The last time I tried that, I edited an answer that was several years out-of-date with a rewritten, up-to-date one that explained exactly how to do what the question asked, in a well-organized, sequential manner.

My edit was quickly rejected by a user who had no knowledge whatsoever of the technical domain in question, claiming that my edit went against the spirit or intention of the original answer's author. I then submitted mine as a separate answer, where it languishes at the bottom of the page, rarely noticed by users who come looking for the answer (and it's virtually the only hit on Google for the question, has been for years). They all see the outdated, poorly organized one instead.

So my work was a waste of time, shot down by an ignorant, mindless policy wonk whose only goal is to farm reputation points.

I have not contributed to SO since. I have better things to do with my time, like publish my own documentation on readmes on GitHub.

The solution to dups is obvious too, right? Close em as dups? Yet that is a large focus of the article.

The solution to out-dated answers might be obvious, but apparently obvious isn't stopping it from being a problem... it's a big problem.

If it's obvious, why is it still a problem? If the answer is "because the userbase isn't doing what I want", then _that's_ a problem to which the answer is apparently not obvious. To the extent that SO has been succesful, it is of course that figuring out how to structure the software so as to get the userbase to do useful things _is_ the problem, not an "exersize left to the reader".

It's a problem that is within your power to fix, and in fact within the power of anyone in front of a web browser to fix, because it requires no permissions or even a login. When you see an obsolete answer in need of clarification (such as this only works on versions 1.0 - 5.3, or this functionality was removed in version 2.3), press the edit button and make it so.

Only to have the edit be rejected by a wonk who's farming rep by mindlessly plowing through his edit queue so he can cite his SO reputation points on his LinkedIn profile. No thanks. If you want me to spend my time fighting against these kind of policy zombies on SO, you'll have to reward me appropriately.

When SO was new, there was incentive for people with expertise to contribute it. Now there is more incentive for Wikipedia-types to go around smashing others' contributions with their rejection hammers. It's a waste of time for those who actually have something to contribute.

> Edit the answer to make it better, more up to date

This is strongly discouraged because then the existing votes become a lie.

> or add a disclaimer at the top that it only applies to very specific versions as needed

This I think is allowed, but is extremely rare.

Editing is not strongly discouraged, and adding a disclaimer is not rare.

Editing in general no, changing the answer is. You get rebuked and told to post your own.

Yep, and then the better answer will sit at the bottom of the page, while the older one continues to be seen and gathers more upvotes.

I think there is a critical mass after which the site's focus changes from creation to protectionism, and then it becomes stagnant.