5

This question If cars really hit 20 moose per day in Sweden, how does this affect the sustainability of the moose population? is in danger of being migrated to Skeptics. (Old title was: Do cars really kill 20 moose per day in Sweden?) I could easily edit it so it would be unquestionably on topic for TGO, but, because I answered it, I am not sure whether it would be kosher for me to edit the Q.

The OP read a statistic which seemed off to him. The statistic was right (except for round-off error), and was easily confirmed. There is no debate about the statistic. The real question, which I think must have been in the OPs mind although he did not express it except tangentially, is about the context of the statistic (e.g., traffic accidents vs hunting) and the impact on the sustainability of the moose population. It is about the interaction of humans and wildlife, which we here are equipped to understand and respond to.

So, @James Jenkins and All: Am I allowed to edit the question, or will the OP or someone else edit it, and can we stop this from being migrated?

Addendum: I decided it is better to ask for forgiveness than permission, so I edited the question. Let's see what the reaction is. Apologies to the OP if I have done too much.

8

Please take the following statement as my opinion and an attempt to be constructive, not at all as any sort of judgment (on what authority anyway?).

I think the edit changed the question completely. The topics are closely related, they probably even share aspects, but they are distinct. Even if it is in the interest of the original author, this is problematic. Now answers and comments are out of context. There is a much simpler and cleaner solution: Ask a new question. It happens all the time that a question starts along the lines of: An answer to *original question* prompted me to wonder about *curious statement*. What are the consequences of *curious statement* in *context I am interested in*.

Again, that's just my opinion about a possibly better approach at handling this.

EDIT:
After writing the above I read Sue's comments in chat about the issue and she brought up the same point and the additional one about close votes. So I went along the sentiment in your addendum and rolled the edit back.

  • Thanks for this imsodin. I've been preparing an answer along these exact lines, but you've expressed it better than I could! I especially think the history of this site supports those new follow-up type questions. They've even become very popular. Here's an example: outdoors.stackexchange.com/questions/16719/…... – Sue Saddest Farewell TGO GL Aug 2 '17 at 22:44
  • "How many live moose are there in Sweden to support these kind of losses?" is the sustainability question. And since I included the question about the truth of the statistic, the comments are still pertinent. IMO, all I did was shift the emphasis of the three parts of the question, and preserved the three parts. I think you should have waited for other opinions before rolling back, but I am not going to roll back your roll back. ("Better to ask for forgiveness than permission" is a well known saying supporting initiative. It is the antithesis of a humble attitude!) – ab2 Aug 2 '17 at 22:44
  • 1
    I think I'd support this perspective, imsodin. Keep the original question, but add a ne one as per ab2's thoughts and add a link between the two. That way you get both pieces. – Rory Alsop Aug 3 '17 at 9:07
  • 1
    @ab2 I acted because I saw 4 close votes, Sue's arguments and supposedly nobody was around (it was 1am CET), I should have tried to contact you and Sue first, who apparently were around at the time - sorry for that. – imsodin Aug 3 '17 at 9:52
  • Thanks for the thought imsodin but there was no need to have contacted me. I'd already expressed my feelings in the chat room, so acting on them was totally valid. I would only have thanked you for wanting to act so quickly, and for doing it so well. Also, even if I'm around, I don't always watch my inbox, which is wrong of me. The notifications are off because of my hearing deficit, so I have to pay better attention. I also pop in and out a lot, so if I've been here recently, I could already be gone. You were right too because most of the active users live in a different time zone. – Sue Saddest Farewell TGO GL Aug 4 '17 at 0:20
2

I am the OP, I post a lot of questions, and for the most part I accept all edits to my posts. Posting anything to a stack exchange site puts it in the public domain. If you think a post needs to be edited, do so. There are lots of options and opportunities for the post to be modified again. We are a community, nothing any one person does is binding. As long as you editing in good faith to improve the post, do it. The community may or may not allow your edits to stand.

user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required rev 2017.8.4.26692

Related to your specific concerns on this question

is in danger of being migrated to Skeptics

While some people in the community definitely felt like that was what should happen.

(4 up votes on comment) I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because this question belongs on skeptics.stackexchange.com – Mr.Wizard Jul 31 at 18:15

Twice as many people disagreed with that line of thought.

(8 up votes on comment) @Mr.Wizard I'm not active enough on Outdoors to know if there's a specific policy overruling this here, but generally, the consensus across SE sites is that when a post is on-topic for multiple sites, which site it gets to live on is at the discretion of the person asking. "It's a better fit elsewhere" is not the same as "it is not welcome here" if it is otherwise on topic. – Beofett Jul 31 at 20:15

On Beta sites the only does not belong here option is move to meta. A move to skeptics can only occur with moderator action. Which seems unlikely in this case.

If the question gathers 5 close votes, 5 more votes will reopen it. Given the number of up votes on the it should stay here comment by Beofett, I expect it the question would quickly be reopened.

In closing, personally I know that what I write does not always come through as clearly as it is in my mind. I look at the post and it seems fine, but it is not clear to others. Generally when this happens someone, can see what I was trying to say and comes by and fixes it. Unless they mangle it very badly I tend to leave the edits, and if someone else comes and changes it again, I tend to leave the new edit as well.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .
https://outdoors.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1003/would-it-be-kosher-for-me-to-edit-this-question-to-bring-it-unquestionably-on-to
outdoors.meta.stackexchange.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2021-04
136050
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:O3VQ67MJVXSM3I2AJCHLYLELGUVFATZP
<urn:uuid:369508c0-ac7b-4678-82da-8d4010b062cb>
2021-01-16T18:16:10Z
151.101.129.69
text/html
sha1:L3BDYMZE5E2MZJE27RRRK573233VXM7V
<urn:uuid:05841159-0305-46a9-a88c-8db27f84320e>
https://outdoors.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1003/would-it-be-kosher-for-me-to-edit-this-question-to-bring-it-unquestionably-on-to
response
<urn:uuid:6f2f8f1a-8186-4c64-9040-fc4b16cfa1fe>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2021-04
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for January 2021
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-233.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.17 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.2-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/