The first thing what I want to mention: correcting grammar makes the things better, it is generally a positive and not a negative deed, even if it is minor.
But: despite that it is a positive thing in a general sense, it may be harmful on the current limitations of the SE system.
In most cases, highly qualified experts of an area have perfect grammar. If there is an exception, it can have a lot of reasons. On my opinion, many of them is acceptable and should be tolerated, many of them isn't. Some examples:
- He is working in an uncomfortable environment.
- The capitals of his keyboard layout are mapped to the non-latinic alphabet of his native language.
- Sometimes he is only acknowledged to write in a chatting style on the net. As I experienced, this is somehow very rare in the case of professionals.
- Or he is using a braille writing system where using capitals and similar things would be simply unfeasible.
There could be another reason against that, and this is that a capital letter correction doesn't worth the 2 points of reputation which can be got for that. This is a systematic problem of the SE, adding major changes to a post extending with cutting edge scientific results worths exactly the same 2 points as a grammar correction.
Wikipedia has a "minor edit" box which can be checked on edits, and the reviewers have the option to get the list of the recent changes without them.
Maybe a similar feature of the SE would be also useful, but unfortunately it is over our scope. If it would exist, I would be happy to click this on all of my minor edits. I've initiated now a feature-request discussion about this on the meta SE.
This would also eliminate the problem, that doing minor edits over a (site-specific) acceptable rate highly worsens the site experience of the community members checking the questions ordered by their most recent activity.
There is an obvious argument: if a post wasn't received well, it should have been long downvoted and closed/deleted. If it didn't happen, it can be interpreted that the community accepted that, and this can be enough reason to not let them rest in peace with typos and grammar bugs.
Currently I've found an user whose posts are really on a professional level probably from the academical sphere, despite that he doesn't use capitals. I was aware the bumping problem and so I've reduced the edits to around 3-5/day, but it seems even it wasn't an acceptable rate.
Although it is not a professional site (there is one, the Theoretical Computer Science), on my opinion it would be highly subservient to at least try to follow the style of the professional publications not only in the content, but also in the form.
My suggestion would be the following:
- I would edit only 3 posts daily.
- I would edit only highly upvoted posts (for example, with vote counts over 2).
If it is not acceptable even in these, much lower limits, I am ready to stop it all, although I consider a little bit sorrowful to forbid to improve anything.