(N.B. not to be confused with this question)
We are all aware of editing being a core value of the part-Wiki nature of the Stack Exchange websites.
We are also all aware of the website providing a system of check-and-balances for edits, as a way to prevent and counteract intentional vandalism or spam content. One of the most prominent of this aspect is that every time and question or an answer is edited, and every time a question is re-tagged, the software 'bumps' the question up to the top of the list of "Active" questions.
To prevent a user from using the above safety check as a method of keeping a question constantly on the front page (and presumably earn more reputation from the increased exposure), a secondary rule is in place that a post when edited too-much (by too many editors or by the original poster 10 or more times) becomes automatically Community Wiki. One can think of this as a way of reducing the likelihood of gaming the system.
Now, given the above check-and-balances (which I think takes pretty good care of the technical and reputation aspect of the problem), is there any other reason why we should discourage "frequent and plenty" (see below the cut) edits?
One possible objection I can see that may be raised is that "repeated edits crowd the front page and reduces the visibility of other questions". Some may counter that the existence of the "Newest" page in the list of questions should amend that. But for better or for worse recall that the default front-page to a first time user is the "Active" page.
For the sake of argument, let us define "frequent and plenty" thus: imagine a user who decides, for whatever reason, to write his or her response piecemeal, adding to it with a new edit every half hour, over the period of say 8 hours. (So 16 edits to the post in one working day.)
Further clarification: this question is not about the occasional bug fix; nor is it about discouraging edits in the abstract. It is only about a large number of edits coming in a short period of time. To phrase it differently: given that the software already "penalizes" (for the lack of a better word) a user for doing too many edits, is it then ok for a user to knowingly make "frequent and plenty" (see above) edits provided he/she is willing to "pay the tax" (so to speak)?
@Arturome). At this point, I'm done with you insulting my intelligence. $\endgroup$