I actually thought about proposing something similar myself, I didn't as I knew it wouldn't get very far.
This is a huge change within Stack, and such changes are rarely implemented as it has great potential to cause unforeseen issues and pitfalls.
Often such changes can only be tested in the wilds, and that is not often a good idea.
Counter argument is (yes I'm arguing with myself) current complexity and already established functionality should not void attaining additional complexity or large changes if they return valuable and worthwhile improvement(s).
It's currently only a theoretical issue. In that, no-one yet has shown any figures which show this is an actual issue.
We can speculate that a user with rep only from questions/answers (and not edit, reviews, etc) gets edit privileges and can change others' posts for the worst.
- How often does that scenario occur?
- How often is it likely to occur in the future?
- Given X frequency of occurrence, what is frequency of poor edits?
- How detrimental is it to the site?
None of these questions are answered and as such the proposal is speculative/theoretical problem solving, and that doesn't get far on Stack - I know from my own proposals (no bitterness, it's actually logical).
So I'll add my thoughts, even though it's still a theoretical issue.
The currently accepted answer is:
You get reputation for the good edits you make and that will eventually give you edit privileges
You also get reputation from never doing an edit, ever, and then get access to edit on other users posts without peer review.
I've seen many users who's >2k rep is from >80% questions, and the remainder a few answers, often on their own question.
These users have no knowledge of how the review queues work, best practice when editing, should they edit and change the users code to fix the bug, or just comment etc etc.
Not that they will then suddenly start editing, but that comes down to the bullet points above.
Most good editors will have their own good posts as well
The issue is not about what else "good editors" have, it's about the reverse, users without edit experience getting the privilege to edit without any rep towards said privilege.
It's pretty easy to reach 2k.
But this is an argument in favour of this proposal as well, in that it's easier to get more rep from questions and answers only.
Then, having never done any edits, they have not proven their worthiness to edit, they've not even had any practice where others reject their edit, they re-assess, ponder their decision, learn, etc.
A similar scenario:
A car mechanic, qualified with various certificates, can take an engine and gearbox apart in 3 hours, and put it all back together again in less time.
Can prepare and paint the entire car, and all with perfect precision and highest standards.
Should he therefore be allowed to drive on the roads, without a driving license?
No, the same as someone who has only asked questions and gained 2k rep shouldn't be allowed to edit questions. The two tasks are entirely different.
There are a lot of politics and other considerations to make in editing someone else's question, or answer, which you can only learn from editing, or being involved in the site more than just asking questions.
So I'm in favour of the proposal.
When I passed the 3k rep mark in (old) MSE I then had privileges which allowed me to do things I openly admit I had no clue about nor best practice. My rep was from being involved in debating/asking/answering etc.
Being decent, I learned/read/watched others a bit first before pushing buttons, but how many users just get privileges and use them without having learned about them first?
Again, I'm not sure of the actual frequency of this issue, so it might be pointless for the work implementing it, but either way I support the logic and reasons behind the idea.