Close this search box.
February 12, 2006 |

Having just switched over to a new web site format, I have been going back and editing my old entries to fit — changing categories, standardizing format, updating references, and deleting dead links. I’m realizing though as I do this that I’m not sure what the norms are for editing stuff that has already been posted for some time. My sense is that most bloggers deal with this in the way appropriate to time based entries. If there is new news on a previously posted item, that goes into a new blog post. You don’t edit something that has already been published and widely read. One exception seems to be posting fast-breaking “updates” as an add on to an existing post, or striking through mistakes in a post.

I’m finding a clash on my site between this time-based format that most bloggers seem to follow, and the more archival format that I have in most of my site. My sections on publications, appearances, and press are intended as a kind of dynamic CV or list of references. So I feel like all the entries should reflect the most accurate information to date. For example, if I post one draft of a paper, I change it, it gets published or republished, all of that should appear on the entry for the paper. That means that the entries keep evolving.

Does this break convention? Is it problematic if for you link to one of my entries/references and I end up changing in a way that is not obvious (ie. no records of editing are left)? Has this issue already been hashed over somewhere?

Maybe I should just not think of my static lists of references as a blog and not worry about it.