-3

This user received 2 rep yesterday for an edit of my answer which damaged a quote that I had entered. Yes, the correction was well intentioned, and corrected a typo in the original, but that destroys the integrity of the quote.

This action demonstrated a cavalier disregard for proper research, as the user should have first verified that I had misquoted, before attempting a correction. Further this edit was accepted by a user who should have known better, by virtue of having accumulated 2000 rep on this site.

I acknowledge that 2 rep is not a big deal of itself. However, emphasizing the need for care when editing posts, and when accepting edits by new users, is a fundamental tenet (I believe) of a user-moderated site being successful. If no action is taken then both users will have received the implicit approval of this site for their lack of care. Is that what we want our colleagues here to learn?

So finally, what action should I have taken to deal with this, beyond reversing the edit and posting this question? Was flagging a "vandalism" appropriate, for example?

  • 2
    You seem to think that not only are you beyond making spelling errors, everyone should recognize that you are, and that it is some sort of personal affront to you that we don't understand that you never make spelling errors. In this you are wrong. – Lennart Regebro Aug 16 '13 at 21:44
  • 4
    And when you recognize that the edit was well intentioned and corrected a type, why do you insist in claiming your post was "vandalized", when this clearly was not the case? – Lennart Regebro Aug 16 '13 at 21:54
  • 1
    I think the answer to this question should be in the help center. This question and [another question][meta.history.stackexchange.com/q/712/1401] suggest to me that perhaps we should review the help center on edits. Do we all believe it answers these questions adequately? – Mark C. Wallace Aug 21 '13 at 11:38
8

There was a misspelling. The misspelling was not marked with [sic] to note that the misspelling was in the original source, there was no reason to assume it was in the original source.

So as a result, somebody suggested an edit to fix it. It was approved as it fixed the misspelling.

Nobody here made any mistake or anything wrong. It is normal practice to mark misspellings from a source with "[sic]", which now has been done after the rollback.

-3

Seems like a careless mistake on the reviewers part to me. You did the right thing (rolling back the incorrect revision). Adding "sic" makes it clearer that it is an original error, which could have prevented this in the first place.

That edit should have been rejected as incorrect. Once you rolled the edit back, the problem was solved, so no more action was needed. If you didn't have the rep to roll the edit back, the next best action would have been to flag it for mod attention (be sure to specify what edit needs to be rolled back). Unless you notice a lot of bad edits getting approved suddenly, there's no need for a meta post.

There's not a lot else to say besides "reviewers should pay more attention".

You must log in to answer this question.

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