Several people have said that my posts on the Google memory hole were too picky, or fell far short of the "evil" threshold. Fair points.
Just to be clear, I don't pretend that the edits to inconsequential posts on the Google Blog qualify as matters of national security. I do believe that if Google intends to become the guardian of the world's information, they'll need to do more than say, "Trust us." They need to demonstrate in the little things that they care about the integrity of information, and the big things will follow.
It's perfectly OK for individual bloggers to make whatever changes they want. It's their site, and it's up to the reader to determine how much to trust each individual. Likewise, institutional bloggers won't violate the public trust when they make minor edits to format and spelling if the meaning and context do not change.
But Google is a special case. They've set the expectation very high for themselves. They say they intend to adhere to the principles of a "well run newspaper." If Google want to be the guardians of the world's information, they should demonstrate a fastidious attention to the integrity of that information, especially when Google is the author.
In contrast, Microsoft doesn't pretend to have a "Don't Be Evil" policy, and I don't make a fuss when Microsoft flushes information down the memory hole. I don't even make much of a deal about Microsoft censoring content in China. It's wrong, but I just don't expect anything more of them -- I don't trust them like I trust Google.
Google claims they're an unconventional company, run as much by principle as to meet quarterly earnings targets. They're banking on a higher level of trust to achieve their goal to organize the world's information. Google profits from the trust in the Google brand.
I don't think it's asking too much for Google to acknowledge their errata. When they need to correct a factual error in something they've published, they should do so just as a well-run newspaper would. If they need to alter a photo or remove content that was previously published, it should be noted.
Information is power. For centuries powerful people have censored, rewritten, and altered information to control populations. Orwell's book 1984, which coined the term "memory hole," was a satire on how powerful people control language and information to subjugate populations. As the world's information and media repository, Google has a moral obligation to ensure their technology is used for good.
Google should demonstrate that they care about the integrity of the world's information as much as a well-run newspaper cares about the integrity of its journalism. A good first step would be to take care of the little things -- track changes, acknowledge errata and show that there is no Google memory hole.
 |
| Don't Be Evil - restoring the public trust in business, politics and the media |
Too picky to rewrite history? - 7/28/2005 03:14:00 PM
| |
Google Errata - 7/26/2005 05:10:00 PM
The Google founders like to compare Google to a "well run newspaper." They enforce a strict separation between content and paid advertising to prevent commercial interests from distorting or biasing the information users depend on. This practice, while losing Google some revenue in the early days, is a big reason why they're now trusted and used more than the competition. You could argue that Google's values (coupled with ingenious engineers) are a major factor in the company's $80 billion market value.
Unlike a well run newspaper, though, Google does not recognize its own errors and omissions very well. While reputable journalists acknowledge their errata and memorialize them in a special section, Google flushes their errors down the memory hole. I've accidentally come across a couple examples recently (one and two) where Google made a meaningful change to a post on the Google Blog and didn't acknowledge the change or didn't identify what was changed. I've argued that while these may be trivial examples, if Google wants us to trust them to organize the world's information, they should take a leadership position in setting the standards for reporting changes on the web. Brad Hill sets a good example in his Unofficial Google Weblog. Brad changed this post to correct an error, and provides a simple and direct explanation of the change. Brad could have just edited the original, kept the same timestamp and permalink, and flushed the original down the memory hole -- as if it never existed. But Brad memorialized the change and enhanced his own reputation for honest reporting as a result. Google should take note. |
The Google memory hole - hybrid edition - 7/25/2005 01:34:00 PM
I had criticized Google for changing a blog posting without showing that changes had been made. In that case, Google changed the title and body, and even altered a photo -- but kept the same time stamp. From any other company, this would be an error in blog etiquette. But for Google, which wants the world to trust it with all information, it's an evil thing to "change history."
Today, Google changed another blog post. They're doing a little better now, as they indicate in the revised post that it has been "updated." But I had to go find the original copy in my Google Desktop archive to see what they changed. (Apparently the new Google maps hybrid feature doesn't work so well in Japan.) Here's the original: Test drive this hybrid vehicleAnd the updated version: Test drive this hybrid vehicleIsn't it funny that I can use Google technology (Desktop Search) to track the changes made to a document, but Google won't identify the changes it made right in the source document? What's the value of a Permalink when there's little integrity to the source material? If Google doesn't want to affect the aesthetics of the posting with strikethroughs, then what about deploying a change tracking and comparison capability like wikis do? |
| dontbeevil.com |