4 ms·
Seems like it would be easy to have a change log at the bottom of every article that tracks edits. There’s probably three free widgets like this on GitHub that
by seventytwo 6y ago
Seems like it would be easy to have a change log at the bottom of every article that tracks edits. There’s probably three free widgets like this on GitHub that would work just fine.
- vharuck 6y agoI've seen articles on NPR and Reuters that have brief summaries of edits at the bottom. Stuff like "Edited to correct affiliation of Dr X. The article originally and incorrectly said she worked at Y University." They'll also put an "edited at" time at the top.
- 0xy 6y agoMore often they stealth edit to remove evidence of their inaccuracies or lies, though.
- zaik 6y agoSource?
- 0xy 6y agohttps://twitter.com/jerrydunleavy/status/1308586151771549698 https://twitter.com/jerrydunleavy/status/1308586151771549698 https://twitter.com/JerylBier/status/1239624136118468608 https://twitter.com/JerylBier/status/1239624136118468608 That's just dishonest stealth editing. Reuters in particular has been known to spread intelligence/CIA propaganda (particularly during the Turkey coup).
- seventytwo 6y agoYes, those are good. But it would be so easy to have a GitHub-style change log, and/or a Wikipedia-style “talk” section where rationale for changes is discussed. It could increase attention and time on the site as well, good for the bottom lines at the outfits too.
- throwawaysea 6y agoIt’s not just knowing the edit history, however. When journalists make mistakes their retractions and corrections must be given the same exposure as the original content, to correct the record meaningfully. Otherwise the damage has already been done and people will take the initial content with them forward, shaping their opinions accordingly.
- seventytwo 6y agoGood luck finding a fix for that problem. Better to focus on something that’s actually actionable, like adding a change log.