Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow, the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.
@JacobVlijm Am I still misunderstood here? Of course a case like this would fall in the first section and get approved, my example refered to the common case of a bash tagged question receiving an answer with a bash script which then is edited as described in the question.
Seems like I wasn't able to clearly express my point here: Yes, I strongly support syntax highlighting, there's no doubt it helps and every piece of code on a SE site should appear highlighted correctly IMO. But, I reject edits that don't add to the post. This is in fact a rare condition, but I encountered those edits on questions that are crystal-clear bash questions and it would just be vandalism to remove that tag.
@Zanna I carefully checked whether the tag is likely to be removed. bash doesn't strike me as an ambiguous tag, and this is the only one I encountered so far.
That seems fair. If the very reason for audits is to make sure people are taking review serious, adding a comment instead of just voting should be equal to pass the audit IMO.
@Dan Yeah, so? What's wrong about that? If it's commonly understood, that's language. A grammar pictures language, it doesn't instruct their users how they ought to use it – at least in the original sense.
As a philologist I'd say that it is a legal form, the statistics show it's widely used and understood, and that suffices. It may contradict with a grammatical rule, but then again this rule applies to a language used in totally other contexts. Why shouldn't the globally typed – and never really spoken! – internet English have its own, different grammar? Why should it even not have an own grammar, with such a different setup?
