This is the final Regret post of 2006. Come back for fresh content on January 2.
The online correction is beginning to evolve. Though it hasn't become as standardized as those that appear in print publications (you can read this article about how that happened), we are starting to see a standard emerge -- as well as some interesting recent advancements. Some notes from the front.
The Online Standard
There is similarity in how some of the larger American newspapers are handling corrections online. Both the New York Times and Washington Post, along with others, seem to have settled upon a similar style. They have a static corrections page linked from their home page; they link to the corrected story from this page; and they place the correction within the text of the article itself. The Post puts the correction at the top of the piece. The Times tags articles with "Correction Appended" at the top and runs the correction at the end of the piece.
Some papers merely scrub the text of the article, never noting the correction or error to readers. Others, of course, still don't have an online corrections page at all. (See our listing to the left.) But the larger papers seem to have settled on a style.
Evolutions
Slate is an example of a publication using the online environment to do something unique with corrections. In articles that have an error, they place an asterisk at the end of the corrected sentence. Clicking on this asterisk brings the reader to the correction at the bottom of the article. (Slate doesn't note at the top of the piece that the article has been corrected; they might consider adding this.) Slate also has a static corrections page for each week's content.
This asterisk feature helps show the reader exactly where the error occurred, and links it with the resulting correction. It's a lovely bit of context, especially since many corrections are written in a confusing style. The asterisk is a great use of the medium.
Another new advancement at Slate is that they now offer an RSS feed for corrections. There are very few papers currently offering this feature. Of course, an RSS feed makes our job easier, but it's also a way of showing that your publication is committed to making corrections as easy to find and read as possible. If columnists and sections get their own RSS feed, why wouldn't the corrections warrant one? They do.
Another recent development is at the Wall Street Journal. The paper added a corrections-only search field to its online corrections page. (We noted it back in June.) This is another way to offer readers easy access to corrected material. Of course, any corrections from more than 90 days ago will cost you $2.95 each. But if the WSJ can earn a tiny bit of revenue by offering this feature, we don't see any problem with that.
Earlier this week, we spoke with Greg Brock, the editor who recently began overseeing corrections at the New York Times. One thing he mentioned was the paper's new policy for correcting stories from its Continuous News Desk. These reporters are writing stories for the Web, often about breaking events. As such, their work is, yes, continuously replaced by updated work. In the past, errors would be corrected in subsequent drafts, but not noted. Now the paper is placing a correction notice at the bottom of corrected reports. Here's a recent example:
Earlier versions of this article gave an incorrect street address for the BMW of Manhattan showroom on Wall Street.
This policy eliminates "scrubbing" and alerts readers to a previous error, even if it is from several versions ago. The story may change (and be corrected) rapidly, but the note should still be there. It sends the message that scrubbing is not an acceptable practice in online news. If you fix it it, you must report it.
We also asked Brock about how the Times is handling corrections for its blogs. He says the paper does not run corrections to blog posts on its main corrections page. Times bloggers pursue the usual blog ethic of noting an error within the original post. It's the kind of "publish and correct" policy that Jeff Jarvis recently addressed in a column for the Guardian. See below for some notes on his thinking.
A final note from the Times: Brock says the paper does have a corrections database that is being used by some departments. Each department can see its own corrections tally, and Brock has access to the total data. He says they are working to roll it out within all departments. This database was one of the recommendations of the Siegal Committee. It's good to see the paper following up on this project. We hope it's fully operational ASAP.
Our final evolution of note is a lovely project being pursued by Reuters. The wire service now has a regular feature called, "The Good, the Bad, & the Ugly." This is a regularly updated online page where editors respond to feedback (usually complaints or requests for correction) from readers. It's often akin to a friendly cafe where Reuters serves itself some humble pie and readers get to enjoying watching them eat it. It's about conversation and pulling back the veil on how the news operation works (and occasionally doesn't).
The comments/complaints from readers are often very frank, even harsh, and the replies from editors are equally forthright, albeit sometimes brief. It's a great experiment in corrections as conversation because readers get meaningful responses in a public forum. A sample exchange (color code: black text is the original Reuters report; reader feedback is in blue; editor's comment is in red):
Sure, some might say the editors' comments are a little too brief, but at least they're giving readers a forum and offering them a response and acknowledgment. This is a great start to opening up the conversation about errors and offering readers a way to feel appreciated when they take the time point out a mistake. It also relates to Jeff Jarvis' column about online errors. From his Guardian piece:
The internet can be better at corrections than old media. A fix can be attached to an error where it occurs, and many online denizens pride themselves on confessing missteps faster than their print and broadcast counterparts. But the internet can also be worse - online, errors can spread wider faster and take on a longer half-life. I wish we had a technical solution - that everyone who linked to an incorrect article could receive an alert and correction.
Yes, the double-edged sword. It's great to see some news organizations starting to take steps to bring corrections into the online world and take advantage of the medium. As Jarvis mentions, there exists an opportunity to deliver a better correction service, and it is also all the more important because the Internet enables mistakes to flow faster than ever before.
We need to recognise that the internet alters how media operate. Blogs - whether written by professionals or amateurs - tend to publish first and edit later, which can work because the audience will edit you. In this medium, stories are never done; rather than turning into fish-wrap, they can grow and become more factual and gather new perspectives, thanks to the power of the link and, yes, the correction.
We would add that the correction itself can also become more than a static object. Turn it into a conversation point, a way to interact with readers who helped bring the correction about. Reward conscientious readers with meaningful conversation and acknowledgment. Perhaps even with recognition. How many errors did you spot in your local paper this year? How many more could you find if you could win a free subscription or be entered into a sweepstakes draw? If the goal is to prevent and/or correct every error, then why not harness readers and make them a part of the process?
The Internet has created an opportunity for a new form of correction: something fluid, linkable, interactive, and more trackable than ever. It's a piece of data that can be used for many purposes, and presented in new, engaging ways. Some news organizations are working towards this; others have a long way to go.
We'll continue to track the evolution of the online correction. And if you've seen something interesting, please tell us about it.
