Actually, we've generally elected to avoid directly editing each other's nodes, in part because of the risk of changing the intended meaning of the original poster.
While it's true that some take more care in composing their posts, it's generally thought that a few typos add to the character of the place. This follows a tradition found in similar communities (Usenet, old-school BBS's, etc), where one tends to focus on the quality of the message itself and not on the way it's constructed or delivered. Granted, well constructed (and edited) messages are more effective than barely legible screeds, but a few "tpyos" should be expected.
Also, keep in mind that:
One can always edit their own replies (plus the root nodes documented by turnstep). I've frequently had to root out a few unwanted expressions and extraneous characters and have generally resorted to composing off-line to catch the major problems.)
When one accidentally posts a typo in a non-editable node, one can always /msg a janitor for a quick fix. (Again, we tend to let the original author choose when--or if--a node needs editing.)
Once members reach a certain level, they can submit nodes for consideration. This means you can suggest certain edits.
You can always send private /msg's to folks outlining mistakes in their nodes.
Given all this, I really don't see that we need a specific grammarian tasked with rapping people on the knuckles because they flubbed the keyboard or because they write better code than prose.
--f
In reply to Re: Copy editing
by footpad
in thread Copy editing
by innerfire
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |