Consider the following question on the main site representative of the questions of interest here:
In essence, I think it asks whether cast used in programming has anything to do with cast used for actors and sculptures, etc. This is, however, something of a guess since the original version says nothing about this, and merely asks whether the word has the same root in each case. I found the underlying question interesting (as did at least one other), but others also aired the opposite opinion.
My question here is:
The motivation for all Stack Exchange sites including ELU is to build libraries of high-quality questions and answers. So when a low-quality question (LQQ) turns up with the potential to become a high-quality question, but the OP doesn't edit it or is otherwise unresponsive to comments, should we feel free to edit the question even if this involves an element of guesswork on our part (perhaps with an invitation to roll back), or should we vote to close the question because it is an LQQ at face value?
Existing commentary suggests:
- to edit only if you would be prepared to have asked the question yourself (How to judge when is it better to delete a question rather than improve it);
- voting to close without useful feedback discourages asking other questions because they could also be closed, and it's not apparent how to improve for the next time (Overeager moderation?);
- edits should not change whatever intent is apparent ("Edits" That Change the OP's Meaning); and
- clarifying edits are valid (Would it be OK to edit questions that are of the form "What do you call a person who...").
What I'm asking about goes beyond simply clarifying edits - they may be considered wholesale changes to the question. Naturally, this doesn't include changing the question to something completely foreign, but it may involve changing something like Do the words X,Y,Z have the same root? to What does Z have to do with X and Y? with the objective of picking out an interesting aspect of a question where the question would otherwise be (or perhaps less controversially, has already been) closed for being too broad, general reference or uninteresting.