Nobody wants to admit that the only type of moderation that actually works at scale is an entrenched group of somewhat-expert overly-attached users gatekeeping contributions with (what looks like to the novice and sometimes even to the established user) extreme prejudice on a website with intentionally highly limited scope.
For me, I take time to edit questions with poor grammar and help people solve their problems from time to time.
moderation that works well is generally not very nice. content moderation that isn't somewhat cruel doesn't work very well.
The false negatives in the content moderation process are essentially irrelevant to anybody other than the person being moderated because there's enough other content being generated, so there's very little downside to being overzeaous in content moderating. at anything other than the very largest companies, being overzealous in rejecting interviewees will severely limit your talent pool.
Though I don't disagree that lots of well-intentioned humans could be a path to moderation that works.
Some edit wars on Wikipedia suggest the opposite.