Why bloggers inevitably end up modifying old articles

There's a school of thought in the blogosphere that suggests once a Weblog article is written and published for the world to see, it's done, cast in stone, and never to be touched or modified again. You can produce more recent updates or corrections, but there's a sense that the "historical archive" is more important than being accurate or correct or contemporary.

Sometimes that just doesn't work, though, and I experienced just this situation with a recent article I wrote on my weblog about the JonBenet Ramsey murder, an article that was reprinted in the local newspaper this morning, just hours before new revelations in the case were unveiled that made the entire article irrelevant and wrong.

What to do? Indeed, what should bloggers do when their material later becomes incorrect?

Why bloggers must be historical revisionists

The real question isn't whether you agree with me, but whether there's any way out of this Long Tail-inspired dilemma...