Alexander blames the Post’s layoff of copy editors since 2005; it cut the number of full-time copy editors by almost half — from 75 to 43.

Obviously, errors of this type are bad. Sloppy presentation suggests sloppy reporting. But what’s the best way to get clean copy? Are layers of copy editors really the solution?

I’ve been playing around with a new tool for crowd-sourced editing called GooseGrade. With this free widget installed on a site, curmudgeonly readers can easily apply their virtual red pen to suggest corrections. It’s an open-source approach that empowers the audience to improve content.  Note: I’m not using it currently because it locked up my WordPress (publishing system) last week. But I liked the product and will try it again.

How great is the problem Alexander highlights? A 2007 study by Michael Bugeja and Jane Peterson from Iowa State University suggests it’s around 8% of all errors. Spelling, grammar and typos account for about 4% of errors; using the wrong word — 3.6%. (Misidentifying a person or reporting a wrong date — that’s another matter).

And who actually finds errors? It’s difficult to assess the effectiveness of copy editors. (They no doubt make a big difference.) But a 2005 study by University of Nevada academics Donica Mensing and Merlyn Oliver suggests that adding levels of oversight may not be the most effective approach. In the survey of editors at 300 small-town dailies in the United States, titled “Editors at Small Newspapers Say Error Problems Serious,” here’s who discovered the error once a story was published:

• a person mentioned in the story (50%)
• a reader (26.5%)
• a member of the newsroom staff (23%)

Further, even when published, minor errors of the kind that Alexander points out do not seem to significantly affect a media organization’s credibility. In his 2002 study “Getting it right? Not in 59 percent of stories” University of Oregon professor Scott Maier, states: “By several measures, the relationship between errors and newspaper credibility was statistically significant but weak.” He adds that errors have a slightly greater effect on how people judge the story itself, but generally only when the reporter’s mistake involves an error of judgment.

It’s interesting that many of the people who commented on the Post’s article were critical, but not about the increase in errors. They were more concerned that the Post had failed to account publicly for a controversial fundraising event that came to light last week. In a flyer, the Post advertised a “salon” at the publisher’s home that offered lobbyists access to Obama administration officials — and the Post’s editorial staff. (Publisher Katharine Weymouth did comment publicly on the issue the same day.)

As one commenter pointed out, the bigger problem is that many news organizations lack a system for quickly addressing errors — factual, subjective and ethical — pointed out by the public.

It’s this lack of accountability that seems to be an issue with media credibility — not the errors themselves. A study by the Canadian Media Research Consortium concluded in 2008 that only about half of Canadians believed the media was doing its job with full accuracy (51.6% said news organizations generally got their facts straight; 55.7% said news organizations were careful to check and verify information). But the kicker was that only 33.8% said they believed news organizations were willing to admit mistakes.

Better procedures for finding and correcting published errors may be what’s needed — not more copy editors.

July 10, 2009: Correction made on silly usage error (see Comment 4 below). Thanks, Carol!

I don’t see the irony that others see in the revelation that Wired editor Chris Anderson has seemingly lifted vast swaths of content from Wikipedia (and other sources) for his new book Free.

Anderson has been a vocal proponent of open-source content. In fact, he argues that a new economy is emerging — one based on value-added components to free goods and services. “There are dozens of ways that media companies make money around free content,” he stated in his influential Wired article Free! Why $0.00 Is the Future of Business.

So the fact that he used free content in what will (still) likely be a highly profitable book isn’t surprising. The subject matter might even excuse the fact that he used Wikipedia as a primary source, even though numerous people have commented that their profs would have failed them for doing the same thing.

However, his apparent failure to attribute the content is another matter.

Wikipedia encourages users to republish the content. But it clearly sets out the terms of copyright, which includes attribution. Anderson argued he and his publisher removed footnotes late in the editing process and he neglected to rephrase the passages in his own words. But editors at the Virginia Quarterly Review, including Waldo Jaquith, found nearly a dozen passages reproduced nearly word-for-word from uncredited sources.

That’s not an editing error. It’s a textbook blatant case of plagiarism.

As fellow VQR editor Jacob Silverman states:

He wasn’t using brief quotations or summarizing ideas in order to comment upon them — he copied large chunks of pages nearly verbatim and without attribution … Those who are at the vanguard of online media, who are trying to fashion new ways of assessing intellectual property, like Anderson, have a special responsibility to act ethically and responsibly.

Too bad. I was looking forward to the book.

Captured Tues., June 23, 2009, 1:30 AT

If anyone needed evidence of the value of a competitive news industry, the Guardian provided it last week.

Its rival the Telegraph had uncovered the biggest British political scandal in decades by revealing widespread abuses in MPs’ expense claims. But the Guardian took the investigation to a new level last Thursday.

The British newspaper media outlet announced it was launching a site to crowdsource the analysis of expense records — 700,000 individual documents released by House of Commons. The records represent four years of expenses for all 646 members of parliament. The Guardian’s site offers “citizen journalists” the opportunity to comb each of a half million claims and recommend it for further investigation. On Sunday, the Guardian reported that nearly 20,000 people had examined 160,000 records.

The effort is easily the most ambitious attempt at crowdsourcing ever. Vancouver-based public policy blogger David Eaves points out three benefits:

1. the analysis would have been impossible otherwise
2. it has created a new benchmark of accountability for members of elected office
3. it has provided the Guardian a strong level of engagement with its readers

As Jay Rosen learned with Assignment Zero, crowdsourcing isn’t easy. That’s why comments by the Guardian’s developer on the project, Simon Willison, are so interesting. In an interview with Nieman Lab’s Michael Andersen, he underlines the importance of showing people the results of their collaboration:

“Any time that you’re trying to get people to give you stuff, to do stuff for you, the most important thing is that people know that what they’re doing is having an effect. It’s kind of a fundamental tenant of social software. … If you’re not giving people the ‘I rock’ vibe, you’re not getting people to stick around.”

Willison says it was important to liken the site’s user experience to a video game. (Real-time?) results on the site’s home page offer measureable encouragement to participants — the score. And photos of the MP’s smiling face above each claim provide the narrative. The combination has been a key driver of user participation, Willison says.