# The Archive Ethics Model Policy **The Archive Ethics Project** · Version 1.0 · 2026-10-11 **Status:** Proposed model policy, not an adopted policy of any outside newsroom **Source:** https://archiveethics.org/documents/model-policy.md **Retrieved:** 2026-10-12 > Licensed CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Suggested attribution: "Adapted from The Archive Ethics Model Policy, Version 1.0, The Archive Ethics Project (archiveethics.org), licensed CC BY 4.0." --- **[PUBLICATION NAME]** **Policy on Historical Coverage, Corrections, and Digital Discoverability** **Effective date:** [DATE] **Last reviewed:** [DATE] **Requests:** [EMAIL ADDRESS OR SECURE FORM URL] **Final editorial authority:** [EDITOR-IN-CHIEF / DESIGNATED EDITORIAL LEADERSHIP] ## 1. Purpose [Publication Name] is committed to preserving a reliable historical record while ensuring that our journalism remains accurate, appropriately contextualized, and responsive to verified developments after publication. A news report may accurately reflect what was known when it was published yet become materially incomplete when significant new information emerges. In addition, digital search technologies can make older coverage unusually prominent long after the events occurred. **Preserving a historical record and determining how that record is distributed or discovered are related but distinct editorial decisions.** We therefore accept requests to review historical content and will consider corrections, updates, contextual notes, anonymization, search-engine de-indexing, and, in exceptional cases, removal. No individual is entitled to a preferred outcome, and no class of request is categorically exempt from consideration. The governing standard is a documented, individualized assessment of accuracy, historical integrity, present public interest, proportionality, and potential harm. ## 2. Scope This policy covers original material we control, including articles, headlines, photographs, captions, video, searchable archives, article metadata, and associated digital presentations. It applies regardless of the original publication date. It also guides our treatment of social posts and promotional materials that we control. Separate moderation rules may govern third-party comments and user submissions. We cannot guarantee changes to printed copies, independent archival databases, syndicated copies, search engines, screenshots, or third-party websites outside our control. We will explain these limitations to requesters. ## 3. Governing principles **Accuracy and completeness.** We promptly correct material factual errors. When verified later developments substantially change a reasonable reader's understanding of an older story, we ordinarily add clear, appropriately prominent context. **Historical integrity.** We do not silently rewrite the past to create a misleading historical account. Any intervention should preserve a trustworthy record of what was reported and, where appropriate, when and why it changed. **Continuing public interest.** Information important to democratic accountability, public safety, institutional conduct, or the understanding of a consequential event may warrant continued accessibility. Past newsworthiness does not automatically establish the same level of public interest indefinitely. **Compassion and proportionality.** We consider foreseeable, disproportionate harm, especially involving minors, people who were young or inexperienced at the time of coverage, private individuals, victims, and others facing significant vulnerability. **Editorial independence.** Requests are evaluated by authorized editorial decision-makers, free of commercial, political, administrative, personal, or reputational pressure. **Transparency and consistency.** We use common criteria, document our decisions, explain outcomes to requesters, and provide a route for reconsideration. ## 4. Available editorial remedies We consider remedies individually or in combination. A less intrusive remedy may be sufficient, but the least intrusive option is not automatically the most appropriate. **A. Correction.** We correct materially inaccurate facts, headlines, images, captions, or identifying information. Corrections are clearly marked where practical and handled promptly, regardless of whether an archival-review request is pending. **B. Substantive update.** We add verified information that emerged after publication, such as a dismissal of charges, acquittal, reversal or vacatur of a conviction, exoneration, resolution of an investigation, or another consequential development. We accurately distinguish these different outcomes and do not imply that one establishes more than the underlying evidence supports. **C. Editor's note or contextual annotation.** We place an appropriately prominent explanation on an existing article when the original report needs important historical context or when readers should know that an editorial decision has changed its presentation. This may include a dated explanation of the later disposition and a link to follow-up reporting. **D. Anonymization or limited redaction.** We may remove or reduce identifying details, photos, or other unnecessarily revealing material when identification is no longer essential to understanding the story and doing so would not materially mislead readers. **E. Search-engine de-indexing.** We may direct supported external search engines not to index a particular page while preserving the article, its original URL, and ordinary access through direct links and, where feasible, our own archive or site search. De-indexing changes discoverability, not the underlying historical record. It affects the page as a whole, not merely searches for one person's name, and may not affect independent copies or services that do not honor the directive. **F. Removal or unpublishing.** We may remove material from public access in exceptional circumstances, including compelling legal or safety concerns, serious irreparable defects in reporting, or circumstances in which lesser remedies cannot adequately prevent substantial harm. Removal requires heightened review and an internal record explaining the decision. **G. No change.** We may retain the current presentation when the continuing public interest, historical context, and reliability of the reporting outweigh the case for alteration. We will explain the principal reasons to the requester. ## 5. Criteria for individualized review We assess the following considerations together, with no automatic point system or universal outcome: 1. **Accuracy:** Was the original information verified, fairly framed, and accurate at publication? Is any part now demonstrably inaccurate or materially misleading without additional context? 2. **Subsequent developments:** Are there verified later legal, disciplinary, administrative, or factual outcomes that materially affect a reader's understanding? 3. **Time and changed circumstances:** How much time has passed? Has the subject's situation or the significance of the coverage materially changed? 4. **Public role:** Was the individual acting as a public official, public figure, organizational leader, or private person? What was the scope and duration of that role, and does it remain relevant to present public interest? 5. **Nature and gravity:** Did the coverage concern serious wrongdoing, public safety, misuse of power, systemic misconduct, or a minor or isolated event? 6. **Continuing public interest:** What specific value is served today by the article's continued prominence or identification of the individual, rather than by its preservation in an accessible archive? 7. **Demonstrable or reasonably foreseeable harm:** What evidence supports a risk of disproportionate reputational, employment, educational, privacy, physical-safety, or other harm? Formal proof of financial damage is not required for consideration. 8. **Other affected people:** How might a change affect victims, complainants, witnesses, sources, colleagues, communities, or others with legitimate interests in the record? 9. **Availability and effect:** How widely is the information available elsewhere, and would a proposed remedy be meaningful, technically feasible, and proportionate? 10. **Consistency and alternatives:** How have materially similar requests been treated, and could another remedy preserve more public value while adequately addressing the concern? The decision record will identify the material factors considered and the reasons certain factors carried greater weight. Public-figure status, the absence of a legal expungement, or the historical truth of an original allegation does not automatically decide the outcome. ## 6. Later legal and institutional outcomes When historical coverage reports accusations, arrests, charges, disciplinary proceedings, investigations, or convictions, we will consider credible documentary evidence of their subsequent resolution. Relevant outcomes may include no charges being filed, withdrawal or dismissal of charges, acquittal, reversal or vacatur of a conviction, sealing or expungement, a negotiated disposition, or a final institutional determination. We will not conflate these outcomes. For example, dismissal does not necessarily establish factual innocence, and expungement does not automatically make accurate historical reporting false. Likewise, an article can remain accurate about an earlier event while becoming materially incomplete because a significant outcome was never reported. When an outcome is verified and is materially relevant, our normal practice is to add a dated, reasonably prominent update or editor's note, even when we decline other remedies. We will also assess whether an existing headline, subheading, search description, or social-media preview creates a materially misleading impression without that update. The availability of an update does not foreclose separate consideration of de-indexing. ## 7. How to request review Any person directly affected by our coverage, or an authorized representative, may submit a request without payment. Others may report factual errors or important developments. Requests should provide: - The relevant article URL or enough information to identify the material. - A description of the concern and any requested remedy. - Relevant dates and evidence, including official records where available. - A way to contact the requester and, if applicable, verification of authority to act on another person's behalf. - Any specific safety or privacy concern requiring expedited review. A requester need not know journalistic terminology or choose the technically correct remedy. We will consider the substance of the request. We may seek reasonable verification of identity or documents when needed to protect confidentiality or prevent fraudulent requests. Sensitive materials should be submitted only through the secure channel we provide. We will not publicly disclose private supporting documents without an appropriate legal or ethical basis. **Submission channel:** [SECURE FORM / EMAIL] **Corrections channel:** [EMAIL / FORM] ## 8. Review process and expected timelines **Acknowledgment.** We aim to acknowledge complete requests within **five business days** and identify missing information, if any. **Initial assessment.** We promptly triage credible claims of serious factual error, imminent safety risk, or unlawful disclosure. Other requests are normally assessed within **30 calendar days** after sufficient documentation is received. **Evidence gathering.** We may review the original reporting, supporting records, related coverage, prior editorial standards, and relevant subsequent developments. We may consult the original journalist, relevant sources, affected third parties, technical staff, or legal counsel when appropriate, while protecting confidential information. **Extensions.** Complex matters may take longer. We will notify the requester of a substantial delay, explain the general reason, and provide a revised target date. **Individualized determination.** The authorized editorial decision-maker will assess the factors in Section 5, consider available remedies, and record a reasoned decision. A request must not be denied solely because the publication has historically avoided changes to its archive. **Written response.** We will communicate the outcome, the material reasons for it, any change authorized, and the available reconsideration process. We may withhold details that would compromise sources, privacy, safety, or legally protected information. ## 9. Decision-making authority and editorial independence The final decision rests with **[EDITOR-IN-CHIEF / NEWSROOM EDITORIAL COMMITTEE]** under the publication's governing rules. For student publications, editorial control must remain with the student editor-in-chief or duly authorized student editorial leadership. Faculty advisers and administrators may provide advice, technical support, or legal guidance but do not acquire final editorial authority through their participation in a review, except as required by applicable law or governing arrangements. A decision-maker with a material personal conflict must disclose it and recuse themselves when an appropriate alternative is available. When the ordinary decision-maker is conflicted, authority passes to **[DESIGNATED ALTERNATE EDITOR OR EDITORIAL BOARD PROCEDURE]**. No donor, advertiser, university official, complainant, or subject of coverage may purchase, demand, or otherwise dictate a result. ## 10. Reconsideration and appeal A requester may seek reconsideration within **30 calendar days** of the decision by identifying a material factual error, overlooked evidence, misapplication of this policy, or significant new information. Where practicable, an uninvolved editor or editorial panel will review the appeal. In a small newsroom, an independent adviser may assist, but final editorial authority remains with the publication's authorized editors. We aim to issue an appeal determination within **30 calendar days** after receiving sufficient information. Repeated requests presenting no material change may be closed with a brief explanation. A new significant legal or factual development may justify renewed review at any time. ## 11. Implementation, recordkeeping, and transparency When a remedy is approved, we will identify the responsible editor, required technical steps, and a verification date. Corrections and consequential updates will ordinarily be visible and dated. We may refrain from publishing a conspicuous note about a safety-related redaction or de-indexing decision if the note itself would create avoidable harm. Any such exception must be documented internally. We will maintain a confidential decision log recording the request date, affected content, major evidence, review participants, conflicts, governing policy version, decision, rationale, actions taken, technical verification, and appeal outcome. We will publish this policy, its effective date, substantive amendments, and a clear contact pathway. Where capacity permits, we will report aggregate, de-identified request outcomes at least annually. We will not disclose identifying details in ways that recreate the harm under review. ## 12. Technical limits of de-indexing When de-indexing is approved, we will use appropriate page-level or HTTP-header `noindex` directives supported by search engines and verify that the directives are available to their crawlers. We may use search-provider removal tools to accelerate changes, recognizing that temporary-removal tools alone are not a lasting solution. De-indexing does not erase publication, guarantee disappearance from every search engine, remove independently hosted copies, or prevent the page from being shared through a direct link. We will communicate these limitations accurately. ## 13. Review and policy changes We will review this policy at least annually. Amendments will display an effective date, and substantive changes will be retained in a version history. This policy applies to requests concerning old and new coverage. An earlier editorial decision will be evaluated in the context of the policy and circumstances applicable at the time; later policy changes do not alone establish that a past decision was improper. **Policy questions and review requests:** [CONTACT] **Published by:** [PUBLICATION NAME] **Adopted on:** [DATE] --- ## Implementation Annex (for adopting newsrooms) *The annex is guidance rather than a required public-facing component of the adopted policy.* ### A. Minimum request-form fields 1. Article URL(s) or publication date/headline. 2. Requester's name, preferred contact information, and relationship to coverage. 3. Specific concern (inaccuracy, later development, safety, disproportionate discoverability, privacy, other). 4. Relevant timeline and evidence, with a secure-upload option. 5. Requested outcome, if known (optional). 6. Whether immediate attention is needed for safety or security. 7. Consent or authority to act for another person, if applicable. 8. Notice explaining confidentiality, retention, verification, response targets, and the absence of a guaranteed outcome. ### B. Internal decision memo Record: case ID, article and URL, original publication date, requester, asserted concern, original reporting verification, subsequent verified evidence, public-interest assessment, foreseeable harm, affected third parties, all remedies considered, consistency with comparable cases, decision-maker, conflicts, rationale, action plan, dates, and appeal status. Keep this record confidential and retain it under the publication's records schedule. ### C. Technical de-indexing checklist 1. Record the URLs, canonical URL, duplicates, AMP variants, PDFs, image assets, and relevant snippets or structured metadata. 2. Preserve the article and original context according to the editorial decision. 3. Apply an appropriate `noindex` robots meta directive or `X-Robots-Tag` HTTP response header to affected URLs. Confirm that `robots.txt` does not prevent crawlers from discovering the directive. 4. Check that the response is accessible to a crawler and serves the intended directive without contradictory page-level indexing instructions. 5. Request recrawling and, where warranted, temporary removal through relevant search-provider tools while the persistent directive takes effect. 6. Confirm indexing status after processing and again on a reasonable follow-up schedule. Do not promise a fixed disappearance date. 7. Review social posts, previews, site search, sitemaps, related-story modules, and third-party syndication separately. A page-level `noindex` rule applies to the entire page, not only to name-based search queries. 8. Preserve an internal audit trail of the implementation and verification. Do not treat third-party copies as under the publication's direct control. ### D. Example contextual update > **Editor's note, [DATE]:** This article was originally published on [ORIGINAL DATE] and reported [precise description of the status at that time]. On [LATER DATE], [accurate, verified description of later outcome]. This note has been added to provide subsequent context. The article's original reporting has otherwise been preserved, except for any changes separately identified here. Use legally accurate descriptions. Do not suggest that an acquittal, dismissal, vacatur, sealing, or expungement automatically means the same thing. ### E. Adoption checklist Before publishing this policy, the adopting newsroom should: - Name its final editor or editorial body and any alternate for conflicts. - Confirm that its appeal process preserves editorial independence. - Set up a functional intake address or secure form and define records retention. - Verify it can perform and monitor any technical remedies it promises. - Review applicable law, contractual obligations, source protections, and governance rules. - Publish an adoption date, policy owner, review schedule, and revision history. - Train incoming editors, including replacement student editors, on the request log and review process. --- ## Open-use licensing and attribution The Archive Ethics Project offers this **model text** under the **Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)** license, to the extent applicable rights are held. Anyone may copy, distribute, adapt, and use the model, including for commercial purposes, with appropriate attribution, a link to the license, and notice of modifications. Attribution does not imply endorsement by the Project. **Suggested attribution:** "Adapted from *The Archive Ethics Model Policy*, Version 1.0, The Archive Ethics Project (archiveethics.org), licensed CC BY 4.0." **License:** https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This model is an independent synthesis of journalism-ethics principles and published editorial practices. It is not the text of any newsroom's policy and has not been endorsed by the organizations listed below. External works are not incorporated into the CC BY license. ### Research and technical references - Society of Professional Journalists, *Code of Ethics*: https://www.spj.org/spj-code-of-ethics/ - Reynolds Journalism Institute, Deborah Dwyer, *A streamlined unpublishing process is as important as thoughtful policy*: https://rjionline.org/procedures/a-streamlined-unpublishing-process-is-as-important-as-thoughtful-policy/ - The Philadelphia Inquirer, *Up for Review*: https://www.inquirer.com/about/inq2/up-for-review-inquirer-policy-20230201.html - The Boston Globe, *Fresh Start initiative*: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/01/22/metro/globes-fresh-start-initiative-frequently-asked-questions/ - The Rocky Mountain Collegian, *Take-down policy*: https://collegian.com/collegian-take-down-policy/ - Associated Collegiate Press, *Drafting a Content Removal Policy*: https://studentpress.org/acp/2016/08/29/drafting-a-content-removal-policy/ - The Daily Bruin, *Community Guide* (retrospective content practices): https://www.dailybruin.com/the-daily-bruin-community-guide - Google Search Central, *Block Search Indexing with noindex*: https://developers.google.com/search/docs/crawling-indexing/block-indexing - Google Search Central, *Remove Your Site Info from Google*: https://developers.google.com/search/docs/crawling-indexing/remove-information - The Spokesman-Review, *Ethics Policy*: https://www.spokesman.com/about-us/ethics-code/ **Model effective date:** October 11, 2026 **Document status:** Proposed model policy, not an adopted policy of any outside newsroom.