When we get a question that is essentially useful but written in such a way that it is not easy to answer well, should editors jump in and significantly revise it? I'm specifically looking at this wiki-style question: What tactics other than 'setting an example' successfully encourage friends/family/others to become cyclists?
The question is IMO a useful but has been phrased to encourage poor answers:
Clearly this is an open ended question with many answers. Personal anecdotes are welcomed, did a childhood gift of a bike, a bike-to-work scheme or the advice of a doctor work for you? Is there anything that we can learn from other walks of life? Statistics and studies could also provide answers. Whatever hints and tips you have to help people take up cycling as a way of life are welcomed. Answers with lateral thinking, tips from other walks of life are also welcomed.
I am inclined to remove that entirely and instead make the explicit question:
How can I be more effective in my efforts to encourage others to cycle? Links to research results or long-running successful programmes are preferred over personal anecdotes. Humor is allowed but should not be the only reason for an answer.
I'm trying to preserve the intention of the questioner but I've completely rewritten the question. I'd also like to prune the body of the question but at some point it stops being Matthew's question and becomes mine...