I am aware that we already have this question about editing OP posts, but I would like to raise a similar issue about editing answers to the OP.
I recently had a response edited in this thread, where the edit was deleting the whole post except the first sentence. Naturally, I rolled it back. This edit raises two issues:
As deleting 90+% of a post is without a doubt changing the nature and content of the response, what is the purpose of an edit: tidy up the language and formatting, or change the answer?
As the post was a selected answer with plenty of upvotes, and this edit got two approvals, is there a conflict between the style of answers the community likes, and the post that the editors like?
Edit Added November 15th
Responses below indicate that several people are failing to understand the construction of the post, and compounding that by conflating their opinions with fact, and at least one post has commented that no explanation has been given to say why the deleted section was relevant - though really the onus lies with the editor to prove irrelevance rather than simply repeating it over and over. Bear with this edit; there is a point to it:
Paragraph one is the direct answer. It is placed right at the top of the post so that semi-interested people can read it and then decide if they want more information or not.
Paragraph two tells the OP that I did not see the actual episode she refers to. This is there so that the OP has necessary information to judge my response. "I saw it and it was lame" is different to "I didn't see it, but it sounds as if it was lame". I deliberatley phrased in a friendly way as me and the OP have clashed in the past, and because as a result of those clashes I know the OP is smart enough to understand what it says even if some others obviously don't.
Paragraph three is there to contextualise the suggested language by providing background. It raises widely stated views that writing a good finale for a TV series is more difficult than writing a finale for a movie or a novel. This context is needed because the 'average' ending for a TV series is not the same as an average ending in other media or formats.
Paragraphs four and five are there for balance. There are counter arguments to the views given in paragraph three, illustrated by the example given in paragraph 5, which the OP should be pointed to. I chose not to dumb it down by spelling out the obvious as the OP doesn't need it.
The point here is that the post is a cohesive item. It gives information, then background information needed to judge the accuracy of the information, then background information needed to put the information in context - finales for TV shows are often lame, so they have a different standard of 'lameness' to movies, and finally a counter view for balance.
What the editor did was delete all the context and information needed for the OP to asses the information, saying it was irrelevant because they failed to understand why it was there.
This is precisely why I ask wether censoring content should be condoned. It is all too easy for editors, particularly low-rep ones, to remove information that is needed through failing to read the authors intentions.