4 ms·

I feel you are correct. But also wanted to add another option between 2 and 3 where I feel a more valuable editing could also be done. 2.1: Publicly retract t

I feel you are correct. But also wanted to add another option between 2 and 3 where I feel a more valuable editing could also be done. 2.1: Publicly retract the story, and edit the previous text (with visible or not removals/edits) along with a disclaimer, to improve the content and present a fairness assessment of it's text for new and previous readers. I've encountered this before, with both visible (highlighted or striked off content) or completely deleted parts with some "erroneous/unverified content deleted" kind of indication, and I really appreciated the transparency an understanding why something was reviewed. I feel that would be a valuable approach to these kinds of publications.

jessriedel 8y ago
Yes, I agree. One way to do this, which works equally well for stories with minor corrections as those that are fully retracted, is to just make the entire edit history publicly accessible. Then the "up-to-date version" of a full-blown retractions would be the retraction notice and explanation, while leaving the original version(s) of the article available.
kaizendad 8y ago
The problem with this approach is that search engines and other bots have no eye for context. Keeping inaccurate content online, even with a retraction up top, can result in confusing search results and even the propagation of the original inaccuracy. NPR can make efforts to make the correct content appear to search engines and other bots, but it can't guarantee that search engines or bots will get the right net content. When there's a question of fairness, it seems to me it's best to remove the potentially unfair content, especially when it's so potentially inaccurate.
- jessriedel 8y ago
  Are you worrying that people will do a Google search, see a result that says "Retracted Story: Man Bites Dog", and then go on repeating this as if it's true? Like, of course, that's possible, but they could get false information from a million other places. Anyone can lie on the internet.
  - abstractbeliefs 8y ago
    Personally, I'm not worried about a human reading it, but I am worried about a machine reading it and ingesting "facts" about me because they don't know what a retraction is.
    - jessriedel 8y ago
      Of all the ways that machines can and will misinterpret information on the internet, stories labeled "RETRACTED" are the least concerning.
      - visarga 8y ago
        Yeah, but do the guys making ML models at the credit rating agency or immigration agency know or care about that? I think the parent poster has a point here, who audits these models and their systematic errors (biases)?
  - unreal37 8y ago
    Imagine John Doe was named as the owner of the site, and he is not in fact connected to it at all. When people search his name, the top 20 results are this incorrect fact. No one is repeating it like it were true, but the man's reputation is harmed and he could sue. Maybe he did sue in fact.
- walshemj 8y ago
  There is this simple trick called a redirect that solve the problem.

jessriedel 8y ago

Yes, I agree. One way to do this, which works equally well for stories with minor corrections as those that are fully retracted, is to just make the entire edit history publicly accessible. Then the "up-to-date version" of a full-blown retractions would be the retraction notice and explanation, while leaving the original version(s) of the article available.

kaizendad 8y ago

The problem with this approach is that search engines and other bots have no eye for context. Keeping inaccurate content online, even with a retraction up top, can result in confusing search results and even the propagation of the original inaccuracy. NPR can make efforts to make the correct content appear to search engines and other bots, but it can't guarantee that search engines or bots will get the right net content. When there's a question of fairness, it seems to me it's best to remove the potentially unfair content, especially when it's so potentially inaccurate.

jessriedel 8y ago
Are you worrying that people will do a Google search, see a result that says "Retracted Story: Man Bites Dog", and then go on repeating this as if it's true? Like, of course, that's possible, but they could get false information from a million other places. Anyone can lie on the internet.
- abstractbeliefs 8y ago
  Personally, I'm not worried about a human reading it, but I am worried about a machine reading it and ingesting "facts" about me because they don't know what a retraction is.
  - jessriedel 8y ago
    Of all the ways that machines can and will misinterpret information on the internet, stories labeled "RETRACTED" are the least concerning.
    - visarga 8y ago
      Yeah, but do the guys making ML models at the credit rating agency or immigration agency know or care about that? I think the parent poster has a point here, who audits these models and their systematic errors (biases)?
- unreal37 8y ago
  Imagine John Doe was named as the owner of the site, and he is not in fact connected to it at all. When people search his name, the top 20 results are this incorrect fact. No one is repeating it like it were true, but the man's reputation is harmed and he could sue. Maybe he did sue in fact.
walshemj 8y ago
There is this simple trick called a redirect that solve the problem.