There, see how easy it is?
So, your argument, in this case is specious.
The real question, actually, is who owns archived bits. I would
argue they are community property, as part of our collective memory,
and thus no one individual can change them. This is because, frankly,
different bits mean different things to different people. For
example, what if *my* use for the FoRK archive was to document Adam's
stupidity? If he goes through and removes all his stupid bits, it
would make ME look stupid if I intended to refer to them. Which is
not just less desirable, but I would argue less fair.
Now, an acceptable solution would be a cascading overlap type of
thing. Where Adam is allowed to post an AMENDMENT article which slips
in on top of the previous article, BUT contains a timestamp showing
when it replaced its prior, as well as a link to that prior.
That preserves the conceptual integrity of the bit flow, but allows
Adam to update incorrect information at the same place where people
were looking for it.
Right?
-- Ernie P.
Adam wrote:
> I just FoRKed that Tim Bray article, and now it occurs to me that
> later on in life, I will want to go back looking for that article in
> the FoRK archives and fail because I forgot to put the words "Tim
> Bray" in the subject line.
>
> So a month ago when I was arguing with Ron that I'd like to go back
> and change things in items I'd posted, it's not just because I want
> to take out the things that make me look stupid (though that of
> course is still true). It's also because I'd like to go back and add
> certain value to the posts on a meta-level, such as adding the words
> "Tim Bray:" to the subject line or adding the words "Purple Helmeted
> Love Nazi:" to the subject line...
>
> Of course, I'd have to mess with everyone else's collective memory to
> do it. A local solution for FoRK is for me to save every post locally
> myself. But I know this solution won't scale. Shucks.
>
> ----
> adam@cs.caltech.edu
>
> My get up and go has got up and went.
> -- Aerosmith
>
>