Yesterday’s “Don’t delete that tweet” post occasioned a great debate in the comments. (Go read it now if you haven’t, then come back for my thoughts.)
There are valid cases on both sides of this issue. It seems to me that how you come down depends on the relative weight you choose to place on (a) the short-term benefit of restricting the repetition of erroneous information vs. (b) the long-term benefit of preserving the integrity of a historical record and the accountability of a news source.
Danny Sullivan’s argument for deletion is sensible. The screenshot tactic is intriguing but, as Paul Watson points out, a screenshot is a poor substitute for the original data in context. Given the current state of Twitter technology and tools, I wouldn’t fault any news provider for deciding to delete an erroneous tweet, provided some good-faith effort was made to admit the error rather than hide it.
But — as someone who immersed himself for several years in the history of blogging — I can’t help viewing this subject in the longer context of the evolution of Web media. And the pattern here is hard to miss.
Every new style of online participation is born dangling from a “just.” It’s “just” a tweet, so why bother worrying about deleting it? But every wave of Internet-based communication that preceded Twitter arrived on the scene with a similar sense that it was more ephemeral than what preceded it. Save your e-mail? Why bother? Hey, edit your Web page at will — it’s just data on a server!
Each time, we gradually discover that what we thought was casual has become an essential part of the record of our time. And each time we scramble, belatedly, to retrofit some responsibility onto our practices. Maybe this time we can at least shorten that cycle.
Public tweets play an increasingly important role in our news ecosystem. They tell stories and are part of the story, too. We should minimize tampering with them. We need better tools that might let us correct them responsibly, whether this takes the form of fixes auto-propagating to retweeters or correction notices or revision tracking or all of the above.
In the meantime, we’ll all need to keep improvising. As we do, I hope we’ll all think twice before deleting.
VALUABLE CONTEXT: NPR Ombudsman Alicia Shepard has a great column documenting how the incorrect reports of Gabrielle Giffords’ death started. (Hint: It wasn’t Twitter.)
- January 12, 2011 @ 09:24:26 [Current Revision] by Scott Rosenberg
- January 12, 2011 @ 09:17:58 by Scott Rosenberg
[…] PostsComments <<Previous post Next post>> […]
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Morgan Sandquist, Rosenberg's Wordyard. Rosenberg's Wordyard said: Don’t delete that tweet? The debate rages: Yesterday’s “Don’t delete that tweet” post occasioned a great debate … http://bit.ly/fuEvyz […]
[…] There are all sorts of tactics one might use to insure that nobody could read a story like “Deadly Immunity” without knowing that it has been retracted: Popup notifications, “interstitial” messages timed to precede a page, pass-through pages requiring a click to show you’ve read the notice — the entire arsenal of commercial Web publishing, usually directed at the mundane needs of advertisers, could be trained on this problem. Today this sort of stuff is rarely supported by our publishing systems and requires some extra technical work. But it’s all feasible. (On Twitter, which increasingly serves as a news network, it’s much harder to tie a correction to an original erroneous message — yet even there I think the best practice is to correct rather than delete.) […]
[…] It would be great to see an error-correction function added to Twitter, or some way of noticeably linking an erroneous tweet to an update/correction tweet. Something similar to the Post Revision Display plugin for WordPress would be a great option. If we had this sort of function, an erroneous tweet could be marked with a message: something like “You are viewing a tweet that has been corrected or updated. Please click here for more information.” (Some great posts on this issue are available from Craig Silverman here and here, and from Scott Rosenberg here.) […]