Continuing the discussion from Suggested Edits:
I don’t know. My big hesitation can be summed up as:
Past discussions are not intended to evolve, over time, into well edited books and reference manuals. They are intended to be a means of communication between people, first and foremost. It does not necessarily follow, therefore, that said communication is actually less effective if not conducted in a perfected form of a given language.
The idea that the majority of contributors to a forum would like to receive PMs regarding their spelling and grammar seems dubious to me. At least, it seems that way to me because I’ve too often seen it degrade into a kind of trolling, and encouraging suggested edits for this purpose would feed that behavior, which is generally unwelcome on the receiving side unless the OP openly asked for that feedback. On StackExchange suggested edits (or just outright edits) is the kind of thing makes sense because of the utility of the information is the goal, and you want each successive pass on a question/answer to polish it into a fine nugget of useful and clearly communicated knowledge. On a discussion forum…well, not so much. At some point if edits and suggested edits come into play you open the potential to completely edit out a person’s voice from what they originally said, a phenomenon which is antithetical to discussion in any form - whether face-to-face, online, or over through other means.
Regarding obscenities and style enforcement
On the obscenities point (or really, for any forum that would like to strictly enforce a given style), again that seems like a vote for forum software as a polished version of communication as opposed as a conduit for encouraging communication between people. I think when strict or overly detailed discussion styles begin to be enforced it’s inevitable that it’s going to increase moderator load, even if a suggested edits system existed. I think this would happen simply because the more rules you have and more detailed those rules are, the more in-fighting and editing wars you’re going to create, which is going to get fed back to the moderator(s) whenever it gets out of control. In the end suggested edits don’t wind up reducing moderator load at all, and instead create a whole category of meta discussion around what is and isn’t an appropriate edit to make or suggest. How about just not having peer edits in the first place?
So, I don’t see suggested edits as a solution that will actually, successfully achieve the goal of ridding a forum of spelling and grammar issues.
Where’s the line?
I also don’t feel comfortable with the whole idea of feeding the inner censors (even my own inner censor). Nor am I personally in favor of supporting the, “Everyone should communicate online in perfect, well written [insert your language]” crowd. While I realize that many members of a given forum enjoy and would like to participate in what they believe is help to others there is at least an equal (if not greater) number of people on the receiving end of those edits that would prefer to either have their posts passed over by the grammar folks, or more broadly, to be judged not by their specific words, word choices, or whether they are an expert practitioner of the language in question; but instead by the ideas they are trying to convey through that language.