@JohannesKuhn yeah, but some people get round that. You can see from the comments they've "corrected the syntax" or "formatting". They capitalize a few characters here and there that nobody notices to make the minimum edit limit. There are not enough people selecting "too minor" option to make a difference.

Perhaps, I can't claim to have read enough of the stack-exchange how-to and rules to know. If that's the case then that sooth's my sense of justice :-)

So the thing that promoted me thinking about this question was seeing someone who'd gained 800 rep of which 750 was through edits. Most of them spurious. My 1700 is mostly through (accepted) answers. There's something which pricks at my sense of justice that this person will be eligible to review others' edits before I will. This is based on the rate they were acquiring rep through spurious edits. But then I guess there are rules lawyers in every system. I feel bad for being irritated for that. But hey.

Am I the only one who feels that there is something terribly wrong with a legal system that makes it impossible for people to safely discuss the law "to the best of their knowledge". How are people supposed to learn about the law and how are they expected to know it in order to keep it, if we can't openly discuss it?