weblog ethics

After reading this excerpt on Rebecca's site, I am convinced that I need to buy her book. I will admit that I was strongly opposed to any book on weblogging because I thought they were self-serving. My opinion is slowly changing thanks to things like this.

The rule that stands out to me the most is number 4:

4. Write each entry as if it could not be changed; add to, but do not rewrite or delete, any entry. Post deliberately. If you invest each entry with intent, you will ensure your personal and professional integrity.

Changing or deleting entries destroys the integrity of the network. The Web is designed to be connected; indeed, the weblog permalink is an invitation for others to link. Anyone who comments on or cites a document on the Web relies on that document (or entry) to remain unchanged. A prominent addendum is the preferred way to correct any information anywhere on the Web. If an addendum is impractical, as in the case of an essay that contains numerous inaccuracies, changes must be noted with the date and a brief description of the nature of the change.

If you think this is overly scrupulous, consider the case of the writer who points to an online document in support of an assertion. If this document changes or disappears--and especially if the change is not noted--her argument may be rendered nonsensical. Books do not change; journals are static. On paper, new versions are always denoted as such.

The network of shared knowledge we are building will never be more than a novelty unless we protect its integrity by creating permanent records of our publications. The network benefits when even entries that are rendered irrelevant by changing circumstance are left as a historical record. As an example: A weblogger complains about inaccuracies in an online article; the writer corrects those inaccuracies (and notes them!); the weblogger's entry is therefore meaningless--or is it? Deleting the entry somehow asserts that the whole incident simply didn't happen--but it did. The record is more accurate and history is better served if the weblogger notes beneath the original entry that the writer has made the corrections and the article is now, to the weblogger's knowledge, accurate.

History can be rewritten, but it cannot be undone. Changing or deleting words is possible on the Web, but possibility does not always make good policy. Think before you publish and stand behind what you write. If you later decide you were wrong about something, make a note of it and move on.

I make a point never to post anything I am not willing to stand behind even if I later disagree. I work to be thoughtful and accurate, no matter how angry or excited I am about a particular topic. If I change my opinion in a day or two, I just note the change. If I need to apologize for something I've said, I do so.

If you discover that you have posted erroneous information, you must note this publicly on your weblog. Deleting the offending entry will do nothing to correct the misinformation your readers have already absorbed. Taking the additional step of adding a correction to the original entry will ensure that Google broadcasts accurate information into the future.

The only exception to this rule is when you inadvertently reveal personal information about someone else. If you discover that you have violated a confidence or made an acquaintance uncomfortable by mentioning him, it is only fair to remove the offending entry altogether, but note that you have done so.

Everytime I have redesigned this site or uploaded a new version of MT I have lost some entries because I'm too lazy to figure out how to import on MT. Some entries I deleted because I didn't like the google response they were getting. Lately I've wanted to have all those entries back simply because it shows the history of my growth both on this site and on the web. I'm in the process of reinstalling all of them.

I agree with what Rebecca is saying here. We have the opportunity to build this network of information that keeps people informed of what's going on without having to worry about media bias and news outlets with political interests in mind. This point has been brought home to me time and again in the past few weeks with all the discussions that have been going on regarding race and racism. Jason said it best when he told me that it's up to us to leave our telling of history so that there are different perspectives of our times for the generations to come. I am determined to prevent a one-sided telling of history. What we are writing/seeing/doing here now will be a reflection of our generation in the years to come. For as much as I complain about the "media" am I doing anything to improve the storytelling?

The saga continues ...