When adding a statement, there is a possibility of making a mistake, leading to an erroneous, poorly worded statement or one that contains problematic information (such as a password). However, allowing the authors of the statement to modify it later poses various issues, such as the degradation of references to this statement or attempts at concealment.
It is possible to invalidate a statement without censoring it, through a rebuttal statement (which may or may not have the same author as the rebutted statement).
Since a statement may contain problematic data, it is imperative to have a mechanism in place to hide it. A statement signifying that another statement must be censored can be produced. This may take effect immediately or not. Then, the censorship can be reviewed to determine if it is appropriate. Depending on the case, the person who triggered the censorship may be rewarded or penalized. It is possible to hide the information without destroying it, by making it accessible only to a restricted group.
Allowing easy modification of the statement implies that the people who create it may be less careful, and this does not necessarily improve usability, as it may simply result in less focus during the creation period (a phenomenon of diluted attention or responsibility).
Unless it is an emergency, it is possible not to publish the statement immediately and to require a certain waiting period (e.g., 24 hours) before publishing it. This allows the author to correct or cancel it in the meantime.
To convey that the time before publication is meant to prevent errors and not to facilitate the dilution of attention, it is possible to reward those who use post-publication correction sparingly and/or penalize those who use it excessively. To optimize these parameters (time, reward, penalty, all depending on the importance of the statement), a psycho-sociological study should be conducted, taking into account user comfort.
The standard may not be fully implemented during the initial experimental phase because it is very rare for people to disseminate problematic information, and the rebuttal mechanism already exists.
In its initial phase, Comind may simply make modifications impossible and implement the rebuttal mechanism.
Ultimately, the mechanisms described in the "Reasoning" section should be introduced.