The Ivyist Part Two

Thank you for all of the good thinking. I thought I would consolidate the feedback and do one more article before making a call.

First, there was discussion about whether Ivy Style retains ownership over content because we do not pay for content. There were a few notes suggesting that we SHOULD pay, and that we are disadvantaged in this argument because we don’t. I really hope this comment was made by someone who complains that we service the advertisers too much. The idea that a non-subscription based website should pay for content – I have an idea. What if we pay for content when you pay for content? (which I would be down for, by the way).

I think it important to note that writers here provide content WITHOUT the expectation of ownership of that content and/or remuneration. Rather, they are contributing to a collaborative that stands alone in the field. If a writer submits a piece knowing that they will never have dominion over things like image selection, graphic design, access to the site itself, it can be very reasonably argued that the submission is made in finality. We talk a lot about the value of the site as an archive.

Another argument was that the Internet is forever. And whether or not that should be so. My perspective on that is that as a creative, part of the obligation of creating IS to allow your work to stand forever. I am relatively sure there are a ton of 80’s hair bands who now look at their music and concerts and say, “Man, I wish I hadn’t put that out there.” That does not though give them the right to go to your house and run through your CD collection tossing the ones they are embarrassed of. You should WANT your work to stand forever. You should demand of yourself that your work be good enough TO stand forever. Whether the internet is forever is, in my opinion, beyond the point. We don’t edit the Bible because there are things in it we might agree and then there are things on which we have evolved away from. We let it stand.

I am not saying Ivy-Style is the Bible. I am saying that once you submit a piece of work, you have submitted it.

There are exceptions. Slanderous pieces. Pieces that contain error. Were that the case, I would think differently. But that isn’t the case. This was an opinion piece.

I am reminded of that quote from the greatest film of all time, Point Break. They are discussing surfing with a quarterback around a beachfire at night and a surfer says. “You can’t just call time out and stroll into the beach if you don’t like the way things are going.”

I have written things for church bulletins, churches I no longer attend. Do I have the right to ask them to go back in their archive and remove what I wrote because I no longer believe it?

Whiskeydent made an interesting point. We don’t get do-overs in life but we can get make ups, he wrote. I kind of see that angle of things. If the author thought they were wrong, why WOULDN’T they want a second shot. I have been wrong a gazillion times. The second chance is what got me here.

To the commentator “John” (cute) who says the site was always edited, that is true, pieces have been edited. Some of mine were. But that is standard practice.

I dunno, would Mark Twain ask a school library to take down Huck Finn?

By the way, and I should have told you this earlier, who the author of the piece is is CENTRAL to the piece. So Anonymous won’t work.

The final argument comes down to what is the ethical thing to do. And again, I submit the slippery slope theory. You can’t say “leave what was posted as what was posted” and then start having exceptions. If we can edit the site, then hells yes let’s edit the site. If we can’t, let’s don’t.

The final final argument is that grace and kindness should prevail, and that the post is clearly causing its author distress. What I should do is write a piece as great as I am capable of and replace the post in question with that. That’s win/win.

Right?