Why was an edit to include information from comments reverted by a moderator?

Question

The user SE - stop firing the good guys edited this post with important highly upvoted, useful information from the comments that did not change the meaning of the post (it clarified that 'side content' referred to 'any content that's not necessary for completion'). This post went through the normal approval process for low rep users and was approved.

Next Wrigglenite♦ reverted the edit claiming that "Adding new information to answers is explicitly not what third party edits are for". However, as noted in the comments (now moved to chat), this claim directly contradicts SE policy which states:

All contributions are licensed under Creative Commons, and this site is collaboratively edited, like Wikipedia. If you see something that needs improvement, click edit!

Editing is important for keeping questions and answers clear, relevant, and up-to-date. If you are not comfortable with the idea of your contributions being collaboratively edited by other trusted users, this may not be the site for you.

[...]

Edits are expected to be substantial and to leave the post better than you found it. Common reasons for edits include:

• [...]
• To clarify the meaning of the post (without changing that meaning)
• To include additional information only found in comments, so all of the information relevant to the post is contained in one place

Source: https://gaming.stackexchange.com/help/editing

When this was pointed out to Wrigglenite♦ rather than re-applying the edit instead they claimed that the policy does not apply to 'third party' comments. Claiming that 'The only source of information in a post should be the post's author.' where 'author' seems to refer to the posts first author.

Is this something the Gaming SE community decided to deviate on from standard SE policy? Because the collaborative nature of writing answers is one of the core tenants of the SE network. It's quite typical that some users express discomfort with this, but in that case - as the above page states - "this may not be the site for you". When a moderator however expresses such notions it sounds like something bigger is going on.

Point is: On SE in general there is no such thing as a "third party" edit vs a "first party" edit. Neither the first author of an answer nor the 100th contributor to an answer is allowed to change the meaning of an answer (that's why we can write multiple answers and have each upvoted independently). The only advantage the first author has is that he can claim a superior understanding of the meaning of the post. As always: This isn't a forum, this is the Q&A version of Wikipedia.

Answer 1

This question is based on a slight misunderstanding. It's true that posts are a collaborative effort, but that doesn't mean post authorship is completely nonexistant. Just a look at the voting and badges system should tell you that Stack Exchange values the connection between posts and their authors, and that leaving a post's content to its author is important to make sure that reputation and badges are awarded correctly.

The term "additional information only found in comments" can be, admittedly, misleading, but it's common for question and answer owners to reply to clarification from comments in other comments. Adding that information into the original post is a good edit, since it's still coming from the original owner.

More suggestions on how to edits can be found in other places too. For example, when editing a post, the following guidelines are offered:

How to Edit

• fix grammatical or spelling errors
• clarify meaning without changing it
• correct minor mistakes
• add related resources or links
• always respect the original author

The "edit questions and answers" privilege page omits the part about comments as well:

Some common reasons to edit are:

• to fix grammatical or spelling mistakes
• to clarify the meaning of a post without changing it
• to correct minor mistakes or add addendums / updates as the post ages
• to add related resources or hyperlinks

Not changing the meaning of a post is mentioned twice. Adding or removing information is changing the meaning of a post.

Additionally, the names of the badges related to editing give off the same impression: "Editor", "Strunk & White", and "Copy Editor".

All of this reinforces the idea that third party edits are supposed to be about style and presentation, not content.

The idea that Arqade, or Stack Exchange in general, is a Q&A version of Wikipedia is a bit of a misquote as well, as the Help Page actually reads "this site is collaboratively edited, like Wikipedia".
It's true that anyone is welcome to contribute new information with questions and answers, and it's true that anyone can edit posts, but these are supposed to be more like copy editing than co-authoring. Indeed, each post only ever has a single author.

And for those who want a more collaborative effort on maintaining a post's content, that's what the Community Wiki option is for.

Answer 2

This does not apply to third party comments. Otherwise that would be kind of a loophole. Think about it, you can't make drastic changes to other people's posts but if you comment it then you're allowed to edit it in because it was found in a comment. Obviously that's pretty stupid at its arbitrary level.

This edit is debatable because it is riding the line on adding new information and clarifying. In case of a third party comment, view the edit as if it was on its own and not influenced by a comment.

I personally think this edit may have qualified as another answer entirely or at least permission asked to edit it, it seems to somewhat change the answer in a way that may conflict with what the author means.