I don't need or want a guarantee. I expect content to change over time. That's fine.

What I also expect is that the content provider understands the value of preserving previous versions and makes those available. Wikipedia does this well. The entire software suite is designed around this principle.

It is also trivial to implement.

Which leads to the conclusion that those who don't do it are doing so consciously and should be criticized for doing so.

Wikipedia does it well for text. Not so well for images. There are many articles with important information in images where viewing an older version of the article shows images incorrect for that version.

For instance, the article on same-sex marriage in the US [1] has for quite a while included a map showing the status of same-sex marriage in each state. When the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, the map was updated to reflect this--by overwriting the image file.

If you go back and view that page from a several months ago, well before the Supreme Court's ruling, the map will show same-sex marriage as legal in all states.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_Unite...

Shortly after the article in question was first published I read it and sent it to a friend I knew would be interested. By the time he got around to seeing/reading it (later that night) the article had drastically changed - which I didn't realize until the next day (when reading a post on HN discussing the changes). In addition to emailing my friend I had shared it on Twitter and Facebook. After reading the updated article that is not one I would have sent to my friend or shared (I ended up deleting the tweet and FB post after reading the "new" article).

I don't think anyone expects some "guarantee" content will not change - but when you link to an article from a reputable source you don't expect it to change to the magnitude this one did.

When I share an article (by any means) I'm saying "hey, here's an article I think other people should read" - there shouldn't be a need to go back hours later to make sure that implicit statement is still true.

Both IPFS and Ethereum's Swarm would be good platforms for this sort of system.

http://newsdiffs.org/diff/934341/934454/www.nytimes.com/2015...

It reads like a different article entirely.

This is a shame, because the original article was actually very reasonable, and seems not to have any glaring inaccuracies.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9870347

I read this as "In hindsight, we could have re-edited the article we already continually edit but we wont." (because doing that now would somehow be wrong?)

The whole thing smells.

I would love to see more mainstream consumer discussion ethics in journalism that avoids the fundamentalism of a certain group that has taken up the cause of late. There's a lot to talk about there and a lot of different, legitimate, priorities that can lead to different conclusions. It's an important subject with a lot of depth. Maybe we're ready for that conversation: there's the whole Gawker thing, for instance, and there are many levels to that story (like unionization). Like all complex systems, there's no easy answer.

I really wish this wasn't the case, but the fact of the matter is that "providing analysis" and "speaking to a pre-existing narrative" are slippery enough terms that you can drive a truck through them. It's much more workable as a media consumer just to assume bias and deal with it. This odd dance we've become stuck performing where the MSM pretends to not be human and operating from some imagined place of total objectivity is not sustainable.

I like the NYT -- given that, well, it's the NYT. Same goes for a lot of other media outlets. I think the problem here is the facade we build around the media, the folks themselves are talented and do a good job. It's the framework we stick them in that sucks.

On the other hand, the article deviated so far from the original just-the-facts version, and the "analysis" was so one-dimensional, that it felt like it veered into Fox-News-for-liberals territory. Which should not be worthy of a pre-eminent news publication.

Perhaps "analysis" at a serious news publication should simply not be written hastily just for the sake of mass click appeal.

At any rate, it doesn't seem like it would have been that hard to throw some opinion piece links or an analysis piece link in the suggested/related section.

This is silly. NY Times is "the paper of record." The blackline of this article shows the entire piece was re-written. They did this as part of an experiment in "propogating" viral content. But "propogating propoganda"like this expressly at odds with being the "paper of record".

That's a far more useful and respectable thing to hear than a mealy-mouthed apology.

I was expecting the usual noncommittal response, and I think it's hilarious there is not even a mention here of using technology to show changes while the NYT tells everyone that will listen that they are now embracing the web and all that stuff. Turns out it is all just talk when the people producing the news at the end of the day don't change.

The original uses shorthand "~=" for coarse equality, in lieu of {option+x}.

Horrible article and they really need to have rules in place so that if an article substantially changes the url changes. Rules such as losing or adding a paragraph should suffice as to when a new url is needed. Not changing the url is fine when corrections are made and noted as such

I'm going to detach this subthread and mark it off-topic.

INB4 1000 downvotes from intolerant agenda pushers, sorry you have to read this in grey on grey, it's not my choice.

Now they're defending that course of action while pretending to be concerned about it. I think this can accurately be described as "weaseling". I think it's taking place because people are starting to notice what happens to these articles, which may soon prove dire to the business they've built on these practices.

In other words: "Watch the weasels dance: the jig is almost up.", go read a writing style guide and they'll tell you to cut unnecessary verbiage.

Yes. Just because an article is lame doesn't mean the thread should be.

(By the way, please don't go on about downvoting in HN comments—that's so invariably lame that it has not one but two guidelines against it. Please see https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. Appropriately enough, they're at the bottom.)

The piece opens up by lamenting the similarites between facts and opinions and then sidesteps the issue by calling their opinions "analysis". Clever.