4 ms·

You ignore what I said - that this change log is obviously an artifact of the print era, and is unusable unless you actively check it against everything you rea

by zepto 5y ago

You ignore what I said - that this change log is obviously an artifact of the print era, and is unusable unless you actively check it against everything you read, which is clearly impractical. In no way does it constitute an honest acknowledgment of error.

dredmorbius 5y ago
You've changed your argument: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28262425 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28262425
- zepto 5y ago
  No I haven’t. Newspapers do not own their mistakes or correct them. Publishing a dry, hard to use correction log where it is obvious most people won’t see it doesn’t change this.
  - dredmorbius 5y ago
    You are repeating a false statement. https://www.nytimes.com/section/corrections https://www.nytimes.com/section/corrections https://www.washingtonpost.com/policies-and-standards/#corrections https://www.washingtonpost.com/policies-and-standards/#corre... Repeating a falsehood, regardless of the Bellman's assertion, does not make it true.[1] You seem to very badly want to believe a thing regardless of its actual existence. This will likely lead to problems for you eventually, if not already. ________________________________ Notes: 1. http://unpress.bandersnatch.org/carroll,lewis/snark.html http://unpress.bandersnatch.org/carroll,lewis/snark.html
    - zepto 5y ago
      If I have made a false statement, you would be able to quote it. Do you think that the corrections log actually undoes the impact on people who read the false report? Do you think most people check that log to see if the previous articles they read have been corrected? The claim you made was that they own their mistakes and correct them. If your argument is that they quietly admit their mistakes somewhere very few people look, then I will agree to that. If you can find me denying that, you can quote me on it. My claim is that this doesn’t correct the mistake. When you misinform someone, the only way to correct the mistake, is to let that person know, and give them the right information. The corrections page might have been a good faith effort at doing this in the print era, but it definitely doesn’t work in the digital era. More importantly, what you are referring to as ‘corrections’ are simply edits they make. That has nothing to do with owning one’s mistakes. They can easily be wrong about or present something in a distorted way, and that won’t make it into a ‘correction’. I don’t see how you can call this behavior ‘owning one’s mistakes’. Bear in mind, we are commenting on a post by Piotr Wozniak, who does in fact own his point of view, and explains exactly why he says the things people accuse of being pseudoscience. > You seem to very badly want to believe a thing regardless of its actual existence. This will likely lead to problems for you eventually, if not already. It would be better for you to address the argument rather than engaging in ad-hominem. That is the usual guideline around here.
- jjulius 5y ago
  You might as well just throw in the towel now. Similar to how you said it was unclear how they were defining certain phrases, the same user in the last day has also been intentionally vague with me in a separate argument, has continually avoided the actual question(s) being posited, and resorted to gaslighting, which is basically what they're doing now; insisting that a page called "corrections", including descriptions of the corrections, isn't "correcting them". It's not worth your time.
  - zepto 5y ago
    > insisting that a page called "corrections", including descriptions of the corrections, isn't "correcting them". Making a list of corrections that the people who read the incorrect article never see clearly doesn’t correct anything. The damage is done. It doesn’t matter how many times the word ‘corrections’ is used.
    - jjulius 5y ago
      >... doesn't correct anything. Except that, ya know, it's a correction, so it does correct something. Once again you are intentionally inaccurately or poorly describing something in an effort to drive home your point. I am not going to be engaging with you any further.
      - zepto 5y ago
        Sure, but now you are the one changing the argument. > I am not going to be engaging with you any further. Good.
  - dredmorbius 5y ago
    I like to hand out all the necessary rope to accomplish a self-hanging. Though yes, clearly there's something not right here.

by zepto 5y ago

dredmorbius 5y ago

You've changed your argument: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28262425 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28262425

zepto 5y ago
No I haven’t. Newspapers do not own their mistakes or correct them. Publishing a dry, hard to use correction log where it is obvious most people won’t see it doesn’t change this.
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  You are repeating a false statement. https://www.nytimes.com/section/corrections https://www.nytimes.com/section/corrections https://www.washingtonpost.com/policies-and-standards/#corrections https://www.washingtonpost.com/policies-and-standards/#corre... Repeating a falsehood, regardless of the Bellman's assertion, does not make it true.[1] You seem to very badly want to believe a thing regardless of its actual existence. This will likely lead to problems for you eventually, if not already. ________________________________ Notes: 1. http://unpress.bandersnatch.org/carroll,lewis/snark.html http://unpress.bandersnatch.org/carroll,lewis/snark.html
  - zepto 5y ago
    If I have made a false statement, you would be able to quote it. Do you think that the corrections log actually undoes the impact on people who read the false report? Do you think most people check that log to see if the previous articles they read have been corrected? The claim you made was that they own their mistakes and correct them. If your argument is that they quietly admit their mistakes somewhere very few people look, then I will agree to that. If you can find me denying that, you can quote me on it. My claim is that this doesn’t correct the mistake. When you misinform someone, the only way to correct the mistake, is to let that person know, and give them the right information. The corrections page might have been a good faith effort at doing this in the print era, but it definitely doesn’t work in the digital era. More importantly, what you are referring to as ‘corrections’ are simply edits they make. That has nothing to do with owning one’s mistakes. They can easily be wrong about or present something in a distorted way, and that won’t make it into a ‘correction’. I don’t see how you can call this behavior ‘owning one’s mistakes’. Bear in mind, we are commenting on a post by Piotr Wozniak, who does in fact own his point of view, and explains exactly why he says the things people accuse of being pseudoscience. > You seem to very badly want to believe a thing regardless of its actual existence. This will likely lead to problems for you eventually, if not already. It would be better for you to address the argument rather than engaging in ad-hominem. That is the usual guideline around here.
jjulius 5y ago
You might as well just throw in the towel now. Similar to how you said it was unclear how they were defining certain phrases, the same user in the last day has also been intentionally vague with me in a separate argument, has continually avoided the actual question(s) being posited, and resorted to gaslighting, which is basically what they're doing now; insisting that a page called "corrections", including descriptions of the corrections, isn't "correcting them". It's not worth your time.
- zepto 5y ago
  > insisting that a page called "corrections", including descriptions of the corrections, isn't "correcting them". Making a list of corrections that the people who read the incorrect article never see clearly doesn’t correct anything. The damage is done. It doesn’t matter how many times the word ‘corrections’ is used.
  - jjulius 5y ago
    >... doesn't correct anything. Except that, ya know, it's a correction, so it does correct something. Once again you are intentionally inaccurately or poorly describing something in an effort to drive home your point. I am not going to be engaging with you any further.
    - zepto 5y ago
      Sure, but now you are the one changing the argument. > I am not going to be engaging with you any further. Good.
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  I like to hand out all the necessary rope to accomplish a self-hanging. Though yes, clearly there's something not right here.