stargeek
CorrectionsCorrectionsCorrections 07/12/2004 05:29 AM An essay and a picture caption last Sunday .. Page 2 of today's New York Times .. corrections page of the NYT: .. Hey, nobody's perfect .. corrects itself .. Corrections .. every day .. correct .. MIND? .. Woops .. Note .. NYT nytimes.com/corrections.html This is a GrokNews Entry: (what is grok?)CorrectionsGrok Headline matches for CorrectionsGentle CorrectionsGentle Corrections 12/05/2003 10:15 AM Mark Baker: Today, Roy Fielding ripped me a new one on the topic of the https URI scheme, which I had always considered an unnecessary hack. It seems that Mark now knows a bit more about the rationale behind the https URI scheme, but doesn't quite grasp the colloquialism. Trust me, if you've ever witnessed Roy ripping someone a new one, you will know it. Me? I've only gotten a mild swat or two... The Online Corrections Problem... AgainThe Online Corrections Problem... Again 07/29/2004 04:48 AM About a year ago, Online Journalism Review had an article about newspap er corrections online where they noted that most newspapers were horrible at making it easy for people to contact them about errors online, and even worse about actually fixing online errors. Now, in something of a followup, OJR digs much more deeply into the question of whether or not the websites of newspapers should correct errors in their stories. Last year, I was quoted for a story about spam in the LA Times, and when I pointed out that they made a mistake in quoting me, I was told that they couldn't correct it, even in the online version without going through a big correction process, because if they fixed it (and in this case, it would require adding two letters to what had been written) "we could fiddle with stories all the time, and people would never know what the truth is." Well, indeed, that wasn't just what they told me, it appears to be official policy of the LA Times, as outlined in the OJR article. The article does a good job presenting both sides of the story. One side believes in correcting mistakes, along with a note mentioning that corrections were made or (for more serious corrections) explaining the nature of the correction. The other side is afraid of that whole "fiddling with the truth" issue, and says that once something is published it should remain -- but with a correction note attached to the story. Both sides make fairly compelling arguments as to why they're right, and there are some cases that cause obvious problems for either side. It seems like a fairly fine line, but correcting little typos and mistakes seems like a reasonable thing to do, while more major factual errors should be left in with a clearly marked and highly visible editor's note explaining the problem. Some corrections to Techweb articleSome corrections to Techweb article 06/22/2005 02:41 AM It's not 30 developers and we haven't said anything about government funding, but besides that - here's another great article on ourmedia.org - this time in TechWeb. We've just put live some new code that speeds up uploading and gets us tighter in sync with the Internet Archive. Folks are reacting - uploads are up 300%. :-) Announcement this week on our registry idea. Sundry 'Spray-On' Clarifications and
|
Also check out: |