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.

On similar questions:

A similar question has been asked: Giving edit privilege based on number of trustworthy edits, but I am not calling for a "trustworthiness" measure nor lowering the bar (actually I want to raise the bar slightly!) on how much reputation is needed to edit without review. Just suggesting that users should have some reviewed edits (say three) before being able to edit without review.

  • 4
    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? Oct 21, 2011 at 9:29
  • 2
    @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... Oct 21, 2011 at 9:41
  • 4
    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. Oct 21, 2011 at 10:09
  • Voted to reopen. Would like to see this discussion resumed. Duplicate link contains an accepted answer that is entirely unsatisfactory. Also; commenting on this post, the requirement should be for a percentage of edits approved and a minimum number of approved edits, rather than just the latter.
    – Jason C
    Nov 10, 2014 at 2:44
  • The question is still a dupe - This question: "it would make sense to have a number of accepted edits, in addition to the 2000 reputation" - The other question "Shouldn't we give edit privileges based on the number of "trustworthy edits" made, in addition to the reputation privilege?". They are the same proposal. @JasonC A duped question having an unsatisfactory answer is no reason to dupe it, nor does it benefit anyone having the same thing twice. On the original, comment, vote, and/or add a bounty. There are exact bounty reasons which cater for what you want.
    – James
    Nov 10, 2014 at 14:00
  • @James Referring to the duplicate description box: This question has been asked before but does not already have an answer. Those answers do not fully address my question, but I would rather reopen this one than ask a new one.
    – Jason C
    Nov 10, 2014 at 14:10
  • @JasonC "Those answers do not fully address my question, but I would rather reopen this one than ask a new one" You have misinterpreted that completely. It is not saying open a dupe, it is saying "if those answers do not fully address your question, ask a new one". "Your" question being different to this one. and "this one" being a dupe, still. It has been said before the wording is misleading, see here: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/174744/…
    – James
    Nov 10, 2014 at 14:19
  • @James Personally, I have voted to reopen, my reasons, which I hold to, are stated above. I won't hold it against anybody if no further reopen votes are cast. In any case, on either question, I would like to see a response with a diamond.
    – Jason C
    Nov 10, 2014 at 14:55

1 Answer 1


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...

I wrote the above a long time ago. While I eventually became interested in editing other people's posts (and my English improved a lot thanks to SE), I still think this would be too annoying if implemented on a per-site basis.

If the edits required can come from other SE sites, I'm all for it.

  • 1
    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. Oct 21, 2011 at 11:18
  • 1
    Thinking that users should have figured it out is idealistic. The reality is that does not happen as often as we'd like. Requiring a % of edits to be approved is unarguably a far better metric than reputation alone, which is awarded for things irrelevant to edits.
    – Jason C
    Nov 10, 2014 at 2:45

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .