Steve Bennett wrote:
Me too. Or (and I expect flames for this :)) if I see a redlink to an article that actually exists, I generally create the redlink and make it redirect, rather than simply fixing the link. I figure that no mistake is original enough that it won't be repeated, possibly with more serious consequences, like duplicate articles getting created...
Or, in some cases better yet, create the redirect and _then_ fix the link.
It really depends on the type of the mistake. Simple typos and obvious spelling mistakes I just fix. Arguably _not_ having redirects for these is better, since that way the red link makes the typo stand out.
For less obvious mistakes, like missing diacritics, capitalization or pluralization errors, missing or superfluous "the", or wrong regional spelling of words in official titles, I create the redirect and then possibly fix the link. This involves deciding whether the redirect is actually incorrect, or just a reasonable if nonstandard alternative. Sometimes I even proactively create redirects for variants no-one has tried yet, but which someone some day might.
The same goes for unusual spellings where it's clear the person making the link didn't know the correct spelling. One often finds these on new pages patrol when someone creates a duplicate article because they either saw the redlink or, perhaps more commonly, tried to search for the incorrect spelling. (One that sticks to my mind is "Inagodadavida", which I successfully caught and redirected to [[In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida]].)