Should we stand by what we write?
Today, Scott Kurtz, the author of PvP Online a very popular and successful webcomic posted a blog entry below the latest cartoon regarding the Ethics of Depublishing.
A blurb from his article:
"Depublishing is the practice of posting something to the web, often an inflammatory post to a weblog, then removing the inflammatory parts or deleting the content altogether. "... " People would frequently discover entries they linked to or commented on had suddenly disappeared, or been substantially edited, making their own blog entries nonsensical...
Depublishing is alleged to be unethical, as it allows people to squirm their way out of the consequences of their actions. "If you frequently find yourself wanting to depublish content, you should spend more time reflecting on what you've written before putting it online."
Good advice, but don't be too quick to discourage depublishing...for it is the greatest aspect of publishing to the web.
Nothing sucks more than opening up a box of newly printed books that just arrived at your house, only to find that you missed a mistake. Now it's cemented in time, for everyone to see. Forever.
He goes on to discuss the advantages of going back and editing your work for typos and basic errors. He also mentions that sometimes you make a drunken entry about how you think anyone who owns a duck as a pet is a retard... the ones you regret deeply the next morning. I thought he was missing the point of the ethical argument of depublishing, focusing on the niggling details and ignoring the larger problem. I decided to do something I rarely do... I wrote an email in response to what someone posted on their website. Here's my email to him, typos and all...
Mr. Kurtz,
Just thought I'd add to what is likely to be the flood of emails responding to you "Depublishing" post on June 17th.
The issue of depublishing isn't with people going back and correcting typos or fixing glaring errors. The problem comes in when someone goes back and either completely deletes a post that generated undesired feedback (i.e. flames... or in many cases simple disagreement) or alters it so significantly that the original point being made changes completely. This isn't such a problem if it happens once in a great while, as sometimes what you write gets misinterpreted and you may want to go back to clarify and reword your point. It becomes a problem when someone does it regularly to any comment or article they write that is attacked/disagreed with/proven wrong. I've seen many blog writers, especially when it comes to the topic of politics, who delete articles as soon as they feel they've lost the argument in the attached comments section, or via email.
The practice of the newspaper retraction is something that probably should survive in the Internet world. It is an admission of being wrong, but it leaves the proof for people to see. Deleting something completely removes any evidence that it existed at all. A good number of people delete articles and then later on try and play the card "Oh yeah, when have I ever said anything like XYZ?? Can you find it?! No... well then you must be wrong."
When someone writes online, especially to an established audience, their credibility is a key part of what they write. A habit of deleting "bad" posts hurts credibility with the readership. It hurts the ability to weigh in on topics with others on the same topic/in the same field. Deleting what you write sends the message that you stand by your views and convictions until it proves unpopular, or until you're proven wrong.
Fixing typos or wording mistakes isn't depublishing. It's not substantially editing the message of the piece, nor is it removing it from public view. Yeah, the web is great as a fluid medium that gives you the opportunity to expand and improve upon what you've previously done. Deleting posts however is another issue. This is where the ethics come in (as much as ethics exist in this Brave New World). Yes, sometimes people make the drunken "Duck" post and regret it in the morning. Well, put a bit of text at the top saying "Sorry guys, I was wasted when I wrote that" or something similar to explain what happened and then move on.
The biggest difference between print and the 'net is that there is no delay for us online. No intermediate editors to save us from our own stupidity. This affords us a greater deal of freedom to express ourselves and to try out new things. The consequence of that freedom is a greater responsibility to be careful about what we do online.
The blurb you quoted was right on the money when it said "If you frequently find yourself wanting to depublish content, you should spend more time reflecting on what you've written before putting it online." I don't really know how much you "depublish" since I don't hunt through blog archives on your site, and honestly it doesn't make a lick of difference to me. I find your angry flame posts to be incredibly entertaining (as well as the usual backlash to them), I enjoy your rants and raves. I think depublishing, for you, would diminish part of your public persona.
Stand by your flaming rants, your angry posts, your hatred towards duck owners... It makes you much more interesting and it adds flavor to your site.
A Loyal PvP Reader
-Mike
I think the biggest point I wanted to make was that while The Internet gives us new opportunities to express ourselves, new ways to reach increasingly larger audiences and allows us to do things that were never before possible with the picture or the written word. The Internet is a new sort of freedom, one that crosses borders, parties, policies and beliefs. It's a great thing to have... but like was said by Uncle Ben in Spiderman "With great power, comes great responsibility." That's what we have here. We have this newfound freedom, but the price of that freedom is the responsibility to not abuse it, to take the extra step to ensure we're doing the right thing.
Deleting articles because you lost the argument, or because you regret it days or weeks later for whatever reason represents a sort of intellectual dishonesty. It also hurts your ability to argue a point since it shows that you don't stand by what you write if it proves unpopular. We've seen many here do it many times over. They write something inflamatory, everyone goes nuts and jumps all over them, then they delete it. Often it's these people who later say "Oh yeah, have I EVER said anything like XYZ before? Can you find it in ANY of my articles? No? Well, then you're just full of it!" Of course they won't find the previous example if you deleted it.
Stand by what you write, even if it's unpopular, and you gain more in integrity and honesty than you lose in popularity.
And if you find yourself deleting articles quite often, you really should be thinking about whether or not you should be writing and publishing in the first place. We don't accept such dishonesty from public officials, news pundits, or celebrities... what makes you so special that we should allow you to do it?"