<p>Personally, I favor deleting obsolete comments, and I think this should include the comments I flagged. </p>

<ul>
<li><p>I see some value in preserving comments like <a href="https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/87099/is-there-any-way-the-adjusted-r2-might-decrease-by-adding-predictors#comment169921_87099">the first one I linked</a> for educational or cautionary purposes, but I think it's telling that the Math Educators community doesn't find enough of this value in keeping corrective comments around once the errors in question have been edited out.</p>

<ul>
<li>There are much better places to look for substantive education on subtle differences for general purposes: e.g., <a href="https://stats.stackexchange.com/q/25214/32036">How to choose between the different Adjusted $R^2$ formulas?</a></li>
</ul></li>
<li>Comments on matters of policy or general advice like <a href="https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/88158/anova-terminology-repeated-measures-vs-within-between-subjects#comment172431_88158">the second one I linked</a> shouldn't be left as pointers for other users unless they link to relevant meta-questions. We should probably have a new user advisory meta-post about making clarifications via edits instead of comments (if we don't already), as this is a common faux pas, but it seems naive to imagine isolated comments having any effect on the incidence of this behavior. Maybe the same would be true of a meta-Q. Still, I don't think users should inadvertently volunteer their posts as hosts for policy announcements by making initial mistakes that they then correct...At most these posts should host comments as signposts pointing to independent policy statements. Actual meta-questions can at least be edited, downvoted, responded to separately, and protected better from deletion.</li>
<li><p>I agree that these comments are somewhat distracting. I also suspect they may make a question or answer look worse than it is at first glance after its original blemishes have been removed. </p>

<ul>
<li>An author who never makes errors initially <em>might</em> be more credible than an author more like myself, and that info might be contained in obsolete comments to some very limited, unreliable extent, but not enough to justify tempting any readers to judge credibility by this criterion instead of more valid ones.</li>
</ul></li>
</ul>

<p>These points being made, I don't yet see a need for a CV-specific policy on obsolete comments, but I would welcome any suggestions, counterpoints, or competing answers.</p>
