I noticed that when you have below $2000$ points you get $2$ reputation for editing a question, but once you reach $2000$ points where your edits don't have to revieved anymore you stop to get those $2$ points. I asked myself if there was any reason for this, why would you punish people with many points?

  • 9
    $\begingroup$ With enough negative votes, you will get below 2000 and then you can enjoy the extra reputation points again ;-) $\endgroup$
    – Fabian
    Commented May 22, 2011 at 17:03
  • 15
    $\begingroup$ @Fabian: the posts on meta don't generate reputation... :-) $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila Mod
    Commented May 22, 2011 at 17:07
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ edit tag wiki's instead... $\endgroup$
    – draks ...
    Commented Jan 21, 2013 at 12:01

1 Answer 1


I don't know why you would call this a "punishment." It makes sense for new users to have more avenues for increasing their reputation, since they need to in order to get more privileges and make a bigger contribution to the site. And if users above 2000 rep could get reputation for editing without overview, what's to stop them from constantly editing the same question over and over again to get reputation in a completely pointless way?

The act that merits +2 reputation is not the edit but the approval of the edit. That counts as a vote of confidence in the user.


You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .