Jack Shafer shines the spotlight on a devoted Slate reader he calls the magazine's de facto fact checking department. He writes about RM "Auros" Harman:
Auros reckons that he's e-mailed Slate at least 17 requests for corrections. I met him for the first time two days ago when he e-mailed my "Press Box" alias complaining about innumeracy in a Slate piece. When I brought Auros' name up with Slate staffers June Thomas and David Plotz, both immediately recognized himâThomas because she's the Corrections editor and Plotz because Auros e-mails him frequently to comment on his Bible blogging. After quick consultation with them, I realized that Slate does have a fact-check department, it works for nothing, and its name is Auros.
Nice to see a devoted reader getting his due. And there are plenty of* editors and ombudsmen out there who could offer the same measure of thanks to their faithful checkers. Some readers, like some editors and fact checkers, just have a knack for spotting errors. Some focus on one particular area, while others, like Harman, seem to have an admirable grasp of a wide variety of subjects. The difference between an appreciated checking reader and a hated one often comes down to how the person chooses to bring errors to light, and how willing the editorial staff is to accept a correction. "Auros calls Slate editors collegial, but I'd
give him most of the credit for the magazine's graciousness: His
polymathic challenges are direct and respectful," writes Shafer. "What more could a
publication want?" Exactly.
This is a nice example of a publication appreciating the diligence, dedication and, most importantly, contribution of a valuable reader. As the saying goes, we are all fact checkers now. Why not offer a bit of thanks to those wonderful fact checking/proofreading readers?
Finally, ask and ye shall receive. Shafer ends the column with this: "Before we rang off, Auros jokingly offered to vet this article for
errors prior to publication. I declined, as I can't wait for him to
give it the vigorous and public beating it deserves so we can post the
results in the Corrections column."
Voila:
Corrections, March 1, 2007: The original version of this article misstated when RM "Auros" Harman first encountered Slate. It was in 1999 during a Microsoft internship. He become a regular reader in 2000. (Click here to return to the corrected sentence.) The article originally misspelled Quds as Qud. (Click here to return to the corrected sentence.) The article misstated that Harman's nickname evolved from his sign-on name. (Click here to return to the corrected sentence.)
What can we say, the guy is good, even if this was some low hanging fruit. He deserves all the credit he can get.
UPDATE March 5: Amy Gahran over at Poynter also loves what Shafer's column represents, and she makes a good case for why this kind of recognition and community building is good for journalism:
...Online, community is golden. Embracing conversation is at least as important as producing a quality publication. This means listening respectfully to community members, letting them have a direct voice, and praising their contributions that enhance the overall quality and value of your online venue.
I know, none of us likes having our errors corrected or our conclusions disputed, especially in public. However, it helps to take the broader view. That's why Shafer's column is smart in several ways: It turns a potential flaw or humiliation into a source of strength and pride; it rewards community and loyalty; it encourages constructive public discourse; and -- business-side folks take note -- it enhances the Slate.com brand.
*Correction, March 2: And now we'd like to thank one of our best proofreading readers for seeing that the word "of" was originally missing from this sentence. Thanks Aldous!
