Every six months or so I re-read what I've published in the last year. Sometimes I find a piece that needs serious rework. Most often it doesn't. But the question of what to change, and what not to, has taken me a long time to figure out.

What I will change:

• Factual errors. Always. Add a small "[updated 2024-01-18]" tag and fix.
• Confusing structure. If the order of ideas was wrong, I'll re-cut it. The reader is downstream of the structure.
• Stale links. The web rots fast.

What I won't change:

• Things I no longer believe. Better to leave the old essay and write a new one disagreeing. The trail of changing your mind in public is worth more than the appearance of consistency.
• Voice. If the old me wrote tighter or looser than I do now, that's the voice that piece has. Let it.
• The argument. A weakly-argued essay is still a record of where I was. Strengthening it after the fact is dishonest.

This is a balance the digital-garden discourse doesn't engage with often enough. The "evergreen" model says: keep updating until it's right. The "blog" model says: ship and never look back. Both are wrong by themselves; some pieces want one mode, some want the other.

Related: Notes on writing in public, On finishing.

Comments

Comments are moderated. No email, no IP collection.