The above is a correction to my Columbia Journalism Review Column of last week. The correction was added yesterday after I received an email from Schafer. My apologies to him.

I thought about how the error occurred and realized I had cut and pasted the spelling of his name from another source and then didn't verify the spelling. Had I checked his blog, I would have spotted my error. Another reminder that you need to check your information with the best possible source. I didn't and that's why I messed up.

Correction: An earlier version of this column misspelled Craig Kanalley’s last name as Kanally.

It’s pretty clear to me why I misspelled Craig’s last name: I didn’t use my checklist when doing a final read of this column. Lesson learned.

Go here to learn about how I handle my corrections. You can also subscribe to a feed of my corrections in the upper right hand corner of the site.

I gave my usual spiel about errors and corrections and all of the other topics I tend to cover. But one thing I don’t usually talk about is how I handle corrections on this website. (I often talk about corrections for the Regret the Error book.) While in Phoenix, a few students asked me about how I deal with corrections here. That set off a “blog post alert” in my mind. So here’s the resulting post — and some new corrections options.

In the Beginning

In the early days of this site, I would place a correction within the post itself and then repeat all of the week’s corrections in a round-up post. The weekly post was borrowed from Slate, and they continue to do this. I did the round-ups until late 2006 and then stopped. I honestly don’t remember why I stopped; but I definitely failed in that I should have explained clearly why I wasn’t going to do the weekly round-ups anymore.

The other thing I started doing from the beginning is credit people by first name when they spot a mistake made by me. I still do that.

Tagging

When I migrated the site from TypePad to WordPress in 2007,  I started using the “regret corrections” tag for all of my corrections. Not that I told you. I should have mentioned this in my post about the new site, but didn’t. That was a mistake.

It was also in 2007 that I started using the * to indicate corrections. The first post to use this method (which was again borrowed from Slate) was my year-end round-up for 2007. From then on, I placed a * at the end of any sentence that required a correction. Then I would place a correction at the bottom of the post and put another * there as well. (Just take a look at the posts listed under “regret corrections.”) The idea is readers can follow the *s to see exactly where the error occurred.

Moving Forward

So that’s where things have been up until today. I’m now announcing a couple of additions to help you track my screw-ups. The first is that any corrected post will have the word “Corrected” added to the headline, as was the case here. The second new element is a dedicated RSS feed for my corrections. Subscribe here. I’m also promoting this feed in the upper right hand corner of the site.

One other thing: Since launch, I have placed all of the corrections to my non-Regret work on this site. Since 2007, I’ve used the “craig’s correction” tag for these outside corrections. I will continue to post these on this site, and I’ll continue to use that tag. But now you can also subscribe to an RSS feed of these corrections. (This feed is also listed in the upper right.)

Do you have any other suggestions? Let me know in the comments.

Oh, and thanks ASU students!

The original version of this column stated the Daily Beast used iThenticate to check Gerald Posner’s articles for plagiarism. Robert Creutz says he is unaware of the specific nature of the material the Beast was checking with the service. The lead has be changed to reflect this. A quote from him also suggested he had contacted the Beast to recommend they move to the subscription option, but Creutz says he was speaking in general and did not make a recommendation. The quote has been corrected. Finally, Associated Content was cited as an iThenticate customer. Creutz says his references to Associated Content were in the context of noting that the company is similar to Demand Media. He did not mean to imply that they were a customer. We regret the errors.

My book corrections are here. My most recent previous correction is online here.

This is a correction to a column written by the editor of this site for the Globe And Mail. The story originally and incorrectly stated that only 30 percent of employees thought their boss was qualified. And yes, the correction should have included the original error and article title. The above is the corrections style for the paper. We’ll see if we can help change it to be more descriptive.