I'll post comments regarding the editorial policy draft directly in another comment, but I thought I might put up this statement by foodnetwork.com regarding their recipe index as a way to continue the discussion of "depublishing" and why we would want to make our policy (and changes) as transparent as possible. It's not the same thing as Winer is doing, but it seems a good example of the current (non)justification of depublishing. From the foodnetwork.com FAQ

3. Why do some recipes expire?
A "limited time" recipe is, for legal reasons, only available shortly before and for two weeks following the airing of an episode in which the recipe appeared. Many recipes in the database--from shows and other sources--are available on the site at all times. They will be there when you return the following week or month. But if a recipe you like is marked "limited time," please print out the recipe for future use, since it may not be available the next time you return.

I can understand that commercial sites want to maintain control over their site content, but stating that this instance of depublishing is "for legal reasons" seems like unnecessary obfuscation. What legal reasons? Are they breaking copyright by leaving it up over two weeks? Is this part of their agreement with the authors of these recipes? They suggest that readers should print any recipe they really like. Is the ability to print content for personal use ever assumed, or only when directly stated? (their user guide does state that downloaded recipes are for "personal noncommercial home use only."

Also, when I download a recipe, but don't have all of the right ingredients, but cook it up anyway, am I creating a "derivative" work? How about if I rewrite the recipe to leave out ingredients I can't get, don't like, or have allergies to? Can I legally download a recipe and use it as a basis for a dish I sell at a bake sale, or serve at a spaghetti dinner where patrons have paid for the meal? (A little fun: a spoof end-user agreement for those eating the free Microsoft lunch at OSCON 2003)

I think also that news sites that reduce an article from being openly available to being only an abstract also commit a commercially-motivated act of depublishing. Individuals who put unique content on their sites and then take it down are depublishing as well.

Once the web gets hold of a text, though, it may be impossible to depublish it. In that case, you might be able to sue for mental damages, as this person is doing over an embarrassing video clip that was distributed via Kazaa. Supposedly, he's "been through psychiatric care to cope with his unwanted publicity." So, can we, as bloggers, be sued for mental damages that occur from publicity drawn to something via our blogs? Does any of this affect our editorial policy?

Is a link to a pornography site the only link that will get a post automatically deleted? Why single out pornography? If the site is commercial, then it would be covered by the "unauthorized advertisement" clause (which seems equally vague).

I'd be in favor of using more general terms -- spam (unrelated, unwanted advertising), trolls, or flamebait. While those terms aren't particularly easy to define, I think they are probably easier to define than "pornography".

I also like Slashdot's model of modding down instead of deleting stupid posts. Could there be a way to remove an offensive post but replace it with a link that says something like "This post was removed: flamebait." But then below that would be a link to the post that was removed?

While I think any individual weblogger ought to have the right to delete a post (in extreme circumstances, such as when someone is posting offensive comments under someone else's name, etc.), in a community blog like KairosNews, where several different people have editorial privileges, there may be disagreement over whether a particular post should be removed.

I don't have any particular example in mind -- I'm just thinking aloud.

Dennis G. Jerz
Literacy Weblog
I used to post here with the ID JerzDG.

"'unauthorized advertisement' clause (which seems equally vague)."

I agree. Especially since one could view a CFP as an advertisement. And personally, I don't think we would want to exclude a publisher posting an advertisement about a new release. Or what if someone releasing new educational software wanted to post a notice about it? Perhaps "spam" is a better term.

All of this makes me think, though, that it might be better to clearly define first what is appropriate. Then it could simply be a matter of reserving the right of Kairosnews editors to remove or edit "inappropriate" posts.

"The modified post will be labelled as such and will include the date and time it was modified and by whom."

Hmmm...I'm wondering if this is really necessary if it's just a case of a broken link (or broken html) or spelling/grammar proofreading correction?

"Adding Text to Posts"

I think we need to clearly define the "special circumstances" for adding text. The only two examples that immediately come to my mind are:

1) A Kairosnews notice is posted, and clarification needs to be added (as I did with this one).

2) As a request of the original author, where both the author and a Kairosnews editor agree on the change.

I also wonder if this part doesn't just fit worked into "Editing Post?"

If a reader makes a comment (noting a spelling mistake, broken URL, etc.), it seems to me it would be sufficient for the editor to make the change in the text and then add a reply stating "I made the change you suggested." But let's imagine that the poster made a mistake that contributed to some serious misunderstanding, that in turn prompted several comments. It wouldn't make sense to edit the original post and then leave the hot-headed comments posted in response to the original phrasing... but streaking [editor: "striking"] out mistakes might get the idea across. Rebecca Blood's blog follows a similar pattern.

Dennis G. Jerz
Literacy Weblog
I used to post here with the ID JerzDG.

I think cel4145 and Dennis have both made good comments. What I had in mind with unauthorized ads was indeed spam, but we had a case earlier where a poster really seemed to be an advertiser in disguise (I think Charlie will remember the case; the details escape me).

I singled out porn because I figured we could all agree that these links don't belong.

What I'm trying to get across is that we won't censor posts that simply disagree with our points or offend us, as long as the offense doesn't come from obscenity. In other words, I'd like a board where Socrates and Machiavelli would be welcome.

and twinkie comments as well :)

I'll just throw this out. I'm wondering if even the strike out is necessary if

(a) the author and a Kairosnews editor agree on making the change
(b) the post is updated with a note by the editor which gives a date of last revision and the intent of/reason for the revision.

The reason I say this is that pages on the web are often updated with no more than a date of last revision. But then again, weblogs are typically not.

Okay. I've been thinking about this some more. In some ways, it is better than we do not change the original text except for bad html/broken links and grammar and mechanics--only things that do not change the substance of the content. If the comments react to/correct inaccuracies in a post, then why change the original post? The information will be provided there. The only exception I can see for Kairosnews would be static pages about Kairosnews (FAQ, Editorial policies page, etc.).

So I guess I'm arriving at the NO to depublishing position :)

Regarding this section:

Kairosnews editors reserve the right to delete any post submitted to Kairosnews. Kairosnews editors will delete a post only under the following circumstances: The post contains libelous or potentially libelous statements, unnecessary profanity, unauthorized advertisements, or links to pornographic sites.

What if the post submitted is not pornography, an ad, or libelous/potentially libelous, but is off-topic? For example, what if it's a post about, say, feminism and "girl culture," but the author doesn't ground it in rhetoric, technology, or pedagogy in any way? What if it's a post about the photographs of Uday and Qusay but likewise not grounded in rhetoric? Maybe we should address this in the editorial policy. I assume that the protocol in that case would be to email the contributor and explain that the post is beyond the scope of Kairosnews.

Also, I *really* don't think I should have to make a note every time I correct a typo or grammatical error in a post. I know no one is insisting on this, but I just want to make my views on that issue known. I do, of course, think that we (or the authors of the posts) need to make notes if we alter the meaning in any way. Having a meticulous, sound editorial policy for Web scholarship has serious implications; I think part of what makes many people question the legitimacy of online documents is both their potential for alteration and the fact that in a lot of cases, the proofreading is less than rigorous.

CultureCat

Sorry about my delay getting this post up. I've spent the last few days moving my entire website (mysql databases and all) to a new host. The good news is: My wiki now runs at a decent speed. The speed, combined with the excellent GUI, makes for a GREAT product.

Anyway, I shall get to this ASAP.

great! you needed a better solution.