Part of the point of Tutorials is that they are further down the spectrum toward "meant to be perfected" and away from "historical writings owned by their author" (similar to Categorized Q+A, but not as far as that, at least not currently). But that is a fuzzy area and one we haven't really dealt with yet. Previously I've noted that if a tutorial's original author is not available to improve it at the point when someone sees improvements to be made, that tutorial could be taken over by a new maintainer or by pedagogues, for example. Precisely the best way to do this isn't obvious to me, however.
In this particular case, the improvements are quite small and don't take much away from the original "authorship" and so we may come to the consensus that such a change is allowed to be made by janitors because this is a tutorial. This particular case also involves a very old tutorial by an author who hasn't visited recently, so it may be appropriate to transfer ownership of the node to pedagogues while adding brief content to the top of the node noting (and thanking) the original author and explaining why ownership was changed.
In this particular case, I think that just having a janitor fix the links is the least distruptive of those choices so I think that is what I prefer. But I'd like to hear whether others feel this is appropriate, especially from those who feel strongly that janitors should not change content. Do y'all agree that tutorials should be treated somewhat differently? I still think that significant changes to content (yes, that is somewhat vague, intentionally) should not be made w/o modification of ownership. And modification of ownership is a tricky step to take and might best be done by always creating a new version of the tutorial that just links to the prior version while updating Tutorials to link to this new version.