'Under what circumstances should editors retract published work?'
Sometimes, I wonder how wise it is to publish vulnerable content on one's beliefs, experiences, stands, etc. And more importantly, if you went on and published the work, are you supposed to retract it if it faced criticism?
I found this editor's learning in the early stages of her career interesting on the matter:
Well, I was young then, still learning. I was also the sole owner and operator of The Review Review. As such, I was often in a position of making big decisions—aesthetic, financial, ethical—completely on my own.
What I did was, I went back in and reworked my review. I changed its focus, lightened up on the points where I was critical, and ended on a more overall praising note. Why? In some ways, I suppose, he made fair points. Maybe also I was a bit intimidated and wanted him to value my work.
To be honest, I don’t exactly remember what my motivations were. What I do remember is what he said when I emailed him to let him know about my newly revised version.
Oh. I didn’t actually expect you to change your review.
He sounded almost disappointed. I, in turn, felt like an utter fool. Because of course, I did not need to change what I had written. He never requested that from me. He didn’t expect it.
We both went our separate ways, he back to producing his magazine, me back to reviewing journals. But to this day I remain grateful to this editor for what turned out to be a profound lesson. Namely, readers can find fault with something you have published (your own work or someone else’s). They can find it lacking in one way or another. They may find it offensive. They may find it very offensive.
Such responses do not, however, automatically warrant the removal or changing of a work.
The author argues that there can be many reasons why keeping a piece of objectionable published work online is the right thing to do. She continues to summarize why the modern digital world doesn't encourage this mentality:
Our era also includes the unique mob mentality of social media. Sure, editors of the past had to face angry readers and disgruntled subscribers. Yet these days reader-wrath escalates far more swiftly, thanks in part to an algorithm which feasts on our strong emotions, gathers us among the like-minded, and rewards us for our anger and our fear.
