2

Referring to this tag wiki excerpt edit, which was initially longer and worded somewhat differently. I received 1 Accept and 1 Reject citing the reason "Most of this should go in the wiki. The excerpt should be a synopsis just long enough to provide usage guidance (which is the key for the excerpt).".

Despite the two opposing votes, the excerpt is still "under review". Following this partial review, I edited the tag wiki excerpt again to make it shorter and better.

Expected result:

  • Original tag wiki excerpt edit pending review to be automatically rejected by Community with a reason like "new edit proposed".
  • No penalty for rejection.
  • New review of the new tag wiki excerpt to be opened with zero votes, and opened for fresh voting.
  • Alternatively, votes could be marked outdated and fresh votes could be solicited in the same original tag wiki excerpt edit review from same reviewers or other reviewers.

Actual result:

  • Original tag wiki excerpt edit pending review is updated with the new tag wiki excerpt.
  • Votes given to the original tag wiki excerpt remain and appear to be given to the new tag wiki excerpt, though this is not actually true. This may cause misinterpretation by other reviewers.
  • Possibility of unfair rejection of the new wiki excerpt with just one more Reject vote on it, when added to the existing Reject vote given on the old version.

Note: I hope this meta will focus on the review process flow of proposed edits that are amended after partial review, rather than whether my tag wiki excerpt meets requirements or not.

  • 2
    I agree that your "expected result" is how it ought to work, and the "actual result" is a poor process flow. Also, if it is revised in response to feedback, it would make sense to allow the person who rejected it to retract, which doesn't happen. It would also benefit the process to let reviewers improve on wiki edits, like other edits The current process incentivizes lower standards. Something is better than nothing, so the review process encourages accepting whatever people are willing to submit, perhaps thinking fixes and improvements can be done in a later edit. – fixer1234 Aug 7 '16 at 9:03
  • As an aside it looks like a tag that needs to be deleted based on the many interpretations of its use – random Aug 8 '16 at 15:24
  • 2
    The same thing happens with ordinary suggested edits. (1) Low-rep (<2K) user suggests an edit to a question or an answer; (2) high-rep user (>2K) votes to approve or reject (or, as in this case, one of each); (3) original low-rep user edits the post again; and (4) vote(s) are not reset. As far as I know, there is no record of what the first voter saw and voted on. This (arguably) makes sense if the second edit is just a tweak of the first, but, apparently, there is no check for how significant the second edit is. – Scott Aug 9 '16 at 3:15

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .