Personally I find the "edit without peer review" too powerful, since you can do it for any question, regardless if you're supposed to be competent there or not; it would be better if it was limited for tags where you've got a bronze badge. Perhaps it's the lack of oversight which makes me a little wary. And 2000 rep isn't that hard to achieve, it just requires some persistence.

When I asked: https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/276496/how-to-deal-...

I was explictly told "Inform and educate, don't censor!." -- which from context clearly means "don't edit answers just because they are wrong".

I believe the idea is that if you're editing questions early on you learn what the expectation for edits are. I reject a lot of edits in the system for being edits that should be submitted as their own answers or as comments to the post they're editing. Ideally, once a user has gone through the system for long enough and had enough edits rejected for improper use of the system they'll know what to do once they reach the higher rep threshhold.

In practice however???

---

The system works well for fast and easy. A system like StackOverflow will never work well for highly specialized tasks and that's alright.