3

A good answer was posted, but it included a meta-commentary that is not necessary to be on a post (since Stack Exchange is supposed to be a repository of high-quality questions and answers).

I suggested an edit to remove it, but it was rejected by the OP.

I assume there might be a continuing issue about the site's scope and how each user interprets it. However, this is not my current focus, and ideally, respected users should bring that issue on the meta instead.

Back to the core of the issue,

  1. Is meta-commentary accepted on a post on this SE?
  2. If not, how to handle it properly?
| |
4

We have a Code of Conduct. We have moderators and staff to deal with breaches of the code.

It doesn't require us to post good or targeted or relevant questions or answers. We have commenting, editing, flagging and voting mechanisms to deal with this.

Ultimately, the post "belongs" to the community but the OP has a special interest in it. If they have considered feedback and rejected it; unless it breaches the code, that's their prerogative.

| |
2

There is no prohibition against making irrelevant statements on Law SE. You are correct that such statements detract from the value of an answer, so you can certain suggest an improvement to a post. Another possibility is to down-vote, though adding a comment would help to distinguish the imaginable reasons (such as "that is just wrong as a statement of the law"). I think is is not useful to post a meta question every time a user does something like that ("like" in a broad sense, including claims that X is the law without providing any evidence that that is what the law is). Instead, localize the objection to the objectionable answer.

| |

You must log in to answer this question.

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