When archiving = eternal mortification

I’ve been listening to the LIS2600 podcasts, reading further in our textbooks, and plunging into del.ici.ous and Connotea. These combined efforts are gratifying, even if only for making me feel a bit more techno-literate, but I’m also realizing how very much I’ve yet to learn. I’ve been taking copious notes, which I don’t suppose are necessary to copy here, but as I said in an earlier post, it’s very helpful to see the components of computers, networks, and other information technology all laid out.

One of the podcasts mentioned that many web sites are short-lived and fleeting, and mentioned how archival technology is helpful for preserving such transient documents. Of course, many of these sites (as Prof. Tomer pointed out) are gibberish, automatically generated by other programs, while many others are well worth preserving. This distinction made me wonder about a possible third category, sites that the original author no longer wishes to promulgate: e.g. cruel junior-high gossip, drunken rants, immature ramblings, or other content that one wouldn’t want tied to his or her name for eternity. How, if at all, can an individual retract online missteps? Might it ever be the responsibility of an archivist NOT to preserve content?

My instinct is to say no, that all information (yes, even dangerous info like weapon-making) has a place somewhere, but I’m also acutely aware of privacy concerns, and aware that it’s difficult to erase anything that’s already been said online, even if it’s blatant slander or hateful garbage. Who would make decisions about which archives could be erased, anyway? These are interesting issues, to be sure.