Does the massive edit to "Playing sports - does swimming count?" really "clarfiy the English question"? If so, for whom?

Question

Sasha asked Playing sports - does swimming count? and indicated her own difficulties with what the question was asking, i.e., (a) I am a professional swimmer, (b) playing sports implies team sports, (c) you don't say 'I play swimming'. (d) So do you answer the question Do you play sports? if you need to start with 'I do/I don't...'?

and added in a comment "Ok, so would it be correct then? -Do you play any sports? -I do, I practice swimming."

It seems like Sasha set out in clear terms what his/her difficulties were, and what he/she was asking. And yes, you can go to great lengths (literally) when answering the question, and at least one answer does this.

Yet the author of said answer massively edited the post, and included the heading: To clarify the English question.

The question was clear without listing every single possible nuance to "the English question" (whatever that noun phrase means). The added material of the edit is well over 100% longer than the text of the initial question. And it explodes the original question to a protracted analysis that not all answerers are going to agree with.

Sasha's question seemed clear enough, and the edit is an unnecessary repackaging of it, so that it is no longer the OP's question. One could unpack what one sees as the issues in an answer, without having to drastically edit the OP's question. Would that be the preferred course to take, especially since not all possible answerers will address the question as it has been restated and greatly drawn out, per the mind of the editor?

Answer 1

We can't read an OP's mind, and if they don't respond to comments, it usually leaves their question unclear, or too broad. At times, we have to assume what the OP wants, and try and save the question. Judgement call or something, it's called.

The "swimming" question seemed to be heading for disaster until a last-ditch edit by fixer1234 saved the day, and since then it's been only gaining more upvotes, which means the edits helped.

Just keep in mind that:

• If edits are suggested by a low-rep user, it will undergo review.
• If edits are by a high-rep user, we trust them to know what they're doing.
• If edits kill a question, several users will notice it, and bring it around.

So, there's no issue here.

This is a general answer, and not limited to this "swimming" question.

Answer 2

After reading the kind member's explanatory answer here, we can all agree it was a desperate intervention meant to 'save' the question. The more pertinent discussion would be what is wrong with the Q that prompted 4 users to vote to close it?

I read it before the 'massive edit' and found it quite clear to begin with, as Clare did. This is how I understood it:

When IELTS examiner asks 'do you play any sports', how do you answer that, if you're a professional swimmer? -- because swimming is not the type of sport you 'play' and I am supposed to answer I do/ I don't for such questions.

Please note this answer I gave in comments even before the kind member helpfully made the 'massive edit' to improve this already clear question:

Q:Do you play any sports? Swimming is indeed a sport, so even if you are not 'playing' swimming, your answer should be "yes I do." If that is all the examination format requires you to answer, then you would 'sit tight' and let the examiner make the next move. If however the format dictates you should give a brief explanatory answer, then you could say "yes I do -- I am a professional swimmer." YOU CAN GIVE SOME MORE DETAILS. In any case they would be assessing your vocabulary, grammar and fluency in English rather than the semantics of whether 'playing sports' includes swimming!

– English Student yesterday

Do you think I missed something? IT IS OP WE MUST BE TRYING TO HELP FIRST. The 'potential' of the question comes next. The insistence on 'research' would be pedantic here: standard dictionaries may not help OP much in this instance because it is a more complex situation. Voting to close a reasonably clear question like this one for 'lack of clarity' or 'lack of research' is a nonsense.

What is not clear with the question? What is OP supposed to check in a dictionary? Why vote to close in the first place, necessitating such kindly intended but ultimately drastic action as this 'massive edit'?

I humbly requests members that do not understand a question to leave well alone and let somebody who understands answer it. I therefore appreciate the timely action of fixer1234 to 'save' the question (which was necessitated by such hasty and ill-advised close-voting.)

Answer 3

I was the editor of the question, and I edited it after it had received four close votes for various reasons. It was an attempt to save it from closure. I tried to address the closure issues without changing the nature of the question.

After rereading the question many times and considering all the comments, with their diverse interpretations, and my own original confusion, the sources of the closure issues gelled. The question, taken as a whole, also gelled and was actually clear. However, the question wording and organization made it easy to miss the actual issue. It was obvious from the comments, close votes, and my own initial read that it had already happened with many readers.

I left the original question alone so as not to alter the original wording in any way, and supplemented it with a more organized summary of what was presented in the question. Many of the close votes and comments interpreted various elements of the question as off-topic or tangential. So I started the addition with a sub-title to indicate that the purpose of the addition was to provide the same information focused in a clearly on-topic way on the English issue.

Clare's question here characterizes the original post as clear and my edit as a repackaging. I don't know if Clare was among the early readers of the question (pre-edit), or viewed it only after the edit. If an early reader, and the interpretation of the question hasn't changed, then perhaps Clare was not among those with diverse interpretations. If the first view was post-edit, then perhaps my summary provided some context that made the original wording clear.

In any event, if my summary is seen as a repackaging, then it was successful in not changing the meaning of the question. That was exactly what I was trying to do.

Clare's question here describes the summary as exploding the original question and creating context that not all answerers are going to agree with. I don't believe the summary does that. It doesn't create anything that wasn't already in the question. The original problem was that readers were interpreting pieces of the question outside the entirety of the question's context, and that's what my edit sought to solve.

So answerers are still free to diverge in any direction they want, but hopefully there will be less of it based simply on misinterpretation. And I should point out that if the question went to closure, that point would be moot because there could be no more answerers.

However, the edit did double the length of the question, the unfortunate price of leaving the original words intact. Also, my repackaging means that half of the words are not literally the words of the OP. Sasha hasn't returned yet, and his/her opinion should really be what drives this. He/she could choose to chop off my edit or rework the question so no restatement is necessary. Or, the question could have been a fleeting one and Sasha won't return.

But Clare's question here does raise a legitimate question of, in general, how much editing is too much, and on this question, whether my edit materially changed the OP's intent and whether it helped or hurt the question.

I can offer two indicators:

• The close voting stopped. None of the close voters have returned to retract their votes, but the current four votes accumulated pretty quickly and that action stopped after the edit. So hopefully, the edit solved the closure issues.
• My recollection is that prior to the edit, the question was at a net voting of approximately zero (+/- 1). Since the edit, it has gone to a net of +6. I don't know how much, if any, of that is due to the edit, but just sayin'.

So I would also welcome input and guidance on the issue.