Professor Bainbridge...on law, politics, religion, culture & food

Editing blog posts ex post

Ernie The Attorney asks: "When, if ever, is it okay to edit weblog posts?" His answer:

My general thoughts are that in some cases editing needs to be disclosed, and other cases it doesn't. Simple correction of typographical errors or grammar I think can be made without notification. On the other end of the spectrum I think that once a post has been up for a certain amount of time any significant change should be noted. ... [T]here is obviously room for reasonable disagreement about when editing posts is permissible or advisable. My general rule is that I try not to edit after I've posted except to fix typos and obvious errors. (Emphasis mine.)

My initial reaction was puzzlement as to what permission or the lack thereof has to do with it. After all, my blog is my property, and if I want to change it, who are you to say otherwise? On further reflection, however, I came up with an answer. Behavior is regulated by both law and social norms. A standard example of the distinction between the two is that leaving a tip after one eats in a restaurant is a social norm, while paying for one's food is a legal requirement. Accordingly, we can roughly define a social norm as a social attitude specifying the behavior an actor ought to exhibit in a given situation. Deviation from such a norm has no legal consequences, but may result in a variety of social sanctions. Because people typically care about how others perceive them (but see “field conservatives”), reputation is a key social sanction. When one belongs to a closely-knit group whose approbation one values, reputation within that group becomes especially powerful. If the group can credibly threaten to expel you for violating its social norms, you have a strong incentive to comply with those norms. Indeed, if continued group membership matters enough, you are likely to internalize the group’s norms to the point at which self-monitoring takes over. (This is one explanation for why people do things like take their hats off in church even when they’re alone or tip waiters in distant cities). Assume one values one’s place in the blogosphere, one will comply with its norms even though there is no sovereign with power to enforce rules. Persistent violations of those norms will have adverse reputational consequences: your link disappears from blog rolls, none of the big referrers links to you, regular readers stop surfing by, and so on. Hence, even though its your blog, you’re likely to comply with the perceived norms of the blogosphere. For whatever its worth, my policy is basically the same as Ernie’s. The line between style and substance is not a bright one, of course. I suspect I'm considerably more willing to tweak posts and make unannounced housekeeping changes than Ernie. I have even -- dare I admit it? -- deleted an inconsequential post and reversed my policy about reader comments. (Shocking!) Ernie says he's got an example of an edit that crosses the line, by the way. I found the original version of the post he cites here, however. I don't know what's up. Update: See Ernie's revised post. MORE: Mitch Ratcliffe and Rick Klau