Yet rather than re-writing history by deleting items, notes or updates can be added to the top of stories. Notes and updates will sometimes happen at the bottom of articles, but people usually don’t read this far down. A full note could be left, or a link to additional material to give closure (as in cases involving acquittals)

However, all requests to change an article or something in it should be weighed very carefully. People will sometimes say things in interviews that they believe does not show them in a good light, and because of the flexibility of web content, will demand that things be changed. They may not have done this with a print edition. So, the question of whether to change can be something like the old retail saw of “the customer is always right”? Are the interviewees always right and should their requests always be catered to? Esp. if the request is to massage one’s image.

IMO, people in general have become more, not less, thin-skinned since the Internet. Anything that might show them in a less than sterling light must be expunged. Now, that attitude could come from fears of employers. But some of it comes out of vanity. So, perhaps what publications need to do is measure whether the integrity of historical record (indeed if we even think of online content as historical record) should be maintained rather than the sensitivity to one who cannot endure anything imperfect.

Which is different than the acquittal issue. In that case the note or update, at the top of a story, with a requisite link might be the best solution (vs. expunging or altering the original record.)

Court logs would be public information, accessible freely over the Internet. (Though I am cool with courts using robots.txt to keep the information from search engine bots.) Each case would have its case number and reporters, when writing about the case, would include its court case number in all stories, along with a link to the court’s website, so that readers could click through, then search using the case number, to find the disposition after the fact.

That would take care of the Times’ objection to re-reporting old stories (going forward from the point when such a system would be in place) and would provide readers who want to learn more a resource to quickly access that additional information.

By the same reasoning, I’d also love to see legislature reporters include bill numbers in all stories and appealate court reporters include civil case titles. I can’t remember the number of times I’ve wanted to follow up on a story by searching for a bill or court decision, and cursing the report that didn’t include the relevant number or name.

Back in the days before the Web, I could see why this information would be unnecessary for the average reader. But today, with easy public access to legislative and court information, why not include it?

The reason is the same as one issue raised in the “Rewriting history” article: people who are arrested are sometimes acquitted, etc and we normally don’t run follow-up stories on “routine” crimes.

The website manager was worried that companies or potential marriage partners (to name just two examples) would use our archives as a way of “checking up” on people before hiring or marrying them. He didn’t want the paper to be involved in any way.

Since Japan’s “Private Information Protection Law” went into effect in April 2005, we have to be more mindful of how personal information on our website may be used by outside parties.