1

Situation

I recently spotted this question: Police forcing me to install Jingwang spyware app, how to minimize impact?

In this post there is a good technical question, but it also provides situational context based on sources. However, and it is not clear to me whether this is intentional or not, the situation description in the post is not consistent with the sources. A broader research suggests that the sources are correct.

Without claiming that the description in the question is untrue, at the very least the question could use some added detail to represent the situation more accurately.

I tried editing the post, unfortunately this got rejected, by a third person: https://security.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/125580

The reason for rejection is that it goes against the askers intent.

Question

Assuming that:

  1. My edit is not disputed to improve the description
  2. Any possible deviation from the authors intent would not result in the author still getting his technical question properly answered

Would it now be the right decision to edit the question?

| |
3

This is the sort of thing to use comments for: to ask the poster for clarification. As the poster is the one closer to the situation than we are, it makes more sense that they provide the details rather than we, who are only getting the information 2nd hand.

| |
  • Do you mean that my first assumption (The edit is not disputed to improve the description) is wrong? -- Note that I was actually in the area myself recently. Not the actual city but from the question I make out that the asker is not located there either. – Dennis Jaheruddin Oct 3 '18 at 8:39
  • 1
    "improve" is in the eye of the beholder. You are trying to correct facts, but I'm not sure that you are qualified to do so (I'm sure who would be qualified without more data). As the facts as stated by the OP do not modify the technical discussions, I would be loathed to take external facts and supplant their statements especially when facts are in short supply on this topic. If what they say is true, then that's important for reasons beyond the question. – schroeder♦ Oct 3 '18 at 16:38
  • Basically this says that unsupported irrelevant claims by any asker must be honored. (Suppose his claim would have been that most people in your city are drowning their pets based on a link to one occurrence, whilst you know this is not the most accurate description of the situation) – Dennis Jaheruddin Oct 8 '18 at 7:28
  • 1
    This says that primary data should be prefered over secondary data. Primary data supports itself. If there is a question about the accuracy of the data, then use comments to request clarification. – schroeder♦ Oct 8 '18 at 7:28
  • Your example is not applicable to this situation. Instead, it should be, "Suppose his claim would have been that most people in another city are drowning their pets based on a link to one occurrence, whilst you read somewhere else that this is not the most accurate description of the situation." – schroeder♦ Oct 8 '18 at 7:30
  • If you have primary data about the situation, then by all means supply it. – schroeder♦ Oct 8 '18 at 7:31
  • I am not sure what you mean by primary data, but I know that as soon as china starts enforcing spy app installs on foreigners, it will be all over the news. -- There is a grey line somewhere (only ugyur, ugyur and a little bit more...), but this is definitely on the side of certainty. – Dennis Jaheruddin Oct 8 '18 at 7:32
  • You are making a lot of assumptions and speculations, and those things should not be preferred over the experience of the person speaking. What the details actually are is a question. But we should not edit someone's report with details that we cannot confirm. This stand should not be a surprise to anyone. – schroeder♦ Oct 8 '18 at 8:05
  • Apologies, I did not realize this was a place to make reports in the first place. – Dennis Jaheruddin Oct 8 '18 at 8:34

You must log in to answer this question.

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