Thanks for posting this. This feels like exactly the right line of thinking.
I'll add another factor to the list -- I hate it when other people edit my answer. I've had to revert edits a couple of times because the edit changed the meaning of my answer. It feels like incentivizing edits with rep leads to over-editing. And having your own words/code changed also feels like a knock. Perhaps answer editing should be opt-in/out? "Yes, let someone edit my answer for clarity."?
I wanted to specifically mention the Software Engineering site as one that I have found especially brutal. General engineering questions are frequently not about "the right answer" (because there isn't one right answer), but instead about weighing options and their trade-offs. Because of the QA format inherited from SO, asking about options and their trade-offs is usually considered "too broad". I have seen a lot of good, answerable questions get closed. And I've gotten scolded in the past for answering anyway. It seems like it needs to be a different format from the other sites.
I have a couple of answers that I’ve had to revert multiple times because they’re about a nuanced, no longer well documented topic. Every time it gets edited it gets “fixed” by well meaning users reading documents for a different version, and they make my answers downright wrong. I don’t mind people improving my answers, but screwing them up without notifying me wears on me.
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
We strive for transparency and don't collect excess data.