Should Poetry Editors Edit?

Quite the brouhaha has erupted on the Buffalo Poetics List about Listenlight magazine. Apparently, the editor has been changing poems before publishing them on the website. In some cases, it seems the editor contacted the authors prior about the changes, but in other cases it appears the poems were just published in a substantially altered state. I actually had some pieces published there a few months ago, and I never noticed any changes had been made (of course, I didn't exactly compare it word-for-word with a print-out, so I don't know).

What is even more interesting about the discussion is the general attitude that poetry editors must take poems as inviolable works, and even suggesting changes is beyond the pale. (In my capacity as editor of There, I have also followed this rule.) This is, of course, in pretty stark contrast to the actions of editors in other lines of publishing (books, magazines, most prose writing, in fact). My diurnal job of copy editor expects me to "improve" other writers' work.

It would seem, then, that a poetry editor is not expected to edit poetry, but rather to compile poetry; their role is that of anthologist, perhaps. What editing there is takes place in the choice of collection and the ordering of works.

Changing a poet's work without asking would seem pretty unethical (though I question the claims of illegality -- it would depend on what sort of contract existed). But is it wrong to suggest changes to a poem? Writers do it in workshops all the time, so there is, at least, a period of time when a poem isn't inviolable. And shouldn't a good editor be someone who encourages a writer to do her best possible work?

Of course, I see no reason to get on the wrong side of public opinion on this one. There will continue to publish poems that I already find pretty great; no need for "improvement" on my part.