What are some general guidelines for editing a MathOverflow post? Are there some "do"s and "don't"s I should know about?
(The material that was previously in this question box has been moved to an answer box, where it belongs, in response to a pertinent comment by Noam Elkies.)
Most of the time, the edits that I see on MO are respectfully and tactfully performed and small in scope, and gratefully received by the post's author as improvements. Occasionally though I see flare-ups over an edit, to the point where a post will be self-mutilated or self-deleted; (more rarely) there will be an edit war. I hope this answer can help to provide some general precepts, so that such situations can be avoided or ameliorated.
First, a few general points to keep in mind:
- From the Stackexchange faq: If you are not comfortable with the idea of your contributions being collaboratively edited by other trusted users, MO might not be right for you.
All within reason, of course. More on this in a moment.
- Editing is welcomed and encouraged. However, if an author of a post is resistant to edits, even reasonable ones based on generally accepted guidelines, be the bigger man or woman and let them have it their way.
The general aim is to clean up and improve posts over time, but in this case the reluctant author probably just needs more time to understand how things work around here. Of course you can gently remonstrate in a comment, but don't go on about it too long or be too insistent.
- We're supposed to be adults here. Try to resolve edit disputes through simple communication, without being rude to your fellow community members.
As it says here: Be nice. Most of "be nice" follows from the golden rule, but one corollary that is particularly pertinent to editing is this: assume good intentions. If you are annoyed by an edit, take a deep breath and remember that the editor is probably just trying to be helpful. Master your emotion, and don't get all touchy and defensive. Adopt the spirit of general cooperation to optimize our posts.
If simple polite communication doesn't work and you find yourselves at an impasse, you can flag for moderator attention to help resolve the dispute.
The following types of edits should be considered fairly uncontroversial:
Correcting misspellings more generally is permissible I think, but I would consider it low priority, and you probably have better things to do with your time.
On fixing grammatical errors: if the text is really unclear because of bad grammar, then yes. If the meaning is clear but the author's English is not perfect (according to you), then I'd be a lot more circumspect. John Baez once said that "broken English" is the language of science, and we should be respectful of some variation. I often enjoy other people's written accents, as it were; I find they impart some of the charm to our little international community. (Thank you Yemon for your comment which prompted this.)
Clarification without changing the meaning. For example, to prevent closure of a question that might otherwise be okay, or adjusting the title if it describes the question poorly.
Fixing a minor slip (e.g., accidental insertion of the word 'no' where it was clearly not meant, etc.) where it doesn't require a full post to justify.
Adding related resources or links that will help someone answer the post, or that help provide context.
Editing of tags to more appropriate ones.
Adding in information found only in comments, so that one doesn't have to read through the comments to get the information.
Embedding or re-uploading images, fixing formatting, etc.
This last point probably deserves some amplification. If someone has messed up the LaTeX or MathJax, for example forgetting a dollar sign, then by all means get in there. Potentially more contentious is where you're sure that you understand good LaTeX practice (for which there is a large body of literature) and you want to clean up what looks like amateur WYSIWYG-style formatting; it could be using $<$ for $\langle$ for instance, or spacing issues, etc. Well, proceed with fingers crossed, but if the author complains, refer to general point 2. above and back off. Even if you're sure you're right. (Take a moment also to reflect on point 2 below.)
I'll throw in one more, as being part of the vision of the founders of the StackExchange sites, although my own attitude about it is somewhat soft:
The founders would like SE sites to be more wiki-like and less a discussion forum. I can see the point of that, but I'll offer a personal comment below.
Here are some Don'ts:
Don't perform massive edits (e.g., a lengthy post that you think should be trimmed down) without prior discussion.
Don't self-indulge as a copy-editor. Examples might be: changing British spellings to American spellings, or enforcing consistency in "house style" (like thinking ZFC should be $\mathit{ZFC}$).
The point is that MO doesn't actually have an articulated house style as such, although there may be some general consensus on good LaTeX or MathJax practice, and those who have thought about such matters should be listened to respectfully.
Mainly these points can be summarized as: get your own ego out of the picture; don't be self-indulgent. Even though your icon may appear to announce your edit, the idea is to be quietly helpful: perform the edit discreetly and without fanfare.
If you see a sloppy accidental error then certainly correct it. But when an author put special effort into editing--then changing it is ignorant, arrogant and insensitive, simply rude. You should ask, you should not waste the author's effort by "editing" according to your own ideas (even if they are standard).
