Return to Answer

Repeating my answer from meta:

Edits should be accepted if they are correct or helpful, and rejected if they are incorrect or spam. The length of the edit is irrelevant.

Who cares if the edit is tiny or major as long as it's improving the quality of the site's content? The reviewer's time has already been used in checking the edit, so nothing is lost in accepting it.

The How to Edit box next to the edit window encourages exactly these kinds of changes, so it would be pretty hypocritical and counterproductive to reject them:

How to Edit

► fix grammatical or spelling errors

► correct minor mistakes

The only valid concern I see here is that people could use spell-checking bots to "game the system" and gain rep without doing any work. But that's not solved by preventing small edits. It's solved by not rewarding rep for small edits. That's a problem with the site's design, not with the person going out of their way to improve the quality of its content. If the edits are constructive and helpful, accept them.

If we're discouraged from making small edits, and discouraged from making sweeping edits ("always respect the original author"), then what's the purpose of including a wiki function at all?

Repeating my answer from meta:

Edits should be accepted if they are correct or helpful, and rejected if they are incorrect or spam. The length of the edit is irrelevant.

Who cares if the edit is tiny or major as long as it's improving the quality of the site's content? The reviewer's time has already been used in checking the edit, so nothing is lost in accepting it.

The How to Edit box next to the edit window encourages exactly these kinds of changes, so it would be pretty hypocritical and counterproductive to reject them:

How to Edit

► fix grammatical or spelling errors

► correct minor mistakes

The only valid concern I see here is that people could use spell-checking bots to "game the system" and gain rep without doing any work. But that's not solved by preventing small edits. It's solved by not rewarding rep for small edits. That's a problem with the site's design, not with the person going out of their way to improve the quality of its content. If the edits are constructive and helpful, accept them.

If we're discouraged from making small edits, and discouraged from making sweeping edits ("always respect the original author"), then what's the purpose of including a wiki function at all?

Repeating my answer from meta:

Edits should be accepted if they are correct or helpful, and rejected if they are incorrect or spam. The length of the edit is irrelevant.  

Who cares if the edit is tiny or major as long as it's improving the quality of the site's content? The reviewer's time has already been used in checking the edit, so nothing is lost in accepting it.

The How to Edit box next to the edit window encourages exactly these kinds of changes, so it would be pretty hypocritical and counterproductive to reject them:

 

How to Edit

 

► fix grammatical or spelling errors

 

► correct minor mistakes

The only valid concern I see here is that people could use spell-checking bots to "game the system" and gain rep without doing any work. But that's not solved by preventing small edits. It's solved by not rewarding rep for small edits. That's a problem with the site's design, not with the person going out of their way to improve the quality of its content. If the edits are constructive and helpful, accept them.

If we're discouraged from making small edits, and discouraged from making sweeping edits ("always respect the original author"), then what's the purpose of including a wiki function at all?

Repeating my answer from meta:

Edits should be accepted if they are correct or helpful, and rejected if they are incorrect or spam. The length of the edit is irrelevant.

Who cares if the edit is tiny or major as long as it's improving the quality of the site's content? The reviewer's time has already been used in checking the edit, so nothing is lost in accepting it.

The How to Edit box next to the edit window encourages exactly these kinds of changes, so it would be pretty hypocritical and counterproductive to reject them:

 

How to Edit

 

► fix grammatical or spelling errors

 

► correct minor mistakes

The only valid concern I see here is that people could use spell-checking bots to "game the system" and gain rep without doing any work. But that's not solved by preventing small edits. It's solved by not rewarding rep for small edits. That's a problem with the site's design, not with the person going out of their way to improve the quality of its content. If the edits are constructive and helpful, accept them.

If we're discouraged from making small edits, and discouraged from making sweeping edits ("always respect the original author"), then what's the purpose of including a wiki function at all?

Repeating my answer from meta:

Edits should be accepted if they are correct or helpful, and rejected if they are incorrect or spam. The length of the edit is irrelevant.

Who cares if the edit is tiny or major as long as it's improving the quality of the site's content? The reviewer's time has already been used in checking the edit, so nothing is lost in accepting it.

The How to Edit box next to the edit window encourages exactly these kinds of changes, so it would be pretty hypocritical and counterproductive to reject them:

 

How to Edit

 

► fix grammatical or spelling errors

 

► correct minor mistakes

The only valid concern I see here is that people could use spell-checking bots to "game the system" and gain rep without doing any work. But that's not solved by preventing small edits. It's solved by not rewarding rep for small edits. That's a problem with the site's design, not with the person going out of their way to improve the quality of its content. If the edits are constructive and helpful, accept them.

If we're discouraged from making small edits, and discouraged from making sweeping edits ("always respect the original author"), then what's the purpose of including a wiki function at all?

Repeating my answer from meta:

Edits should be accepted if they are correct or helpful, and rejected if they are incorrect or spam. The length of the edit is irrelevant. 

Who cares if the edit is tiny or major as long as it's improving the quality of the site's content? The reviewer's time has already been used in checking the edit, so nothing is lost in accepting it.

The How to Edit box next to the edit window encourages exactly these kinds of changes, so it would be pretty hypocritical and counterproductive to reject them:

 

How to Edit

 

► fix grammatical or spelling errors

 

► correct minor mistakes

The only valid concern I see here is that people could use spell-checking bots to "game the system" and gain rep without doing any work. But that's not solved by preventing small edits. It's solved by not rewarding rep for small edits. That's a problem with the site's design, not with the person going out of their way to improve the quality of its content. If the edits are constructive and helpful, accept them.

If we're discouraged from making small edits, and discouraged from making sweeping edits ("always respect the original author"), then what's the purpose of including a wiki function at all?