Is it appropriate to modify a 4 year old article? In looking for IRC info I encountered this article by Paul Frields
The list of links near the end contains one titled #irchelp IRC Primer which is a dead link. Should this be removed this late after the fact?
Is there a general policy regarding post publication corrections?
Hello @rlengland
I updated the link to the new to irc tutorial link instead. It is basically the same info.
In this case, with respect to subsequent comments, I followed this when deciding. Was the post still relevant? Yes. And was there a link reflective of the reason it was included in the first place? Yes, again. If the link was truly dead with no suitable substitute, I would have merely deleted it from the post, with a dated edit I suppose for clarity.
I’m not aware of a specific policy. This problem has been mentioned before though: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/magazine@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/HRC3VX3HZH6VCR4LYPKXEF65JLSN6RTU/
My takeaway from the previous conversation was something along the lines of “It would be great to fix or mark as outdated (or even remove?) old articles, but nobody feels up to doing the work”. 
The end of the thread recommends always specifying the version of the software in the article so people should be able to tell if it is outdated.
My 2¢ (take at face value, not as an Official FPL Position)…
Since this is a blog / publication rather than a knowledge base, I think it’s better to publish whole new updated articles rather than editing old ones (beyond the odd fix here and there like this one).
It might be nice to have an “Outdated” template we could put up for people. It could be made to either point to a newer article, or when that’s not available point to the magazine submission process with a hint that an updated article would be welcome. 
Some topics which are worth keeping always up to date might find a better permanent home at Fedora Quick Docs, so that might be an option for old-but-still-valuable articles as well: make an updated doc and put a note at the top of the old article pointing to it.
Matthew beat me to the punch here. Other than factual errors corrected at or around press time, we don’t go back to the archives to correct things. That’s a wiki or a knowledge base, not a magazine. (In other words, you can find plenty of things wrong in old Scientific American issues, too.)
I like the idea of the template. On the other hand, we have a built-in redirections function that lets us point web browsers permanently at a new article with negligible performance impact, so a template is probably not necessary.
Also +1 on the Quick Docs idea.
Paul