With great power comes great ... etiquette.
The new system whereby people without enough reputation to edit stuff can still do so if someone with enough reputation approves it is intended, I suppose, to encourage polishing of entries. I find I'm broadly in favour, providing people stick to the editing etiquette that we've already established (in brief, that the edits should be polish and not substance), as it can only improve the site and also by increasing the number of edits ought to get people over the "Hey! Someone's just edited my stuff!" barrier a lot sooner.
But there are some new etiquette issues brought up by the new system. The one that I've just encountered - and there may be more - is what to do if I see an edit suggestion that is a definite improvement on what went before, but which I can see how to improve it even further. There is an "Improve" link on the panel so clearly I'm supposed to be able to do this.
Looking at the history of this question, I see that one of my worries is allayed: Yossi's edit is in the history with mine on top, so it would appear as though "edit - improve" is the same as "edit - approve, re-edit". Looking at Yossi's reputation, I think that he has also gained the 2 points for the edit (which is as it should be).
But still something feels not quite right, and I'm not sure that I can put my finger on it. I feel as though I'm stealing something ... intangible ... from Yossi here since he was the one who spotted the need for an edit in the first place but my name is the one that ends up on the question. Also, it seems easier to reach the "automatically convert to CW" threshold this way so perhaps improvers shouldn't be so ready to improve.
I don't know. So, questions: does anyone else feel that there is something in this, or am I being over sensitive? If the former, does anyone have any suggestions? Also, is there any aspect of the new system that we would like changed?