I agree with the premise but not the justification you use. I see the opposite at work, where the submitter is changing the intent of the author.
Sidenote: Why would someone down vote this parent comment?
Sidenote: Why would someone down vote this parent comment?
I didn't (I can't downvote) but I would guess it's because it's wrong. See sker's comment above:
Right now there's a good example of this problem on the front page. The article about the Android/PRNG security flaw is aptly editorialized as "Google confirms Java and OpenSSL crypto PRNG on Android are broken," but the original article is titled "Some SecureRandom Thoughts," which is meaningless and I would never have clicked it under any circumstances. Thankfully the mods left this one alone.
And quadhome's response shows that he's the one who edited the title, so edits can be made that could be seen as putting words in the OP's mouth:
I revised the title for that link several times. My final edit lifted the style of the Ars Technica[1] headline, but specifically added the more technical "Java and OpenSSL crypto PRNG" that I worried would be incomprehensible to the layman...