Not sure there's anything even close to a cohesive "company view" on this topic, but here's my $0.02:
Edits are awesome
Editing is what separates us from the
animals forums. The ability of anyone viewing a page to step in and fix problems they see is incredibly powerful.
Of course, you don't get great power without great potential for abuse...
Generally, folks get too wound up about minor mistakes
You'll find all sorts of discussion and hand-wringing here on Meta. Some of it is warranted; a lot of it isn't. Yes, folks make mistakes. That's why everything is logged and anyone with the ability to edit a post has the ability to fix someone else's edit.
The review system for suggested edits acts as a sanity-check, not an editorial board
The biggest danger with allowing anyone to edit comes from folks who are overtly malicious or utterly clueless, and would cheerfully fill the site with spam, vandalism and various other forms of abuse if given the chance.
By and large, the review system does a pretty decent job of preventing this.
As you can see, reviewers are not at all hesitant to reject edits, and the results reflect this: the roll-back rate for suggested edits is significantly lower than that for 3rd-party edits as a whole.
Matching up reviewers with topics they know well is hard
This is probably the Achilles heel of suggested edits and, well, /review in general: it's site-wide, so the chances of someone with an in-depth knowledge of the subject reviewing any given edit aren't great. This doesn't matter for edits that just straighten up formatting or fix spelling or attempt to introduce blatant spam... But anything more interesting stands a reasonable chance of getting botched.
If a bad edit is approved, the damage is limited - folks can always roll it back. But if a good edit is rejected, there's no guarantee anyone will ever suggest it again. If the editor doesn't check back and the original author isn't around anymore, that edit gets buried in the system and forgotten about.
So what can we do to improve this?
I don't know.
I suspect there's a place for some additional oversight here; the equivalent of an "editor in chief" role. But I haven't particularly liked any of the ideas I've seen toward this end thus far.
I wish there was a way to put edits in front of topic experts before deferring to folks in other areas of the site. Frankly, I wish this was the case for pretty much all of community moderation. But there's not very much support for that in the system, and building it isn't trivial. Right now, Stack Overflow is probably the only site that really needs something like this, so the appeal is fairly limited.
By and large though, I think the system works reasonably well. When I review reviewers, I'm generally pleased with their work, and with the improvements made as a result of it.