While I agree the solutions offered to improve one's web reputation are practical, they don't seem moral. Should the burden of correcting factually false information really be up to the "victim" of such errors? Why force me to wage a campaign to link my brains out in order to overshadow someone else's mistake? In my mind, if I write an article that is in error, it is MY responsibility to fix it in any manner possible.

Publish a decades-overdue retraction?

This is no different than reputation earned in any other arena (either fairly or not). If you care about your reputation, it's your responsibility to guard it and manage it, as you can.

Google doesn't create opinion, it only reflects it. If you don't like the information reflected, all you need to do is provide contradicting information to counter it, whether on search engines, one's community, family, or friends.

Hell, flow of information turns out to be more influential than accuracy anyway. Hasn't Karl Rove taught us anything?

So I can distribute false information about you as long as it is OLD false information?

You can distribute information about me that already exists, true or false, so long as you don't make any up about me.

As far as correcting misinformation is concerned, the universe is full of misinformation - new facts come in, sources are discredited, and stories evolve. The only difference in this particular case is the ease with which such disinformation emerges.

Fortunately, as Mr. Shafer notes, this is also easily countered.

How is this scenario, for instance, any different than the reputation I develop, fairly or unfairly, among my professional associates? If there is unflattering, but incorrect opinion floating about, what should I do to counter it?

A good friend of mine owns a service-oriented business here in town. She's very good at her job. Perusing the Citysearch website one day, I discovered a negative review of her service from a very atypical, disgruntled customer.

So what should she have done? She knew who it was, so should she have called him? Sued him? Called Citysearch?

What she did was mention Citysearch to her customers and ask for a rating. Now, she's hands-down the highest rated in her area in the city.

Seems like a no-brainer to me. In fact, it seems entirely consonant with what already occurs in the non-digital world.