Keep in mind I never read the original article. I’ve not taken the time to go read the new version either. The only reason Steve Rubel linked it most likely was because he was interviewed for the article. What bothers me about this story is the fact that to me it sounds as if the authors reworked the original story. To me if there is no mention of this fact or an archive of the original doesn’t exist then you are doing a disservice to your readers and the public. I’d much prefer a link to any updated thoughts being added to the original article.
While I’m definitely not against an online writer fixing typos or maybe even rewording something they don’t like within a reasonable timeframe. I am against totally reworking an article without telling readers your doing so and having an archived version of the original. Instead of adding new words or getting rid of words previously written. A new article should be written and linked to from the original content. To me this has more integrity and allows the original content to stay put. Imagine if every writer in history had the option to change now what they had written years ago. What effects would this have in regards to history and information? While I have many older articles here that could stand some cleaning up. I would never think of rewriting the original content. Because those were the words I thought and felt at that time.
If all writers starting fiddling with their online and offline content then the opinion of that specific time gets manipulated. Over time there will always be a need to update information on particular subjects, However I find it a very dangerous precedent to start updating older articles with new content. Especially when the information doesn’t conform to what was taking place during the timeframe the article was first written within. A new story needs to be written expressing the fact that this is an update to the original that had been done previously.