In StackOverflow, editing a question or answer seemed a useful ability as a broken answer could sometimes become a great one with a little tweak or two. As a public service, editing seems a positive tool (with some potential pitfalls).

Here, the possibilities for evil seem much greater than the possibilities for good. A grammar or spelling fix might be welcomed. Removing argumentative or prejudiced words, if done with care and commented upon, might fly. Adding a link or two probably wouldn't hurt. But many other forms of editing could be taken as underhanded or assaults on an author's authority.

What pitfalls do you see for editors of a site for Philosophy?

Return to FAQ index

  • 2
    Yeah, same deal as Stack Overflow: respect the author's intent with all edits. I don't see how the potential for harm is any greater. People can always rollback (and/or bring the discussion to Meta) if they strongly disagree. This problem solves itself. Jun 14, 2011 at 9:29

1 Answer 1


Congratulations and welcome! We invite you to use your tools to help clean up this place.

Improving the quality of questions is definitely encouraged where possible, but please go for the low hanging fruit; it is not generally necessary to copyedit, i.e., try to avoid edits for single-letter changes. If in doubt, do what you're doing -- asking on meta.

Keep in mind your primary duties as stack citizen still apply: vote religiously, close ruthlessly and flag prudently.

You must log in to answer this question.

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