I see quite often, especially when the problems with the review queue are discussed, that there is a proposed problem with people rep farming with edits. The idea is that these people are making poor edits just for the sake of the points you get when those edits are accepted.
If rep farming is a problem though, why offer the reputation in the first place? Two points of reputation isn't really anything, and in my opinion, the people who care about two points of reputation aren't the type of people who you would want to be making edits in the first place.
Wouldn't it be better to offer no reputation for making edits? The people who care to make the edits probably aren't doing it for the reputation anyways, and I'm fairly certain you don't get anything after you gain the privilege to make instant edits.
Even if the number of edits go down a bit as a result, if the number of rejected edits go down as well, I would think that would be a benefit.
My other thought is maybe to only encourage large edits. That way, people who take the time to fix the bad posts that require say, at least 5% of the post to be changed, would get rewarded. But the people who only change a couple letters would only be doing it because they actually care about fixing the couple typos.
Is rep farming actually a concern, and if it is, wouldn't it make more sense not to offer reputation for making edits?