user199: This question, about the three characteristics, seems pretty succinct and should be easy to answer. In fact someone has already given an answer that is, one level, perfectly fine. However, they've also offered translations that are not, in my opinion, at all correct.
My preferred approach would be to simply go in and offer better translations. That keeps the focus on one answer(1), lets it get voted up, and in general should make the whole thing more useful for subsequent readers. But it risks trampling on another user (the first person who answered). 
Any guidance?
(1) Presumably the ideal SE Q&A is a single succinct, well-targeted question, with a single, succinct, and universally accepted answer. ("Q: What is 1+1?", "A: 2"). That's hard to get, but I assume we should try to approach it when possible, no?

user-1: Making your suggestions for edits in the comments is the "right speech" thing to do.

user230: Personally, other then minor edits such as spelling or fixing links, if I come across an answer the I can significantly improve on I edit it.
I only add a new answer if there is some new or different information to add.

user18: No, I think we're trying for multiple competing answers... Area51 says:

2.5 answers per question is good, only 1 answer per question needs some work. On a healthy site, questions receive multiple answers and the best answer is voted to the top.

Changing an existing answer risks offending the answerer and causing comment storms, I would think.
BTW, I think the best answer in this case should probably be a lot longer than the one given.

199: <p><a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/1854/what-are-the-three-marks-of-existence">This question</a>, about the three characteristics, seems pretty succinct and should be easy to answer. In fact someone has already given an answer that is, one level, perfectly fine. However, they've also offered translations that are not, in my opinion, at all correct.</p>

<p>My preferred approach would be to simply go in and offer better translations. That keeps the focus on one answer(1), lets it get voted up, and in general should make the whole thing more useful for subsequent readers. But it risks trampling on another user (the first person who answered). </p>

<p>Any guidance?</p>

<p>(1) Presumably the ideal SE Q&amp;A is a single succinct, well-targeted question, with a single, succinct, and universally accepted answer. ("Q: What is 1+1?", "A: 2"). That's hard to get, but I assume we should try to approach it when possible, no?</p>
 -1: <p>Making your suggestions for edits in the comments is the "right speech" thing to do.</p>
 230: <p>Personally, other then minor edits such as spelling or fixing links, if I come across an answer the I can <strong>significantly</strong> improve on I edit it.</p>

<p>I only add a new answer if there is some new or different information to add.</p>
 18: <p>No, I think we're trying for multiple competing answers... Area51 says:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>2.5 answers per question is good, only 1 answer per question needs some work. On a healthy site, questions receive multiple answers and the best answer is voted to the top.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Changing an existing answer risks offending the answerer and causing comment storms, I would think.</p>

<p>BTW, I think the best answer in this case should probably be a lot longer than the one given.</p>
