0

I recently submitted an edit on an answer because the answer quotes information from a link, but the information isn't at the link any more (FYI: it's a wiki link).

My edit was rejected. At a glance, it appears that I am indeed deviating from the author's intent, and my edit may have been better as a comment to the author; however:

  • The author hasn't visited the site in over a year, and only has a single question/answer. Leaving a comment, which I've now done, isn't likely to be seen.
  • A quick click on both links would reveal that the information currently in the answer doesn't match what's on the wiki, and the information I quoted is indeed on the updated link. The text itself, although different, contains the same information.

I actually forgot that my edit would've gone into a queue, but I'm not sure how I could've improved it. Was my edit wrong, or is there something I could've done (perhaps a better comment?) to aid a reviewer?

My apologies if is the wrong tag for this. I wasn't sure whether this or would've been best. Feel free to modify as necessary.

  • 5
    So you know why it was rejected. Edits are not to change the author's intent. If an answer becomes wrong or outdated, write your own. – Frank Jun 19 '17 at 12:39
  • I'm honestly a bit confused on the intent of the edit. What was already in the answer seems to coorespond to what your edit said; without including or omitting any information. I really don't see the need for the edit; besides maybe that those lines are no longer in the wiki. – JMac Jun 19 '17 at 19:06
  • My edit doesn't change the answer: it says the same thing. Without the edit, the answer looks wrong. If I read something quoted and then go to the link for more info and the quote isn't there, I'm going to assume the information is wrong, but in this case it simply moved to a different page. I'm not certain how writing my own answer would benefit the community because it would say the same thing as that answer but with a slightly different quote and link. – Tas Jun 19 '17 at 21:20
  • @Tas You should have just updated the link. The wording on the original answer seemed fine; there was no real need to do anything besides fix the link. – JMac Jun 20 '17 at 1:16
  • 2
    I've done this same thing before. It seemed to be an appropriate action, but when the alternative is to leave it alone and post an updated answer, that seems like a much better action to be taken. I've also gone back to older questions I've asked and marked the updated answer as the correct one, which is an important part of making this process work. – FoxMcCloud Jun 21 '17 at 18:34
9

As the reviewer who rejected: I saw that you replaced the entire quote with a different quote (from a different wiki page to boot). While your updated quote and link may be helpful, by editing someone else's answer you effectively put words in that someone else's mouth. As per the (canned) rejection reason:

This edit was intended to address the author of the post and makes no sense as an edit. It should have been written as a comment or an answer

I believed this edit would've been better as it's own answer, and with a comment on the original answer explaining that it was out of date.

And don't worry, you're not alone! this situation is something that comes up occasionally:

Your edit was rejected because it changed too much of the answer... You replaced the original answer with yours.
Why do people destroy helpful edits to answers?

In short, your edit wasn't a matter of style, or fixing typos; you were fundamentally changing the content of the answer. And that's generally not cool. If you think an answer is wrong, you can downvote it, you can comment on it to let the answerer know, or you can post your own answer...
Why was my edit rejected as incorrect?


In your case, what you were addressing is a subset of 'link rot' - where a linked resource is no longer available (or in this case has radically changed). This is why we dislike link-only answers and prefer that a source is summarised/quoted and only used as a reference. In a way we're lucky that the OP even quoted the wiki in the first place!

As for the content itself: Is the old quote wrong, other than no longer existing as a quotable source? If it's still valid, what harm is there in leaving the quote there? If the link is 404'd you could edit it out and simply add something like "originally from the Elder Scrolls Wikia (since removed)".

If the information is invalid then downvote it, leave a comment to say why you downvoted, and potentially add a new answer with the updated information & quote.

You must log in to answer this question.

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