I agree with everything you said. Thank you for the articulate reply.
In the cb, naikonta asked if the link could be fixed. My initial comment was the same as jdporter's (in Re^2: Page not found issue while accessing a link from perl monk's tutorial): janitors don't change content. Per What do Janitors do?:
Janitors are specifically directed not to use their power to fix typos
Instead, I suggested that s?he msg the author
and add a reply that contains the proper link.
After I realized that the node in question was a tutorial, that the author has not logged in for nearly a year, and that the node had already been updated by a janitor (in 2005), I revised my response and concurred with the others in the cb at the time that the node could be considered for editing. My primary reasons for doing that were that
- the node was categorized as a tutorial (which, in my mind, are held to a slightly higher standard), and
- pedagogues (currently) have neither an established process nor the ability to edit Tutorials (they can only organize them)
Given that this particular edit would not change the semantic content of the node and would be performed to fix a technical issue, I think a janitorial edit is appropriate.
From the larger perspective of site policy, I like the idea of creating a copy of a tutorial that is owned by pedagogues if edits to the original node are required and the original author is no longer active and able to make the changes. This would allow the original author to maintain ownership of the unaltered original node and still allow the pedagogues to keep the tutorial current. In addition and for the sake of transparency, I would advocate that the new copy (listed in Tutorials) should contain a link back to the original node.