What to record before replacing an old source with a newer one

Before replacing an old source with a newer one, record which claim changed, whether the old source is obsolete, and whether the new source answers the same question.

Newer is not always better. A newer article may summarize a narrower case, cite the older source, or discuss a different region, product tier, or version. If the old source was primary documentation and the new source is a commentary, replacing it can make the record weaker. The replacement should be based on fit, not only date.

Start by naming the claim that needs support. Then compare publisher, date, scope, geography, version, and evidence type. If the claim is about current policy, an updated official notice usually matters. If the claim is about original reasoning, historical context, or a stable definition, the older source may remain the better citation. Sometimes the right answer is to keep both: one for origin, one for current status.

The replacement note should be explicit. “Replaced 2024 pricing blog with 2026 official pricing page for current plan limits” is useful. “Updated source” is not. If the older source is kept, explain its role: archived background, original announcement, deprecated behavior, or prior comparison.

This habit prevents accidental source laundering, where a newer but weaker page makes a claim look better supported than it is. A source trail should help readers understand why a citation changed and whether the conclusion changed with it.

What to record before replacing an old source with a newer one

// COMMENTS

ON THIS PAGE