4
$\begingroup$

The question is Integral of sinc function multiplied by Gaussian. The author, who doesn't seem to have contributed since 2012, answered his own question to say thank you. We all know it's not recommended, but after I flagged as poor quality, it passed the review with 3/2 votes.

I'm not here to grumble about this. Actually, the answer had something more that might justify not simply deleting it, but I am not used to that situation and I would like to clarify the proper way to deal with this.

My idea would be to move the useful content in the answer at the end of the question, and remove the answer, as it's not an answer (i.e. flag for removal, I guess). Any idea about this?

$\endgroup$
3
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ The answer is not complete since it does not provide details, though it provides the final answer, which is why I think some people okayed it. This is a case of a user self-answering without providing details because he/she believes there's no point as he/she has already understood the working or other answers contain it. It needs to be emphasized that all answers need to be community serving and not just self-serving, and I think that answer just tips on the self-serving side. With that, I think the right action is deletion of the answer and insertion into the end of the question post. $\endgroup$ Feb 17 at 6:08
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @TeresaLisbon I see. Actually I didn't realize that his question was changed a bit in his comment to the question, so it seemed to me it was a follow-up answer, but actually no, it's indeed an answer without details. With that in mind, I agree fully with your comment. $\endgroup$ Feb 17 at 13:33
  • $\begingroup$ Hi Jean-Claude, thanks for the agreement. I will post the above as an answer, I will see if I can make it a little more detailed maybe, but mostly that will be the content. $\endgroup$ Feb 17 at 13:40
8
$\begingroup$

I think a lot of users take self-answering for granted. What implicitly happens while writing a self-answer, is that we have a certain context which we implicitly place on other users, and then write the answer. This leads to locality of the answer. For example, avoiding details makes the answer highly self-serving , because the intention of every answer, including a self-answer, is to serve the community, not yourself.

For this and this reason alone, the above answer should be flagged as an example of what can go wrong in self-answering. However, since it contains a generalization to the result, and a final answer, we can at least retain that part by attaching it to the end of the answer.

There is no need to ask for the opinion of OP, he/she has not visited the site for eight years, and therefore there is no opportunity to educate that person. Thus, we may entirely act in service to the community and do the honors of copy-pasting the post's material to the end of OP's question, and deleting his/her answer.

In general, we can do the same to self-answers which are self-serving. The moral of the story here is that self-answers still have to be community-serving, despite being written by the questioner him/herself.

EDIT: The change to OP's question has been completed, see here. The copying into the post of the self-answer has been done unabridged, and the answer has been deleted.

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ @amWhy That is an error. The "we" in that statement is truly only an "I". I meant to delete the answer via a flag, rather than through downvoting. I knew in terms of votes that I would need help. Maybe I should have asked for it rather than flagged. I will do this in the future. $\endgroup$ Feb 17 at 18:23
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ No problem, @Teresa; your heart was in the right place. $\endgroup$
    – amWhy
    Feb 17 at 18:26
  • $\begingroup$ @amWhy Thank you. I just wish to be warned if I'm doing something against community guidelines. Or do you think we can downvote it and delete it? I did not wish to do that, it would look like a coordinated downvote which I cannot encourage, even in such a situation. I'd rather a moderator took it down for the sake of the site. $\endgroup$ Feb 17 at 18:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Even if it stays, your edit makes the answer moot (a good thing, its where it belonged in the first place.) This was an unusual situation; coming back after quite some time to to answer the question from 2012. I will keep an eye out the answer, and may find a spare downvote to contribute, though. In any case, you did not do anything against community guidelines. New situations rarely have much precendence. $\endgroup$
    – amWhy
    Feb 17 at 18:31
  • $\begingroup$ @amWhy Thank you for your reassurance. I hope the flag goes through, but in any event I will track the answer and edit as well. $\endgroup$ Feb 17 at 18:33
  • $\begingroup$ @amWhy Thank you for the delete vote, we have managed to close the question normally. $\endgroup$ Feb 19 at 4:30

You must log in to answer this question.

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