If I controlled a paper, I’d force a git control system with publicly viewable edits made after publication.
Imagine the goodwill and trust that would instill in the public toward your paper.
Edit: I’ve thought the same thing about proposed legislation for a long time.
I think many have also been wondering about version control of legislation/law documents for some time as well. But I never understand why it’s not realized yet.
Probably because companies don’t want to be held accountable.
Le-git-slation for the win!
Maybe it is out there, but the Internet Archive should be wildly redundant on the internet, it’s just too valuable to lose.
Lose*
Thank you.
When I tried to open this article about the importance of allowing bots to archive content, I got this “Robot Challenge Screen”:
😭
Do you support war, state propaganda and policing of speech or do you support things like freedom of information, speech and the internet archive? You can’t do both, fake progressives.
this article is 7 years old lol
It came out yesterday. You are probably looking at the date on the screenshot of an article that it starts with rather than the date of this article at the top.
ohhhhhhhhh lmao i thought it was from 2016, didn’t saw the real date behind the title
I’m all for taking molotovs and whatever else we can manage to scrounge up to bring the heat to any company who opposes the Internet Archive. I’m willing to perform terroristic acts to show these people that we care about our digital freedom.
Maybe a little soon bro.
Maybe you’re being sarcastic?
This is useful for pointing out if a news site is manipulating a narrative, but for other things, I think news site should get the privacy they need to make stealth edits.
Like:
More recently, the Times stealth-edited an article that originally listed “death” as one of six ways “you can still cancel your federal student loan debt.” Following the edit, the “death” section title was changed to a more opaque heading of “debt won’t carry on.”
This was just poor wording. No reason sites shouldn’t have the peace of mind to change poor wording without being called out.
Horseshit. If your editor doesn’t catch the article that says “have the peasants considered suicide as a way out of debt bondage?” then you as a news outlet should absolutely have to live with what you published.
Editing news should require by law an editors note at the bottom what was changed to what like a github commit.
If you cite that shit literally somewhere you could get in trouble for citing wrongly.
At the top.
A note at the top, that there were changes made and an auto scroll link to the foot note of changes.
When a news provider publishes something they should be able to be held to what they’ve said. That’s the nature of both publication and the responsibility that the press should be held to
This is actually a perfect example of why we need to archive these things. Don’t let corporations try to rewrite history wtf
