The Guardian's readers' editor has revealed that the newspaper occasionally removes or alters articles from its digital archive, despite a general policy of preserving the historical record. The editor receives at least two requests per week to delete content, with numbers growing. Successive readers' editors have typically resisted such requests, arguing that the archive is a historical record that must be trusted.
Two-and-a-half years ago, the editor drew up deletion guidelines for internal discussion. These allow alterations or deletions where a legal challenge is supported by the Guardian's legal department, where someone's life or health is in danger, where children may be identified or gave uninformed consent, or where fresh verifiable information discredits a story. Requests based on 'source remorse' or minor indiscretions are generally rejected.
However, the editor noted that 'electronic eternity' can be too harsh in some circumstances. One case involved a young man who spoke about knife culture during work experience; years later, the article still topped Google searches and hampered his career. The editor agreed to anonymise him, marking a rare reversal.
The editor is exploring technical options to remove names externally while retaining them internally for editorial reference. Once this is feasible, a debate on adopting fresh guidelines will follow. Alternative methods to manage online reputation, such as building up a positive profile, are also suggested.
