Timeline for Are the criteria for peer-reviewed edits and "2000 rep" edits the same?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
3 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 27, 2012 at 4:03 | comment | added | josinalvo | no problem. Thanks for the answer | |
| Jul 27, 2012 at 3:00 | comment | added | Eliah Kagan | While I agree that an edit on a question or answer that is well beyond the intended scope of the post being edited, or goes against the intent of the author, should virtually always not be made (and rejected, if proposed), I don't think the mere possibility that an original author wouldn't like an edit or that it would result in downvotes is reason enough not to make (or to reject) an edit. The original author can always roll back the edit, if they do not like it. And an edit made by someone other than the original author is not represented as that original author's work. | |
| Jul 26, 2012 at 22:19 | history | answered | Takkat | CC BY-SA 3.0 |