I'm sorry, but there's a difference between changing your article for updates and editor required corrections, and changing your article to look as if you never bit the bullet. BBC did exactly the latter, they didn't put an "Update: It has been determined this was a hoax" or "Please forgive our error, we have made a mistake..." anything.
Reading the cached article, and then going back to the original, I think it is fully within your duty to inform your readers that the article has been updated specifically for the reason of clarification and acknowledging a mistake was made, and that new information has come to the fore.
Trying to hide behind that by virtually rewriting the article is just unsavory, and I expect better from the BBC News.
Sorry if it seems like I'm taking a high road here, but I am; retroactive continuity has NO place in journalism.
You're right, and I agree with you. But yes we've seen stories get changed considerably with no reference to the update. Unfortunately retroactive continuity seems to be pretty much the norm. From a publishers perspective, that's the beauty of the web: unlike print you can change your spin at any time.
Reading the cached article, and then going back to the original, I think it is fully within your duty to inform your readers that the article has been updated specifically for the reason of clarification and acknowledging a mistake was made, and that new information has come to the fore.
Trying to hide behind that by virtually rewriting the article is just unsavory, and I expect better from the BBC News.
Sorry if it seems like I'm taking a high road here, but I am; retroactive continuity has NO place in journalism.