Tag Archives: corrections systems

Dan Gillmor’s endorsement of a corrections subscription service

September 14, 2009 – 8:00 am

Dan Gillmor wrote an interesting post entitled Eleven Things I’d Do If I Ran a News Organization, and I’m a fan of number four:

4. We would create a service to notify online readers, should they choose to sign up for it, of errors we’ve learned about in our journalism. Users of this service could choose to be notified of major errors only (in our judgement) or all errors, however insignificant we may believe them to be.

I created a system like this for the Regret The Error book. Slate’s Jack Shafer also offers an RSS feed for his corrections. It’s an easy thing to do, and it’s a shame that so few media organizations offer a feed or email subscription for their corrections.

By Craig Silverman | Posted in Regret Articles | Comments

Taking corrections to the next level

March 6, 2009 – 8:00 am

Matt Thompson, a fellow the Reynolds Journalism Institute at the University of Missouri, wrote an interesting post about corrections for his Newsless blog. He notes the limitations of the online corrections pages of some newspaper websites, and also calls for a new way of pushing corrections out to readers:

We could do much more with corrections, of course. At a minimum, corrections should be databased. This shouldn’t be any more difficult than adding a correction field to each story in our CMS, instead of just writing our corrections into the body of the story itself. It would allow readers to search for corrections by date, section or author, rather than having to check the corrections page every day to see what’s been corrected recently.

We should also be much more proactive about getting corrections to readers. If you read something on our news site that has changed or been corrected since you last saw it, we should alert you of the change during your next visit to our site.

His second paragraph offers an idea that fits with my corrections and accuracy wishes for 2009. Thompson also had this interesting suggestion:

About four years ago, I daydreamed about an independent, crowd-sourced corrections site that would allow anyone to post a correction or clarification to information contained at any URI. In some ways, with the ubiquity of browser plug-ins and the like, that type of thing would be easier today.

It is easier today, and SpinSpotter is probably the most interesting initiative trying to make this happen.

By Craig Silverman | Posted in Behind the scenes, accuracy tips | Also tagged | Comments

Corrections and accuracy wishes for the new year

December 23, 2008 – 2:01 pm

This is the final Regret post for 2008. Regular posting will resume on January 5, 2009.

I’m usually so busy tracking corrections and errors that I don’t get a chance to write about the best ways to prevent and correct mistakes. With 2008 coming to a close, it’s a perfect time to list some of the things news organizations should be doing with online corrections, and share some of my ideas for new prevention and correction practices.

I decided to write these suggestions in the form of “Wouldn’t it be great if…” because if any or all of them take flight this year, it would be a great thing for corrections and accuracy. Here are my accuracy and corrections wishes for the new year:

Wouldn’t it be great if every news website had a regularly-updated online corrections page linked from their homepage?

Wouldn’t it be great if all news sites placed corrections within the offending article?

Wouldn’t it be great if news sites stopped scrubbing away errors?

Wouldn’t it be great if we had a way to automatically notify a website that a correction was made to an article they’ve linked to? I’ve taken to calling this the “Reverse Trackback” or a “Correctforward.” A Trackback is a way of automatically notifying a site that its content (usually a blog post) has been linked by someone else. We need to reverse this and create a system that spiders out a correction notice to news sites or blogs that previously cited the original, incorrect article. The notification could, for example, take the form of a comment on the related post. (”This is an automated message to inform you that the Regret the Error post you linked to has been corrected. Please read the corrected post here [link].”) This would go a long way to helping push corrections out to the public, which is what needs to be done on the web. We shouldn’t expect people to go hunting for corrections.

Wouldn’t it be great if we had a “Notify Me If This Article Is Corrected” button alongside all of the “Print” and “Share” buttons that appear on most online articles? The reader could simply enter their email address and receive an email if a correction was issued for the story. It’s great that more and more news sites are placing corrections within the story, but how many people go back and reread an article? A lot of readers are not seeing the corrections. As I noted above, we need to find a way to push corrections out to readers. This tool would enable readers to receive corrections for articles that they consider particularly important or useful.

Wouldn’t it be great if all news sites had an online form like the Chicago Tribune’s to help people report errors?

Wouldn’t it be great if readers could receive credit for spotting errors? For example, if a site asks people to create a user account, then that person’s profile could list “Number of corrections submitted” and “Number of corrections accepted.” It could also include “Letters to the editor published,” and a listing of that person’s comments on the site. Maybe the best error-spotter earns a prize at the end of the month or year? This system would encourage people to participate and contribute — and it would help decrease the number of uncorrected errors, which are a big problem.

Wouldn’t it be great if we could create standardized accuracy checklists for reporters, editors and other newsroom staff? These checklists (examples: 1,2,3) would help people take a systematic approach to verifying articles before they’re published. To see how checklists are helping improve intensive care in hospitals, read this great New Yorker article.

Wouldn’t it be great if we had a central place where people from different newsrooms could share tips for achieving accuracy? There’s a lot of knowledge out there, but it’s scattered among different organizations. A wiki for accuracy tips would help share knowledge and go a long way towards creating best practices.

What else would be great to see happen this year? Add your thoughts in the comments.

By Craig Silverman | Posted in Regret Articles | Also tagged , | Comments

Torontoist blog unveils new corrections system

June 16, 2008 – 8:00 am

One common criticism of blogs is their supposed lack of factual reporting and a proper system for corrections. But many blogs do impressive work in both areas. Here’s one example. Torontoist recently announced a new corrections system. It incorporates a corrections box within the post, as well as a good use of tags, comments and RSS feeds. Editor David Topping wrote a post to outline the blog’s approach:

…As of today, Torontoist is implementing a new standard format for all corrections to posts. Any significant corrections or clarifications will be made as quickly as possible, and a note acknowledging them will be written by the editor-in-chief or an assistant editor and will appear as follows at the bottom of a post:

CORRECTION: MAY 29, 2008In the box will be a full explanation of the error made (citing the article’s original words as appropriate), and a full explanation of the correction.

When that error is appended and the correction made, an editor or assistant editor will also post a comment as soon as possible, linking to the correction, so that the comment thread stays up to date (and in context) with the post. Additionally, the tag “corrections” will be added to the post—and a link to that tag will be added, for now, in our top menu. (You can also subscribe to the tag, as you can with any other tag, using RSS.)

For now, we are still getting a feel for how this system will be used. (A—gasp—misplaced apostrophe: less likely to receive a formal correction; a typo—depends; misspelled names: probably; egregious errors: uh, yes.) There may be some growing pains. No matter what, though, the help of our readers will be invaluable in spotting mistakes and fixing them, and we’d love it if you could help report a mistake either by posting a comment or e-mailing an editor privately. (Depending on the severity of the error, private e-mailing allows for more back-and-forth.)

With the new system, we are trying to be transparent; to admit to, highlight, explain, and ultimately own up to our mistakes when we make them and take steps to prevent them from happening again. Our goal is that that process, in addition to making our errors and their corrections more prominent, will also make them more and more rare—and we’ll all be better for it.

Here’s a recent post that includes a correction. The post has a correction box at the bottom, and you can read the editor’s correction comment here. Corrected posts are filed under this tag.

By Craig Silverman | Posted in Behind the scenes, Online | Also tagged , | Comments