I think that there should be some effort to keep instruments in playable condition and available to qualified performs because such is necessary if we are to have an adequate conception of the music which was produced by these instruments. Again I acknowledge that such usage should be strictly controlled and that such usage is not appropriate to all instruments, and that the instrument may not actually sound the way that it did when it was in use. Still I have the feeling in the back of my head that a musical instrument which can't be played is no longer a musical instrument any more than Pele is a soccer star today. I am not a pedant. I wouldn't think of calling anyone a pedant.
Pedantry implies an overly strict adherence to rules.
The exercise of judgment is critical. Actually the purpose of the note was to see what conservators thought about the ultraconservative view that historical instruments should be allowed to decay without repair or restoration. I do not know if any of these people were conservators, but they seemed strong willed and single minded and drove the opposition before them, and I also am aware of collections which are neglected or hidden. I suspect that more repair and restoration would be done if there was more money available to conservation. Public monies are in short supply and minimal care is the low cost option.