This Question was recently closed as being primarily opinion-based. (I agree that is was opinion based, but I feel that it falls within the Good Subjective category and shouldn't have been closed. However that is a different discussion, and is not relevant to this question)
blah238 made substantial edits to it, and I am not comfortable with the changes that have been made. I feel that the question has been edited so much, it is a totally new question.
The earlier question was basically :"I don't understand why people use ArcGIS. Can you tell me why people rely on ArcGIS in-spite of its shortcomings?" The new question basically asks: "If you use ArcGIS products, please explain why. If you don't, please explain why not." This massive edit has totally changed the nature and the intent of the question.
I would not mind a new question with 0 answers being edited, since there are no legacy answers that seem out of place. In this case, most of the answers feel out of place, since they talk only about the strengths of ArcGIS, and not comparing ArcGIS and other platforms. The Highest voted answers are pretty bad answers to the question as it has been edited.
I understand that in the world of wiki-style editing and cc by-sa 3.0 licensing, no one owns a question, but I feel that these massive edits are far too much.
Further more, I don't even see how asking "If you use ArcGIS products, please explain why. If you don't, please explain why not." makes it an objective question. This is basically calling for a discussion, which is frowned upon in the Stack Exchange Universe.
I would feel far more comfortable if a new question was opened, and this question was restored to its original state. (Whether it is reopened or kept closed, doesn't matter in this discussion)
Now that I've expressed my opinion, I'll like to know what others feel.
I'll like to build a consensus on what to do in these kinds of situations. How much editing is possible, until it becomes a whole different question?