4
$\begingroup$

I received a notification for a comment made by Emilio Pisanty on this question asking for an update of my answer in order to comply with the current policy on resource recommendations.

As you can verify, I wasn't the only one who received the same comment. I was wondering if it is wise to try to enforce a current policy on very old contributions. I feel it is too much to ask for a huge amount of users. Maybe this is our online version of retroactivity in law.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Apologies if this came across the wrong way. The comments were meant to explain why the answers were deleted and collected into a single post. They were not meant to press anyone into doing more work than they have, though you are of course welcome to flesh out your post there, and we'll be thankful for it. $\endgroup$
    – Emilio Pisanty
    Dec 29 '13 at 8:54
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ No worries about it. Indeed, there was a sense of imposition at first. Now I understand what you guys are doing. $\endgroup$
    – Robert Smith
    Dec 29 '13 at 19:38
3
$\begingroup$

The book policy is only retroactive in a fashion. Answers which do not follow the current policy are deleted and replaced with a community wiki list having the same contents.

There is no need to comment on every answer and ask for it to be fixed -- if you want you can do that, of course, and if the answer is deleted before you get a chance to fix it you can post a new one.

I have yet to go through all the old questions and new-ify them, I have only done this for a couple of posts so far. I'll get to it this week.

@Emilio to be clear, there is no need to comment but the rest of what you did on the post seems about right, carry on :)

$\endgroup$
9
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for your answer. Well, that certainly is a lot of work. Are you sure this is necessary? Maybe there are other more important issues that can benefit from your free time, instead of new-ify old contributions. $\endgroup$
    – Robert Smith
    Dec 29 '13 at 6:06
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ For the record, I don't mind if my answer is deleted as long as the content is preserved. However, our time is limited and this doesn't seem like a good use of it. $\endgroup$
    – Robert Smith
    Dec 29 '13 at 6:08
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @RobertSmith Not exactly, there are other users like Emilio who are helping out. Also, overall there is no hurry and we can get it done in small bursts. I usually plan such things for when I'm bored of whatever else I'm doing. $\endgroup$
    – Manishearth
    Dec 29 '13 at 6:10
  • $\begingroup$ Alright then. I'm a bit puzzled by this, but I guess it is ok. $\endgroup$
    – Robert Smith
    Dec 29 '13 at 6:11
  • $\begingroup$ The comments were meant to be more clear to people about why their posts were getting (or about to get) manhandled. I'll phrase them better next time so it doesn't come across as demanding people revisit old answers. $\endgroup$
    – Emilio Pisanty
    Dec 29 '13 at 8:58
  • $\begingroup$ (Re: the Spivak answer: I left that out as it does not address the question and the OP said so. But it's ok like this too.) $\endgroup$
    – Emilio Pisanty
    Dec 29 '13 at 8:59
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @RobertSmith The motivation for upkeeping this type of old post is that answers to this site make up a relatively lasting repository of knowledge and it's to the benefit of future users of our old content that it be in the best form possible. There is also a Broken Windows aspect: if all our resource recommendation questions are well kept and have descriptive answers, it is more likely future questions will also get descriptive answers. Otherwise, we slowly slide into the haze that drove a blanket ban on book questions until recently. $\endgroup$
    – Emilio Pisanty
    Dec 29 '13 at 9:04
  • $\begingroup$ @EmilioPisanty (re: comments) that makes sense. I may end up borrowing your comments too :P $\endgroup$
    – Manishearth
    Dec 29 '13 at 10:36
  • $\begingroup$ @EmilioPisanty Sure, the broken window thing is an interesting idea. I wish there was an easier way to do it, though :-) $\endgroup$
    – Robert Smith
    Dec 29 '13 at 19:40

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .