Possible Duplicate:
Giving edit privilege based on number of trustworthy edits

Once you hit 2000 reputation you gain the privilege to edit questions and answers even if you have never done so before, and therefore you might not know what is good editing etiquette.

Having your edits peer reviewed is painless so maybe it would make sense to have a number of accepted edits, in addition to the 2000 reputation, before you can edit without review.

share|improve this question
3  
In principle, I like this idea. 2000 rep + 3 approved edits isn't going to be onerous. On the other hand, is there a need for it? – lonesomeday Oct 21 '11 at 9:29
1  
@lonesomeday: I totally agree that the system is working. People with 2000 rep mostly know how to edit and we can totally stick with the principle of "if it ain't broke then don't fix it." But I think that this particular small tweak would help improve filtering of bad edits and maybe provide a stronger incentive to edit, you don't really have the edit privilege until you've done at least three edits... – HaskellElephant Oct 21 '11 at 9:41
3  
I think it is a good idea. My editing capability improved after a few of my edits were rejected. I had to dig into some meta posts and read relevant answers to find out what details have to be looked for while editing. – Aziz Shaikh Oct 21 '11 at 10:09

marked as duplicate by Toon Krijthe, Popular Demand, Al Everett, kiamlaluno, Andrew Barber Aug 9 '12 at 1:19

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

1 Answer

I think that users with 2,000 rep, even if they never edited a post before, should have figured out already where to find information about good editing etiquette.

While your idea might actually improve the editing capabilities of first-timers, the reason I don't like it nevertheless is that you have to make substantial edits to get them approved.

The times I wanted to make an edit, it usually was to fix typos, improve the grammar or replace an ambiguous word by an unambiguous one. I cannot suggest those edits.

I actually did suggest it once (I wanted to replace the word take by the word subtract in a question that half of the viewers misunderstood), but it got rejected as too minor. Even if it was only one word, I still disagree...

My point is:

I am not a native English speaker. Right now, I am not interested in making major edits to anyone's question, and I doubt I ever will be.

I would not like to have to come up with three substantial edits, just to be (finally) allowed to fix those annoying typos...

share|improve this answer
I think this is a valid point, however I can't shake the feeling that your problem is with substantial edits being considered good etiquette and essential for being peer reviewed. Edits that fixes typos gets approved all the time and all edits to other peoples posts have to change at least 6 characters. – HaskellElephant Oct 21 '11 at 11:18

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged
http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/109907/the-edit-privilege-could-require-some-approved-edits
meta.stackoverflow.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2013-20
40024
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:3XMQSKOD4XJPBREPSNE4JZTLO763BQTO
<urn:uuid:6c7cc14a-2559-4aaa-9371-2dfb561f6169>
2013-05-24T11:29:09Z
198.252.206.16
sha1:T3FHPTCYVAYCK4EBM5P5NKPNXROBEPAP
<urn:uuid:092f0a2c-dbd6-45c0-897e-4ff08db7c192>
http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/109907/the-edit-privilege-could-require-some-approved-edits
response
<urn:uuid:0566f3ff-29f6-420c-bb8d-b4f199782719>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-60-113-184.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2013-20
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web with URLs provided by Blekko for Spring 2013
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf