# The Archive Ethics Project — Founding Documents *Preserve the record. Reconsider the reach.* Proposed documents, version 1.0. Not formally adopted, externally reviewed, or endorsed by any organization. ## Contents 1. Mission, Identity, and Guiding Principle 2. Research Methodology and Institutional Classification Standards 3. Institutional Classification and Evidence Standards 4. Editorial Independence and Institutional Integrity Charter 5. The Archive Ethics Model Policy 6. Open-Use and Citation Framework --- # Mission, Identity, and Guiding Principle **The Archive Ethics Project** · Version 1.0 · 2026-10-11 **Status:** Proposed **Source:** https://archiveethics.org/documents/mission.md **Retrieved:** 2026-10-12 --- ## Mission statement To advance ethical, transparent, and consistent standards for preserving and managing historical news coverage through independent research, institutional engagement, and practical editorial guidance. ## Vision A journalism environment in which historical reporting remains trustworthy, consequential later developments are responsibly contextualized, and people can understand how requests involving older coverage are reviewed, even where the answer is no. ## Non-negotiable commitments - Historical integrity is a legitimate public interest. - Editorial independence belongs to the authorized editors, including student editors. - Preservation, correction, contextual updating, anonymization, de-indexing, and removal are distinct remedies. - The same evidence rules apply to institutions that agree and disagree with AEP recommendations. - An unpublished policy is not proof of no policy. Nonresponse is not opposition. - Policy adoption dates cannot be inferred solely from the first date a document was discovered online. - Founding motivation and material conflicts must be disclosed. - The project must be able to publish findings that contradict its starting assumptions. --- # Research Methodology and Institutional Classification Standards **The Archive Ethics Project** · Version 1.0 · 2026-10-11 **Status:** Proposed founding methodology, effective upon formal adoption **Source:** https://archiveethics.org/documents/methodology.md **Retrieved:** 2026-10-12 --- ## A1. Purpose and Research Objectives The Archive Ethics Project (AEP) is an independent research initiative dedicated to understanding and improving the ethical standards governing historical news coverage, digital archives, and search-engine discoverability. The Project conducts systematic research into the policies and practices of professional news organizations, student media, and journalism institutions. Our research seeks to answer five fundamental questions: 1. How many news organizations maintain written policies governing corrections, updates, removal, anonymization, and search-engine de-indexing of historical content? 2. How many make those policies publicly accessible? 3. What remedies do their policies permit, prohibit, or evaluate individually? 4. How consistently and transparently do organizations communicate and apply their standards? 5. How are editorial policies evolving in response to technological developments, changing legal circumstances, and concerns about lasting reputational harm? Our objective is to document institutional practices accurately, identify gaps in transparency, and provide resources that support informed editorial decision-making. The Project does not presume that any particular policy outcome is appropriate for every publication or circumstance. ## A2. Research Population and Scope Our research initially focuses on U.S.-based institutions in three categories. **A. Student news organizations** Student-operated newspapers, digital publications, and other news outlets affiliated with colleges and universities. **B. Professional news organizations** Local, regional, and national newsrooms, including newspapers, digital-first publications, and other organizations producing original journalism. **C. Journalism and professional organizations** Press associations, journalism ethics organizations, educational institutions, and professional bodies that publish relevant guidance or influence editorial standards. Each publication is evaluated independently unless a common governing editorial policy is documented. A university's institutional policy must not be attributed to a student publication without evidence that it governs that publication. The research database will distinguish active organizations from historical, inactive, merged, and discontinued publications. ## A3. Institutional Identification and Research Procedures Institutions will be identified through publicly available directories, academic records, professional association listings, verified publication websites, and other documented sources. The Project may use automated tools to identify potential institutions and relevant source material. All substantive public classifications must be supported by verifiable evidence. Researchers will follow a standardized discovery procedure: 1. Verify the publication's identity, active status, website, and editorial affiliation. 2. Review publicly available editorial policies, ethics statements, correction procedures, archive notices, and frequently asked questions. 3. Search the publication's website and relevant external search indexes for policies or statements regarding historical coverage. 4. Examine relevant published statements, professional guidance, and archived versions where appropriate. 5. Record available evidence, source URLs, relevant publication dates, and verification dates. 6. Contact the institution when material questions remain unresolved. Researchers will distinguish current policies from superseded policies and historical practices. A failure to locate a policy does not establish that no policy exists. ## A4. Institutional Classification Framework Each institution will be evaluated across separate dimensions. Classifications must reflect documented evidence, not assumptions about institutional intent. ### A4.1 Policy transparency - **Publicly documented:** A relevant written policy is publicly accessible and verified. - **Internally documented:** An authorized representative confirms a written policy exists, but it is not publicly available. - **Informal practice confirmed:** An authorized representative describes an established practice without confirming a written policy. - **No policy confirmed:** An authorized representative explicitly confirms that no applicable policy exists. - **No public policy located:** A standardized search was completed without finding a relevant public policy. - **Unverified:** Available evidence is insufficient to determine policy status. ### A4.2 Editorial remedies The following remedies will be evaluated independently: - Corrections or factual clarifications. - Updates reflecting subsequent developments. - Editor's notes or contextual annotations. - Anonymization or selective redaction. - Search-engine de-indexing while retaining accessible archived content. - Removal of material from the publication's website. - Other remedies expressly identified by the institution. Each remedy will receive one of four classifications: **Permitted**, **considered case by case**, **prohibited**, or **not established by available evidence**. An institution may receive different classifications for different remedies. ### A4.3 Editorial decision-making Where documented, the Project will identify: - The person or body authorized to decide requests. - The role of editorial advisers, publishers, and institutional administrators. - Required documentation or review criteria. - Available reconsideration or appeal procedures. - Published response expectations. Unknown information must remain explicitly identified as unknown. ## A5. Evidentiary Standards The Project will prioritize evidence using the following hierarchy: **Primary evidence:** Current policies, official editorial standards, and other directly published institutional documents. **Verified institutional statements:** Written or recorded statements made by authorized representatives and obtained under clear attribution terms. **Supporting evidence:** Credible third-party reporting, archived policy versions, documented editorial decisions, and relevant professional guidance. **Technical observations:** Website metadata, indexing directives, archived content differences, and other technical findings. Technical observations may establish that a change occurred. They do not, without supporting evidence, establish why it occurred or whether it resulted from an editorial decision. Similarly, documented exceptions to an archival policy do not necessarily demonstrate misconduct or inconsistent application. The applicable policy version, scope, authority, and circumstances must first be examined. Substantive claims must be traceable to identifiable evidence. Unsupported assumptions and speculative conclusions are excluded from institutional classifications. ## A6. Institutional Outreach and Verification The Project will maintain a standardized institutional outreach program. Organizations without sufficient published information will be invited to clarify their policies and practices. The questionnaire will address: 1. Whether an applicable written policy exists and whether it is publicly available. 2. Which historical-content remedies are expressly permitted, prohibited, or considered individually. 3. Who exercises final editorial decision-making authority. 4. What criteria govern decisions and whether a documented review process exists. 5. Whether the organization wishes to provide a public policy link, official statement, or clarification. Institutions will be informed of the Project's research purpose, intended publication practices, and procedures for correcting their profiles. The standard outreach process will allow approximately ten business days for an initial response, followed by one reminder and an additional ten business days. A failure to respond may be documented as **No response received**, provided a reasonable attempt to reach the appropriate contact was made. It must never be interpreted as opposition to de-indexing, evidence of unethical conduct, or confirmation that no policy exists. Nonpublic correspondence will be attributed or quoted only under clearly communicated and agreed attribution terms. Institutions may provide updated information at any time. ## A7. Quality Assurance and Research Independence The Project will apply consistent classification rules regardless of an institution's size, reputation, editorial position, or prior relationship with Project personnel. Each research record will identify its evidence, date of verification, classification rationale, and review status. Materially disputed findings and classifications involving potential conflicts of interest will require independent review before publication of interpretive conclusions. Where independent review is unavailable, the Project may publish clearly sourced factual information but will withhold contested evaluative conclusions until appropriate review is completed. Researchers must disclose relevant personal, financial, professional, or institutional conflicts. Artificial intelligence and automated research tools may assist discovery, extraction, and preliminary classification. They must not serve as the sole authority for published findings. Human verification is required for substantive institutional claims. ## A8. Data Collection and Research Transparency The Project will maintain structured records containing, where applicable: - A unique publication or institution identifier. - Institution and publication names. - Publication type and editorial affiliation. - Applicable policy classifications. - Supporting source links and verification dates. - Outreach and response status. - Research and independent-review status. - Relevant policy changes and historical versions. The Project will make its classification framework, questionnaire, inclusion criteria, and methodological revisions publicly accessible. Research publications will disclose the population covered, observation period, number of institutions evaluated, number contacted, response rate, and relevant limitations. Findings will distinguish verified institutional practices from estimates, hypotheses, and recommendations. Results from incomplete or nonrepresentative samples will not be presented as estimates of the entire U.S. news industry. Public datasets will exclude unnecessary personal information and confidential correspondence. ## A9. Reporting and Publication Standards Research findings will be presented objectively and with sufficient context to prevent misleading interpretations. The Project will clearly distinguish: **Research findings:** What the evidence establishes about institutional policies and practices. **Analysis:** What those findings suggest about transparency, consistency, and emerging editorial trends. **Recommendations:** Policy improvements or professional practices advocated by the Project. Institutions that decline to permit de-indexing will not automatically receive unfavorable evaluations. Likewise, organizations permitting de-indexing will not automatically be characterized as more ethical or transparent. Policy accessibility, clarity, and consistency will be evaluated separately from the substance of an institution's editorial position. ## A10. Corrections, Challenges, and Revisions Any institution or member of the public may challenge a published factual claim or classification. The Project will provide a publicly accessible correction process. We will aim to acknowledge substantive correction requests within five business days and complete an initial review within fifteen business days. Corrections supported by evidence will be published promptly. Material changes will be documented in a revision history. Where an unresolved factual dispute could cause significant reputational harm, the Project may temporarily qualify or suspend the disputed classification while conducting further review. The Project will not quietly modify substantive research findings to conceal previous errors. ## A11. Research Ethics and Data Protection The Project recognizes that reporting about historical events can itself create unnecessary harm. Researchers will minimize the collection, retention, and redistribution of unnecessary personal information. The Project will not republish sensitive historical allegations merely to illustrate an institution's archival practices when less intrusive evidence is sufficient. Private correspondence, personal records, and sensitive case materials will not be distributed without an appropriate basis. Research data will be protected through reasonable access controls and retention procedures. Institutional criticism will remain focused on documented policies and practices rather than personal attacks against individual journalists or students. ## A12. Methodological Review and Amendments This methodology will be reviewed at least annually and updated as research practices, technology, and relevant ethical standards evolve. Material methodological changes will be documented with their effective dates. The Project will preserve sufficient historical information to explain differences between findings published under successive methodology versions. **Our governing research principle:** > Every institution deserves to be evaluated against the same transparent standards, every material conclusion must be supported by verifiable evidence, and every organization must have a meaningful opportunity to clarify the public record. --- # Institutional Classification and Evidence Standards **The Archive Ethics Project** · Version 1.0 · 2026-10-11 **Status:** Proposed; part of the founding project specification **Source:** https://archiveethics.org/documents/classification-standards.md **Retrieved:** 2026-10-12 --- ## Independent classification axes ### A. Policy transparency | Code | Status | Evidence requirement | |---|---|---| | PT1 | Public written policy verified | Working, dated primary source or adequately preserved institutional copy | | PT2 | Internal written policy confirmed | Authorized institutional confirmation; policy not publicly provided | | PT3 | Informal editorial practice confirmed | Attributable institutional statement, no written policy confirmed | | PT4 | No policy confirmed | Authorized explicit statement that no relevant policy exists | | PT5 | No public policy located | Completion of documented searches, no conclusion about internal existence | | PT6 | Unverified or insufficient evidence | Too little evidence to make another classification | ### B. Position on each separate remedy Use *expressly permitted*, *case-by-case review*, *expressly prohibited*, or *not established*. Apply to correction, update, editor's note, anonymization, search-engine de-indexing, and removal independently. A newsroom may permit corrections and categorically prohibit de-indexing without contradiction. ### C. Decision process Record documented decision-maker, student editorial authority where relevant, adviser role, submission procedure, stated criteria, acknowledgment timing, reconsideration path, and whether actual policy history is published. Do not infer decision authority solely from titles or email participation. ### D. Provenance and historical certainty Record the policy's stated effective date, first observed online date, last verified date, and any independently documented approval or adoption evidence as separate fields. “First located in 2026” is not equivalent to “adopted in 2026.” ## Sample institution record ```yaml institution_id: aep-example-001 publication: Example Student News parent_institution: Example University publication_type: student_media active_status: verified_active policy_transparency: PT1 policy_url: https://example.org/editorial-policy policy_effective_date: unknown policy_first_observed_date: 2026-10-11 policy_verified_date: 2026-10-11 remedies: correction: expressly_permitted contextual_update: case_by_case deindexing: not_established anonymization: not_established removal: expressly_prohibited editorial_decision_authority: student_editor_in_chief outreach_status: not_contacted source_archive_reference: null review_status: preliminary reviewer_count: 1 public_notes: "Illustrative fictional record only." ``` ## Evidence hierarchy and quality control 1. Contemporaneous primary policy statements and identifiable official institutional documents. 2. Authorized, attributable responses from an institution. 3. Credible reporting and historical archival materials, each labeled by type and date. 4. Technical observations and automated discovery leads requiring interpretation and, where material, human review. For public classifications, require primary or otherwise clearly sufficient evidence and a review timestamp. For contested interpretations, request an independent second review. Record corrections openly and preserve historical versions of profiles, subject to privacy and legal constraints. ## Crucial non-inferences - **No public policy located ≠ No policy exists.** - **No response ≠ Opposed to de-indexing.** - **An editorial change ≠ Proof of a policy violation.** - **A current policy ≠ Proof of the policy in force years earlier.** - **University governance ≠ Automatic editorial control of its student paper.** - **Later dismissal, acquittal, vacatur, or expungement ≠ Interchangeable legal outcomes.** - **De-indexed ≠ Deleted or inaccessible to direct readers.** --- # Editorial Independence and Institutional Integrity Charter **The Archive Ethics Project** · Version 1.0 · 2026-10-11 **Status:** Proposed founding charter, effective upon formal adoption **Source:** https://archiveethics.org/documents/charter.md **Retrieved:** 2026-10-12 --- ## B1. Mission and Institutional Purpose The Archive Ethics Project is an independent research and educational initiative dedicated to advancing ethical, transparent, and consistent standards for historical news coverage and digital archives. We recognize that journalism serves an essential public function by documenting events and preserving the historical record. We also recognize that the permanence and discoverability of digital content can create enduring consequences that warrant thoughtful ethical consideration. Our purpose is not to weaken the historical record, compel the removal of accurate journalism, or interfere with legitimate editorial independence. Our purpose is to improve public understanding of how editorial decisions are made and encourage fair, consistent, and transparent standards. ## B2. Commitment to Editorial Independence The Project operates independently of the news organizations, educational institutions, professional associations, public officials, and other entities included in its research. No researched institution, donor, commercial partner, or external organization may exercise control over the Project's findings, classifications, publications, or policy recommendations. We recognize and respect the editorial independence of the organizations we study. The Project does not claim authority to direct newsrooms, mandate corrections, or require changes to archived content. We advocate for ethical review processes, not predetermined editorial outcomes. ## B3. Foundational Ethical Principles **Accuracy** We will publish information supported by credible, verifiable evidence and correct material inaccuracies. **Transparency** We will disclose our research methodology, institutional interests, material conflicts, and the basis for substantive conclusions. **Fairness** We will apply consistent standards to institutions regardless of their willingness to consider de-indexing or other remedies. **Independence** We will not permit personal interests, financial relationships, or institutional pressure to determine research outcomes. **Accountability** We will maintain accessible procedures for corrections, challenges, and public feedback. **Respect** We will treat journalists, researchers, institutional representatives, and affected individuals with professionalism and dignity. **Proportionality** We will consider whether publishing particular information creates unnecessary harm that outweighs its contribution to public understanding. ## B4. Separation of Research and Advocacy The Project engages in both independent research and public-interest advocacy. These activities must remain clearly distinguishable. Our research will document institutional positions and practices regardless of whether they support the Project's policy recommendations. Our advocacy may encourage greater policy transparency, individualized review, and consideration of proportionate remedies for historical reporting. Research findings will not be manipulated, selectively omitted, or reclassified to advance advocacy objectives. Publications will distinguish documented findings from interpretations, opinions, and recommendations. ## B5. Founding Motivation and Disclosure of Personal Interests The Project's founding was informed by firsthand experience with the enduring consequences of historical student journalism and subsequent efforts to obtain editorial reconsideration. The founder has a personal interest arising from historical coverage by a student newspaper. This relationship will be publicly disclosed. The Project is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or acting on behalf of that newspaper or its university. The founding experience may inform research questions, but it must not determine the treatment of any institution. Research concerning that newspaper, its university, or another institution involved in a material personal dispute with Project leadership will be subject to additional safeguards. The founder will not serve as the sole reviewer of a contested institutional classification or evaluative finding concerning that dispute. Such findings will require review by an independent individual without a material relationship to the matter. Until that review is available, disputed evaluative findings will not be published as verified institutional conclusions. The Project will not use its institutional directory as a means of retaliating against any individual or organization. ## B6. Governance and Independent Oversight During its initial development, the Project may operate under founder-led administration. Founder leadership will be disclosed and must not be represented as independent board oversight. As the Project develops, it will seek qualified external advisers with experience in journalism ethics, editorial policy, research methodology, digital archives, and related fields. Advisers will be invited to provide methodological guidance, identify weaknesses, and review material conflicts. Their names, roles, and any relevant institutional affiliations will be disclosed with their consent. Advisory participation does not imply endorsement of every Project publication. Any future governing board or formal oversight body will operate under publicly documented responsibilities and conflict-of-interest standards. ## B7. Funding and Financial Independence The Project will not accept funding conditioned on favorable treatment of an institution, modification of a research finding, or suppression of an unfavorable conclusion. Institutions may not purchase improved classifications, endorsements, or exemptions from research. If the Project accepts financial support, it will disclose material institutional funding relationships and the financial interests that could reasonably affect public confidence in its independence. The Project will establish and publish a donor-disclosure threshold before accepting material external funding. Research, model policies, and core methodological resources will remain accessible without requiring payment from the institutions evaluated. Commercial relationships, if any, must be clearly distinguished from research and editorial content. ## B8. Fair Treatment of Institutions Every institution will be evaluated under the same published methodology. The Project will not presume that refusing de-indexing is inherently unethical. We recognize that legitimate editorial positions may differ concerning historical preservation, privacy, public interest, and the consequences of digital publication. Organizations will have reasonable opportunities to clarify their policies and challenge inaccurate classifications. A lack of response will not be characterized as misconduct or evidence of an adverse editorial position. The Project will not engage in harassment, coordinated pressure campaigns against individual journalists, or deceptive outreach. Student journalists will receive the same respect for their editorial independence as professional newsroom leaders. ## B9. Independence of the Model Policy The Project may develop and publish model editorial policies for voluntary institutional adoption. These resources will be advisory rather than mandatory. Model policies will distinguish between correction, contextual updating, anonymization, de-indexing, and removal. They will recognize legitimate public-interest considerations, the importance of historical integrity, and the need to assess individual circumstances. The Project will invite substantive criticism and alternative perspectives, including from editors who oppose de-indexing as a general practice. Adoption of the model policy will not be required for inclusion in the research directory or favorable treatment under the research methodology. The Project will not claim that a model policy has been professionally endorsed unless that endorsement has been expressly provided. ## B10. Corrections and Public Accountability The Project will publish a clear procedure for submitting factual corrections and methodological challenges. Material errors will be corrected without unnecessary delay, and substantive revisions will be documented. The Project will distinguish factual disputes from disagreements over ethical interpretation. An institution's disagreement with a recommendation does not, by itself, establish a factual error. Where research findings are materially uncertain, the Project will disclose that uncertainty rather than imply unsupported certainty. ## B11. Institutional Conduct and Professional Engagement Communications undertaken on behalf of the Project will be accurate, respectful, and transparent about their purpose. Researchers and representatives must not misrepresent their identity, professional affiliations, authority, or the intended use of information. The Project will not imply that an institution has participated in, adopted, or endorsed its work without confirmation. We will seek constructive engagement with professional journalism organizations, researchers, student media, and educational institutions. The Project will prioritize substantive dialogue over public confrontation. ## B12. Amendment and Continuing Accountability This Charter will be reviewed at least annually. Material amendments will be published with effective dates and explanations of significant changes. Research integrity requirements and conflict-of-interest safeguards may be strengthened as the Project develops. Changes to organizational leadership or funding arrangements will not invalidate the Project's fundamental commitments to independence, accuracy, fairness, and transparency. **Our founding commitment:** > We believe that a trustworthy historical record requires accuracy, context, and accountability. We will advocate for responsible editorial practices while respecting the independence of those who preserve and report the news. Our conclusions will follow the evidence, even when that evidence challenges our own assumptions. --- # 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. --- # Open-Use and Citation Framework **The Archive Ethics Project** · Version 1.0 · 2026-10-11 **Status:** Proposed **Source:** https://archiveethics.org/documents/open-use.md **Retrieved:** 2026-10-12 --- **Model editorial policy:** Proposed CC BY 4.0 reuse for the original AEP model text, subject to applicable rights and proper attribution. Its full notice appears at the end of the [Model Policy](/standards/model-policy). External third-party works cited by the model are not relicensed. **Research datasets and scripts:** Licenses for datasets and scripts will be selected only after assessing privacy, source rights, and obligations relating to copyrighted source material. AEP will not purport to grant rights it does not own. **Attribution suggestion for adopters:** “Adapted from *The Archive Ethics Model Policy*, Version 1.0, The Archive Ethics Project (archiveethics.org), licensed CC BY 4.0.” Indicate significant modifications and do not imply AEP endorses the adopting newsroom. **Source documentation:** Cite the specific version and verification date of AEP research, not merely its mutable homepage. Use permanent archival snapshots or DOIs where appropriate.