2
$\begingroup$

It is the second time my answer is edited this week. I have no problem with peer reviewing as long as it improve the answer not denaturing it. So I re-edited twice the answer in order to keep desired and correct modifications bit I restored the original meaning of the answer.

Last edit contained wrong information! Further it has been done by an user with no activity in Physics SE. How can I prevent other people to modify my answer with wrong knowledge? Why am I not able to validate (accept/deny) modifications. There are various tools to improve quality of answer (vote, flags). And other users may write their own answers or downvote mine if they do not agree with. Is there a way to lock this answer before it happens again?

| |
$\endgroup$
6
$\begingroup$

A basic rule of Stack Exchange is that people can edit your work here. The edit history allows readers to sort out who is actually responsible for which words, but even so we are sensitive to the possible appearance that people are putting words in your mouth. That is part of why you should get notified every time your one of your posts is edited.

You have the power to re-edit or to roll-back changes you don't like. If an edit war begins to develop, don't engage with the other user, just flag the post using a custom flag reason and explain your point of view. A moderator will try to sort things out.

Most of the edits other users make to my posts are improvements in my mind as well as theirs. In most of the exceptions they things they worked on really was a deficiency, I just don't like how they tried to fix it and I re-fix it to my own satisfaction.

It is that ability to re-intervene if I don't like what they have done that lets me remain unperturbed by the ability of other users to edit my posts. I hope that it will do the same for you in time.


Addressing specifically the matter of low rep users introducing edits: those edits are not applied until after a edit review proccess in which they are seen by no few than two users with un-reviewed editing privileges. In this case the first two user to review the edit approved it and it was applied. This took approximately 5 minutes in this case, though I have seen edits pending for hours in the past.

Low rep users whose edits are routinely turned down can lose the privilege of suggesting edits and reviewer can lose that privilege as well if (1) they fail enough review audits or (2) (seems review audits are not enabled on Physics SE right now) they come to the moderators attention for bad reviews too often.

So, again, the correct action if you think a edit that was made to one of your posts was improper is to flag the post so that a moderator (or several) will look at the situation. Even if we don't take action that time it can lead to our seeing a pattern and practice that might eventually lead to action.

In this case I think the low-rep editor was genuinely trying to help clarify some murky bits in you text and the reviewers agreed.


Concerning these particular edits, I have to say that reasoning like "Current is the reason why it is heating, voltage is the cause." is suspect and often the cause of confusion. To truly understand any given case you have to look carefully at what is constant in the situation and what is subject to case-by-case variation.

Many supplies in the everyday world (batteries, line power, etc) are approximately fixed voltage supplies. In those case the current is a consequence of the voltage and resistance. The form V^2/R give the best intuition for how the inputs (voltage and resistance across the short) affect the heat produced. Notice how you can read directly that lower resistance causes more power and that higher supply voltage causes the power to grow quadratically.

Yes, the usual form IV is correct, but you lose the intuition about the actual situation on the ground by suggesting that the current is something you have control of directly rather than being something you have to adjust by effectively turning another dial. In other words this is to some degree a choice made to help engineer things, rather than a fundamental choice, but there is widespread expert agreement on the matter. Jerry's edit improved your post, and you hurt it's quality by putting it back.

There do exist good approximations to fixed-current supplies and in those cases the form I^2 R give the best intuition. These mostly show up in electronics and I'm weak enough in the subject to not try to provide an example off the cuff.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I would only add that the post owner does get notified of pending reviews, and can reject them, but only if the owner sees and acts on the notification before the (500 rep?) reviewers handle it. (Though these days I rarely see any pending edits, since they are usually reviewed very quickly.) $\endgroup$ – user10851 Jul 14 '14 at 5:53
  • $\begingroup$ +1 good explanation $\endgroup$ – jlandercy Jul 14 '14 at 5:59
  • $\begingroup$ Are review audits actually in place on this site? $\endgroup$ – Emilio Pisanty Jul 14 '14 at 15:48
  • $\begingroup$ @EmilioPisanty Hmmm... I don't know. Have you done a lot of reviews without encountering one? If they are not we may need them soon--review activity has been increasing. $\endgroup$ – dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten Jul 14 '14 at 16:05
  • $\begingroup$ I have never seen an audit that I know of. Does the system notify you that it was an audit of you pass? $\endgroup$ – Emilio Pisanty Jul 14 '14 at 16:16
  • $\begingroup$ Also, is there any sign of robo-reviewers? I wouldn't really think 'increased review activity' is a bad thing, or something that needs audits to be put in place, just on its own. $\endgroup$ – Emilio Pisanty Jul 14 '14 at 16:17
  • $\begingroup$ It congratulates you if you pass or suggests taking some extra care if you fail. I guess they are not active. $\endgroup$ – dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten Jul 14 '14 at 16:18
  • $\begingroup$ @ChrisWhite 2000 rep for reviewing suggested edits. (500 for sites in beta) $\endgroup$ – Bernhard Jul 15 '14 at 18:20
1
$\begingroup$

The first edit seemed okay to me, actually. V is the invariant here, and V^2/R for small R will lead to high power -- that's what Jerry was trying to say. With I^2R it's not immediately obvious if the high I will overcome the low R.

Still, if you feel an edit was mistaken, feel free to roll it back or engage the editor in the comments (pinging a user who has edited the post works).

With the second edit, that was a suggested edit from a low rep user and you should have gotten a notification asking for review. Others approved it, but you can still roll it back. I don't see much of an issue with it, though, I>5A is indeed unusual for normal wires, and current usually is of the order of a few hundred mA.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Current about 1A and more are very common, even for domestic application (toaster, heater, wash machine, etc.). A toaster is about 850W and it is pure resistance. I>5A if continuously applied may switch off thermal protection of a circuit breaker, but they are totally acceptable as transient demand. Anyway thank you for answering. $\endgroup$ – jlandercy Jul 13 '14 at 11:09

You must log in to answer this question.

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