5 ms·

I thought what was particularly problematic about rewriting that piece was that the URL didn't change and people had already linked to it, and implicitly or exp

I thought what was particularly problematic about rewriting that piece was that the URL didn't change and people had already linked to it, and implicitly or explicitly approved of the contents of that URL. When it morphed from a news piece to an opinion piece, people who followed 'old' links were cheated because they were not told that they were seeing a story entirely different from what the referrer had seen. This problem isn't addressed in the article, and it seems to outweigh any "cumbersomeness" of putting in a little note saying that a piece has changed significantly.

lisper 11y ago
This is a general problem with the World Wide Web. There is no guarantee that the content of a particular URL will remain the same over time, or even that two different users will see the same content at a given URL at the same time. The only way to fix this would be with a content-addressable-store, and that has its own problems (e.g. you can't fix legitimate errors, like typos).
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- maratd 11y ago
  > There is no guarantee that the content of a particular URL will remain the same over time I don't need or want a guarantee. I expect content to change over time. That's fine. What I also expect is that the content provider understands the value of preserving previous versions and makes those available. Wikipedia does this well. The entire software suite is designed around this principle. It is also trivial to implement. Which leads to the conclusion that those who don't do it are doing so consciously and should be criticized for doing so.
  - tzs 11y ago
    > What I also expect is that the content provider understands the value of preserving previous versions and makes those available. Wikipedia does this well. The entire software suite is designed around this principle. Wikipedia does it well for text. Not so well for images. There are many articles with important information in images where viewing an older version of the article shows images incorrect for that version. For instance, the article on same-sex marriage in the US [1] has for quite a while included a map showing the status of same-sex marriage in each state. When the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, the map was updated to reflect this--by overwriting the image file. If you go back and view that page from a several months ago, well before the Supreme Court's ruling, the map will show same-sex marriage as legal in all states. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_Unite...
- frostmatthew 11y ago
  > There is no guarantee that the content of a particular URL will remain the same over time Shortly after the article in question was first published I read it and sent it to a friend I knew would be interested. By the time he got around to seeing/reading it (later that night) the article had drastically changed - which I didn't realize until the next day (when reading a post on HN discussing the changes). In addition to emailing my friend I had shared it on Twitter and Facebook. After reading the updated article that is not one I would have sent to my friend or shared (I ended up deleting the tweet and FB post after reading the "new" article). I don't think anyone expects some "guarantee" content will not change - but when you link to an article from a reputable source you don't expect it to change to the magnitude this one did. When I share an article (by any means) I'm saying "hey, here's an article I think other people should read" - there shouldn't be a need to go back hours later to make sure that implicit statement is still true.
- natrius 11y ago
  A name-addressable system where the names refer to content addresses might give us the best of both worlds. The New York Times could update a URL as much as they want, and browsers would have a UI that lets users access older revisions and be notified when significant changes have occurred. Both IPFS and Ethereum's Swarm would be good platforms for this sort of system.

lisper 11y ago

This is a general problem with the World Wide Web. There is no guarantee that the content of a particular URL will remain the same over time, or even that two different users will see the same content at a given URL at the same time. The only way to fix this would be with a content-addressable-store, and that has its own problems (e.g. you can't fix legitimate errors, like typos).

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
maratd 11y ago
> There is no guarantee that the content of a particular URL will remain the same over time I don't need or want a guarantee. I expect content to change over time. That's fine. What I also expect is that the content provider understands the value of preserving previous versions and makes those available. Wikipedia does this well. The entire software suite is designed around this principle. It is also trivial to implement. Which leads to the conclusion that those who don't do it are doing so consciously and should be criticized for doing so.
- tzs 11y ago
  > What I also expect is that the content provider understands the value of preserving previous versions and makes those available. Wikipedia does this well. The entire software suite is designed around this principle. Wikipedia does it well for text. Not so well for images. There are many articles with important information in images where viewing an older version of the article shows images incorrect for that version. For instance, the article on same-sex marriage in the US [1] has for quite a while included a map showing the status of same-sex marriage in each state. When the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, the map was updated to reflect this--by overwriting the image file. If you go back and view that page from a several months ago, well before the Supreme Court's ruling, the map will show same-sex marriage as legal in all states. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_Unite...
frostmatthew 11y ago
> There is no guarantee that the content of a particular URL will remain the same over time Shortly after the article in question was first published I read it and sent it to a friend I knew would be interested. By the time he got around to seeing/reading it (later that night) the article had drastically changed - which I didn't realize until the next day (when reading a post on HN discussing the changes). In addition to emailing my friend I had shared it on Twitter and Facebook. After reading the updated article that is not one I would have sent to my friend or shared (I ended up deleting the tweet and FB post after reading the "new" article). I don't think anyone expects some "guarantee" content will not change - but when you link to an article from a reputable source you don't expect it to change to the magnitude this one did. When I share an article (by any means) I'm saying "hey, here's an article I think other people should read" - there shouldn't be a need to go back hours later to make sure that implicit statement is still true.
natrius 11y ago
A name-addressable system where the names refer to content addresses might give us the best of both worlds. The New York Times could update a URL as much as they want, and browsers would have a UI that lets users access older revisions and be notified when significant changes have occurred. Both IPFS and Ethereum's Swarm would be good platforms for this sort of system.