Timeline for answer to The Community vs. The Domain Expert by NoDataDumpNoContribution
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
Post Revisions
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 7, 2016 at 14:52 | comment | added | NoDataDumpNoContribution | @Servy "If the common consensus was simply wrong, requiring more reviewers wouldn't change the outcome." That depends. If for example only a minority gets it wrong, you get more decision power the more votes you have. But I fully agree that we would have to first demonstrate the problem. | |
| Dec 7, 2016 at 14:42 | comment | added | Servy | But again, before implementing any of those you'd need to demonstrate a problem that they'd be there to solve in the first place. As of yet, that hasn't been done here. | |
| Dec 7, 2016 at 14:42 | comment | added | Servy | I don't see how more audits are going to help. Either the audits are catching people actually reviewing improperly, or they're not. More of them would mean it would take maybe 2 days instead of 3 for them to get banned, not out of the question, but if there really were a major underlying problem that wouldn't fix it. Same with more reviewers. If the common consensus was simply wrong, requiring more reviewers wouldn't change the outcome. There's also not much correlation between rep and reviewer quality past a certain point, so increasing it is unlikely to help a ton. | |
| Dec 7, 2016 at 14:36 | comment | added | NoDataDumpNoContribution | @Servy I see. Interestingly the proposed actions (more audits, more required votes, more warnings) mostly stay the same. What drops is the requirement for the reviewers to actually know anything about the topic. | |
| Dec 7, 2016 at 14:17 | comment | added | Servy | You have made the assumption, along with the OP, that edits that are making changes to the actual underlying technical content of the answer are okay in the first place. They are not. Pretty much any edit that is changing the technical content of the answer merits rejection because that's not what edits are there for, so to assume that people are rejecting edits that change the author's consent giving a rejection reason that they're changing the author's content are reviewing correctly. It's people that are approving edits that change someone else's post that are the incorrect reviews. | |
| Dec 7, 2016 at 9:16 | history | answered | NoDataDumpNoContribution | CC BY-SA 3.0 |