Wikipedians Find NY Times error
BoingBoing points to a case where Wikipedia fact checkers, responding to a “help desk” question, help find an error in a NY Times piece about soy milk. Wikipedians notified the NY Times. Problem is, NY Times, makes the change to the article without acknowledging the error or putting in an explicit notice.
There are major problems with this approach to correction, which is quite unusual. From the comment by the Wikipedian:
Is it common journalistic practice to change old articles like that? Is it considered ethically appropriate for a major newspaper to just pretend that they were right all along, and give neither credit nor acknowledgement for their error? Seems a bit slimy to me, given the severity of the error, and the potential impact on everything from soy milk sales to public support for vegan parenting. You have to wonder if the process would have been the same for an error made regarding a less “countercultural” product. Link to Wikipedia reference desk discussion and fact-finding, including a copy of the letter I wrote to the NYT, Link to now-changed NYT article
The answer to the two questions: no and no.
UPDATE: It seems the NY Times has in fact acknowledged the change now with the following:
Correction: March 31, 2007
The Personal Health column in Science Times on Tuesday about healthful beverages included incorrect information from the Beverage Guidance Panel about soy milk. It can indeed be legally fortified with vitamin D.
March 31st, 2007 06:48
Yes, as of sometime early this morning, the Times article now includes a formal notice of correction…but no clear acknowledgment of the delay between the article changes and the correction text. This certainly completes the process of addressing our original concerns about the article, but I’m not sure it truly provides resolution this late in the game. As I wrote in Wikipedia before the Times’ correction appeared:
On a side note: this seems to be turning into a story about journalist ethics, which is interesting to me. Our original concerns about the story, IMHO, seemed to point to the panel recommendations, not to the reporter, as being responsible for reporting outdated information. It is only since the article was emended silently, with no accompanying correction or acknowledgement, that the Times’ journalism has been called into question. One might say that this wasn’t about the Times, until the Times made it about themselves. Unfortunately for them, as the BoingBoing acceptance may suggest, in a world where blogger-journalists pass discovery around like lightning, the Times may be a juicer target than a study about the nutritional applications of beverages, no matter how popular the original article may have been.
Thanks for helping pass this along!
-Jfarber
March 31st, 2007 14:13
Dear JFarber:
A colleague at The Times passed along your posting from a Web site. And then I followed some links to this blog. I see you have posted here, also.
Since I oversee corrections at The Times, I thought I should give you an explanation, given some of the serious points you raised.
This error was pointed out to us by at least a dozen or more readers. We immediately started trying to reach Ms. Brody, who was traveling abroad.
Our policy is that we never publish a correction without first talking to the reporter or the editor who was responsible for the error. If that takes a few days, then we have to live with that. We only explain delays in corrections after they are more than 30 days old. You will see such explanations in our corrections column on Page A2.
As far as correcting/updating articles, we do indeed update and correct articles on the Web site. We have been doing that for as long as I can remember. I would consider it unethical if we did NOT correct an error in the Web article if we indeed were aware of the error. We make that correction as soon as we confirm the error — as we did on Friday. We do not wait to correct the Web version until a correction has appeared in print.
We do not, however, make changes in the article in the Times’s in-house archives for a number of reasons, including legal ones. We have to have at least one copy of the article on file exactly as it appeared in print. Once we publish a correction in the print paper, that correction is then attached to the article and a note is put atop the article stating that the correction is appended. I will paste the top and bottom of the Brody article from our archives below to show how it was handled.
And as has been pointed out to you already, we did publish a correction on Saturday morning on A2. It wasn’t until yesterday that we had completed the research (we often use many sources and then even confirm that information with even more experts in the field). We may seek information from Wikipedia, but we don’t rely on just one source. Our experience has been that googling a subject is the surest way to make yet another error. Web sites are filled with incorrect information, as you know.
I hope this explains our handling of this correction. If not, feel free to write me at The Times and I will be happy to try to answer any other questions.
Also, feel free to post this note on your Web site or anywhere else. I noticed that your posting was picked up by a few sites, including this blog.
Best regards
Greg Brock
Senior Editor
you can reach me most directly through the readers’ email, which I monitor 7 days a week:
nytnews@nytimes.com
March 27, 2007, Tuesday Late Edition - Final
Section F Page 8 Column 3 Desk: Health&Fitness Length: 1168 words
CORRECTION APPENDED
PERSONAL HEALTH; You Are Also What You Drink
By Jane E. Brody
What worries you most? Decaying teeth, thinning bones, heart disease, stroke, diabetes, dementia, cancer, obesity? Whatever tops your list, you may be surprised to know that all of these health problems are linked to the beverages you drink — or don’t drink.
………..
(the end of article as it appears in our archives.)
The panel emphasized the need for children and teenagers to drink more milk and fewer calorically sweetened beverages.
‘’Fortified soy milk is a good alternative for individuals who prefer not to consume cow milk,'’ the panel said, but cautioned that soy milk cannot be legally fortified with vitamin D and provides only 75 percent of the calcium the body obtains from cow’s milk.
Images: Drawing (Drawing by Stuart Bradford)
Correction: March 31, 2007, Saturday
The Personal Health column in Science Times on Tuesday about healthful beverages included incorrect information from the Beverage Guidance Panel about soy milk. It can indeed be legally fortified with vitamin D.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company
April 1st, 2007 08:01
Mr Brock,
Thanks for your response. Your policies seem clearly stated, and I respect the journalistic integrity and desire for fairness and accuracy which underlies them. And I appreicate the dilligence by which this matter has been pursued by yourself and the rest of the Times staff.
But any standard by which an article can be amended in the online version, and then only days later does the same online article note that the correction has been made to that text, will still lead to confusion.
I believe that it is this gap in time between correcting an online article (without changing the date of publication on that article) and acknowledging that the text no longer reflects the original text which has made the matter “interesting” to me and others, ultimately.
I understand you to say that this delay — and the possible effect of that delay on the public, I would assume — are something you “have to live with” as a symptom of two very respectable ideals:
a) wanting to correct factual errors as quickly as possible, but
b) wanting to make sure an article’s author has a chance to weigh in on any correction before it is published.
But I wonder if the readership should be better informed that you consider these stakes acceptable, given the consequences they might have in world where information can be distributed so far, fast, and broadly in the gap between these two events.
I can see why both a and b above might be desirable, in other words. But I would humbly suggest that, in a world where people look to be informed on a moment-to-moment basis, your paper may need to accept that the time frame between a) and b) will be one which can cause some confusion in some readers, as a natural consequence of the policies you state.
There may be no better way, I suppose. But that does not mean there will not be consequences to the way that you describe. And, since many of us were thrown by those consequences, I would humbly suggest that this might be a good topic for your public editor’s column to discuss in the near future, that we might at least be better informed about how the process works now, and why that might indeed be the best choice despite the potential for confusion.
Sincerely,
Joshua Farber
April 1st, 2007 08:36
One humble suggestion, and one addition, I WOULD make to the above:
1. You mention, Mr. Brock, that you “do not wait to correct the Web version until a correction has appeared in print.” I applaud this. But I would humbly suggest that, if nothing else, to be true to the general standards of citation and fair representation, when you do this, the DATE of the article’s publication be adjusted accordingly. In this case, since the article was not amended until the 28th, it would more honestly represent the date of that text, as it then would stand, to change the publication date of the web article to the 28th at the same exact time you made the correction.
2. We seem to be on complete agreement that neither Wikipedia nor Google nor indeed and single SOURCE (web-based or not) can be held entirely reliable. My experience matches yours — Googling, as you say, is not a way to find an answer, but it IS a way to find SOURCES, which can then be judged independently for accuracy, bias, and reliability. As for Wikipedia — it is many wonderful things, but an appropriate source for New York Times fact-checking it most certainly is NOT.
However, I note that at no time was Wikipedia source material used for our Reference Desk research. Instead, the resources used included only those of VERY high standards — the original study cited, ERIC’s online database, and the US Government’s online pdf files of the Federal Register.
April 20th, 2007 21:03
The phenomenon you are referring to is sometimes called a stealth edit.