That's not her point, though. To quote the end of the article:

Copyediting shares with poetry a romantic attention to detail, to the punctuation mark and the ordering of words. To treat someone else’s language with that fine a degree of attention can be an act of love. Could there be another way to practice copyediting—less attached to precedent, less perseverating, and more eagerly transgressive; a practice that, to distinguish itself from the quietly violent tradition from which it arises, might not be called “copyediting” at all; a practice that would not only “permit” but amplify the potential for linguistic invention and preservation in any written work?

It's not like she's actually arguing against any form of editing a text, she's critiquing the overly standardizing practice of it, and the gatekeeping function of the prescriptivist policing of language, especially through institutions like academia and the wider publishing sector. It's about how non-standard text is treated, how the authors are often dismissed outright and when not; how editors use their knowledge of standard language to (occasionally invasively) 'standardize' a text. It's about how power is enacted through the policing of language on a wider scale, and how editors understand themselves to be in the role of the de-facto enforcers of that language police - and the cops, they are all bastards. But there could be a self-understanding of an editor out there, that doesn't act like a piggy, you know. That's what she's arguing for.