3 ms·

> The fact that the story can't be repaired does not rebut the ColanR's claim that deleting it is inconsistent with NPR's stated policy The point is very simpl

> The fact that the story can't be repaired does not rebut the ColanR's claim that deleting it is inconsistent with NPR's stated policy The point is very simple: removal != retraction. Removing without retraction is erasing history. Issuing a retraction is not erasing history. And obviously, in this context, "erasing history" means the thing it means in standard vernacular English. Not the thing it means in git terminology. > Furthermore, the best policy would be to retain a complete edit history of the story online... I can't see a reason for not making the edit history public other than reducing embarrassment of NPR. 1. How does showing the edit history reduce embarrassment to NPR? (e: Ironically, if reducing embarrassment were their goal, they would've found a way to keep the story as in-tact as possible. "Look, we weren't 100% wrong. We just had to change a few paragraphs". IMO a full retraction is far more embarrassing than trying to weasel out of it by keeping as much of the story in-tact as possible.) 2. Some real downsides to this approach are already debated down-thread.

aeorgnoieang 8y ago
> "erasing history" means the thing it means in standard vernacular English I'm a native speaker of English and I'm not sure what that means.
jessriedel 8y ago
> The point is very simple: removal != retraction. Exactly. NPR should retract the story -- that is, admit mistake and add a clear statement that they do not endorse it -- but they should not remove the text from the internet. The policy ColanR quotes says content should not be removed, and everyone agrees that content can be retracted. > Removing without retraction is erasing history. Issuing a retraction is not erasing history. But issuing a retraction and and removing the text is (an attempt to) erase history in standard vernacular English, i.e. make it difficult for others to figure out what happened in the past by hiding evidence. It's true that silently removing the story is even worse, because it erases the history of the article's existence rather than just erasing the history of the article's content. > 1. How does showing the edit history reduce embarrassment to NPR? You misunderstand my claim. Showing the edit history would increase embarrassment for NPR. > Ironically, if reducing embarrassment were their goal, they would've found a way to keep the story as in-tact as possible. This is not true if the error was so egregious that it couldn't be defended with a straight face. Given the constraint that the story must be retracted (i.e., un-endorsed), it is clearly more embarrassing for them to leave the retracted text online than to remove it from the website. > IMO a full retraction is far more embarrassing than trying to weasel out of it by keeping as much of the story in-tact as possible You misunderstand. None of us think they should weaseling out of it. I am comparing what they have done to the better procedure of (1) retracting the story (in the sense of declaring that it is flawed and not defensible) but (2) leaving the text of the story publicly available with a disclaimer. > 2. Some real downsides to this approach are already debated down-thread This thread has dozens and dozens of comments, many of which are flawed, and I'm not sure what you're referring to.
- URSpider94 8y ago
  I think the problem is that a link that says “RETRACTED: jessriedel is an axe murderer” has the potential to do more harm on an ongoing basis, both ethically and legally (as in, a court might see this as contributing to ongoing damages in a libel suit). The best thing for both parties is to remove the original text and post a retraction notice explaining what used to be there and why it’s now gone.
  - jessriedel 8y ago
    If this were NPR's real motivation, they would just censor the subject's name.

aeorgnoieang 8y ago

> "erasing history" means the thing it means in standard vernacular English I'm a native speaker of English and I'm not sure what that means.

jessriedel 8y ago

> The point is very simple: removal != retraction. Exactly. NPR should retract the story -- that is, admit mistake and add a clear statement that they do not endorse it -- but they should not remove the text from the internet. The policy ColanR quotes says content should not be removed, and everyone agrees that content can be retracted. > Removing without retraction is erasing history. Issuing a retraction is not erasing history. But issuing a retraction and and removing the text is (an attempt to) erase history in standard vernacular English, i.e. make it difficult for others to figure out what happened in the past by hiding evidence. It's true that silently removing the story is even worse, because it erases the history of the article's existence rather than just erasing the history of the article's content. > 1. How does showing the edit history reduce embarrassment to NPR? You misunderstand my claim. Showing the edit history would increase embarrassment for NPR. > Ironically, if reducing embarrassment were their goal, they would've found a way to keep the story as in-tact as possible. This is not true if the error was so egregious that it couldn't be defended with a straight face. Given the constraint that the story must be retracted (i.e., un-endorsed), it is clearly more embarrassing for them to leave the retracted text online than to remove it from the website. > IMO a full retraction is far more embarrassing than trying to weasel out of it by keeping as much of the story in-tact as possible You misunderstand. None of us think they should weaseling out of it. I am comparing what they have done to the better procedure of (1) retracting the story (in the sense of declaring that it is flawed and not defensible) but (2) leaving the text of the story publicly available with a disclaimer. > 2. Some real downsides to this approach are already debated down-thread This thread has dozens and dozens of comments, many of which are flawed, and I'm not sure what you're referring to.

URSpider94 8y ago
I think the problem is that a link that says “RETRACTED: jessriedel is an axe murderer” has the potential to do more harm on an ongoing basis, both ethically and legally (as in, a court might see this as contributing to ongoing damages in a libel suit). The best thing for both parties is to remove the original text and post a retraction notice explaining what used to be there and why it’s now gone.
- jessriedel 8y ago
  If this were NPR's real motivation, they would just censor the subject's name.