Occasionally I come across a question that has been rightfully closed to to being unclear, unsourced, or otherwise problematic. But, I believe the crux of the question would be good for Skeptics.

In such cases, should I edit the question to bring it "up to code" (which would necessarily entail substantially changing the content) and vote to reopen, or post a new question? If the former is appropriate, should I give the original questioner some time to do their own work before I run roughshod over their question?

1 Answer 1


Yes, depending on your definition of "the crux of the question".

We like to err on the side of editing here on the Stack Exchange network, so long as the edits are substantive and improve the post in meaningful ways, without changing the meaning of the post.

You must log in to answer this question.

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