leave a comment for the editor suggesting that they not make such edits in the future, or explaining that such edits are okay. A clear guideline from the moderators would be helpful.
@amWhy could you elaborate on this? What specifically is not consistent?
What some in this room might not realize is just how unpopular it actually is in some circles that go well beyond users that can be categorized under mostly interested in points. A main reason for this is, I think, a lack of pragmatism, and sometimes trying too hard to apply certain general principles.
@quid Hence, since so unpopular, we should expect (perhaps deserve] disrespect from mods, all other users, downvotes, rude and offensive comments, as "we brought it on ourselves?" @quid, you're just digging yourself deeper in a more unflattering hole. All you're doing, now, is helping convince me, at least, to leave the site. Thanks. You've said enough: I've already gotten that message, and you already know I know what you just "instructed us about".
And I know, so a mod can remain more popular with the haters, they're willing to throw some of us to the dogs. Perhaps because it is unpragmatic (read "unpopular") to take a stand against the ones who are really responsible for most of the abuse and disrespect happening on this site. Please, as I said, you are not helping matters with me. But you probably gain points among the "very popular" users for ragging on Crude regulars. Good for you. And, in fact, I responded to your longest comment
Notice: 2018 Moderator Election: Question Collection. Start thinking of some great questions to help reveal candidates' positions. Also, consider nominating yourself! Mark your calendars: Election scheduled for July 16th, 2018.
@ZacharySelk See my comment above! I encourage you to consider running.
