As a prior Digital News Editor, I don’t see the harm in it. I’ve laid out countless print news stories, and a print editor found something that needed to be corrected afterward. Unlike print, which would cost quite a bit of ink to fix, we have the ability to correct things online. Whether curated or not, I highly recommend fixing typos. Some posts have a short shelf life. Others don’t. And not fixing something that clearly needs fixing is just an unnecessary problem to have. With that said, if there’s substantive editing instead of copy editing, I’d recommend giving the editor of the publication a heads up that you are making a pretty big change. I did that yesterday on a marketing post. I happened to learn about a newsworthy topic that backed up my original opinion. But I just didn’t know it had happened until after it was in the copy editing phase. I let the editor know which three sentences I added and that was that.
As far as photos, meh, I have had enough photos in magazine and news copy that I wasn’t thrilled with. I really appreciate that sites like Medium give us the option to change the photos used. I’m still annoyed about a print post I wrote on culinary therapy. The photo editor used an image of fish and lemon, although this post clearly only talked about a class of students eating chocolates. (It never mentioned fish or lemons one time!) It was the most obvious photograph to choose, and I could tell the photo editor didn’t look at anything but the headline. I have plenty of complaints about that particular employer, but the one thing I appreciated was letting writers weigh in on photos that clearly proved the graphic designers never read the post.