I once found that I couldn't make a forum post without editing it multiple times shortly thereafter. This gave me inspiration for my signature, to be put at the bottom of all my posts: "Subject to editing". Today's article is about the mutability of gPress.

If you've looked at gPress recently, you've probably noticed that virtually every article has been updated within the last day. I needed to fix some glitches, but mostly I aimed at making my writing more concise and decisive.

I mentioned this to one of my colleagues, and he was disturbed, on the grounds that I was "removing the record of my past self". After offering several excuses, I argued that if someone had a quirk in their behavior, they wouldn't preserve it solely because their acquaintances had seen it before. He replied that it was different, because this insinuates that "you never had it in the first place."

There are a couple of angles to look at this from.

The first sees it as a chronological series of events, like a forum. A post is part of an ongoing story and reflects the perspective of a historical person that should not be tampered with, not even by a future version of that same person.

I have been sympathetic to this. As a forum member, it infuriated me to see others deleting or substantially editing their old posts, especially when it was months or years after the fact. I viewed those posts as being both a public resource and part of a conversation; deleting them was akin to ripping a section out of a tapestry, and ultimately futile because those things still happened, no matter how much the current person wished otherwise.

The second perspective sees the blog as a library of resources, similar to a wiki, which must be updated when new information arrives, and may be revised for style. As an editor and developer, I want the site to be the best that it can be. If something is poorly written, why suffer it to stay that way? If an idea is outdated, why not amend it? Incremental improvements are better than none.

The technical reasoning here is valid. However, after reflection, I suspect they're partly justifications. There are two other reasons why I am inclined to like this position, which are both personal, and unflattering when I admit them.

The first is that I'm cautious, typically to an excess. If I have to get it right the first time, with no amendments, it will take a disproportionately long time, if it ever happens at all. It isn't that uncommon for me to avoid doing something rather than risk failing at it. It's easier for me to maintain living works than to make a statue once.

But secondly, I have to confess that my colleague wasn't far from the mark. I'm not concerned about preserving historic posts, because I'm often unconcerned with preserving my online history, when it conflicts with my understanding of how things ought to be. This concerns 'dead works' which I've come to regret making, but it can be extended to errors and changes in opinion. Although I recognize that those things happened, and wouldn't deny it if asked, it feels satisfying to excise them from my life, which includes the works that are under my control. In other words, I am the kind of person who burns books and correspondence.

I am sorry that these latter motivations are so strong, because I feel the technical one is compelling, but it is meet to be honest.

I expect that I will update and revise more posts in the future. I may even edit this post (as of 9/16/23, I have). I haven't promised not to before, and I won't do so now. When it is about a subject that is inherently chronological, such as my two-day experiment in "Terminal Dreams", I hope to preserve the historical elements. But I suppose I have said all this to give you fair warning, as I told my colleague I might, that my posts are 'subject to editing' and can be assumed only to reflect my views at the time that they were last updated: not necessarily before or after!