Mistakes Are Embarrassing the Publishing Industry • Hacker News Board

Re: Mistakes Are Embarrassing the Publishing Industry

#51

Post by GrinningFool » Tue, Sep 24, 2019, 9:51 PM UTC

carlmr wrote: post #27

GrinningFool wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Basically to criticize a piece of work was reserved to a few professional critics writing in newspapers. It was common to write replies in long form and mail then into newspapers, which would then publish them.

That's a good point I didn't even think of, however it may have been subject to censorship and editing by the newspaper staff and would have limited reach for most newspapers, not a global audience. Also I don't think I ever wrote a response to any newspaper in pre internet times, that's a lot of work just to be heard.

I did a couple of 'letter to the editor' that got published in those dark and dusty times. I don't recall any editing and there was no censoring, but they did get to determine which letters were published.

It was fun, and I certainly _felt_ like I was being heard - first when I saw my words in print, and again when selected replies would get published a week later or so.

Ultimately, I suppose not so different than posting to $platform_of_choice and waiting for replies/retweets/etc. Just slower.

Re: Mistakes Are Embarrassing the Publishing Industry

#52

Post by RandomBacon » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 5:26 AM UTC

__s wrote: post #34

carlmr wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I'm not sure if this is true, but I have the impression the error rates have increased in the last decades, despite spell-check becoming more effective at finding them at low cost.

I recently read all of Philip K Dick's novels. Spotted typos in every book. I log typos in my goodreads reviews In the past it wasn't even the author's fault necessarily. The worst case of this was an anthology of Ursula Leguin, "Five Complete Novels" where I quit recording the typos as there would be multiple per page

If the typos are in a legitimate eBook copy, it's because sometimes the people who make the eBook don't have the source file(s), and instead have to OCR a printed book.

If the typos are in the printed book, that's bad.

Re: Mistakes Are Embarrassing the Publishing Industry

#53

Post by Shorel » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 3:52 PM UTC

tyri_kai_psomi wrote: post #43

ghostbrainalpha wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great... so now I can't trust Richard Dawkins OR the people who review his books.

As the twitter thread notes, he seems to have gotten some of his historical information about ancient Mesopotamia from a website called historywiz ( https://www.historywiz.com/flood.htm ), which I suppose is good if you are writing a 8th or 9th grade paper on the topic, but not a book.

Interesting and informative.

However your previous remark about Richard Dawkins opening up a Bible is a bit worrying.

It is obvious that the missing historical information is not in the Bible, and that remark can be interpreted a bit like the point of view of Jehovah witnesses, that all you need to read is the Bible.

Re: Mistakes Are Embarrassing the Publishing Industry

#54

Post by coreypreston » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 6:11 PM UTC

Finnucane wrote: post #31

buboard wrote: post #7

This was inevitable and is the culmination of two things: - Too much hypothesis-driven science that results in statistically significant, but untrustworthy results. It's easy to find statistically significant data to backup whatever crazy thing your brain comes up with. - Too much pseudo-scientifically backed popular press. Popular science is useful for disemminating science that has been solidified through decades o…

Some years ago, when I was working as production editor in New York, I had to manage a manuscript for a book of new-age woo that was trying to pass itself off as pseudo-science (one of these 'quantum magic' type books). Not only was the premise crap, but the author clearly did not understand even basic historical facts about science. I brought this up with the editor, who seemed surprised to be told that the author d…

Was the book ever published?

Re: Mistakes Are Embarrassing the Publishing Industry

#55

Post by zaque1213 » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 10:49 PM UTC

Shorel wrote: post #53

tyri_kai_psomi wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As the twitter thread notes, he seems to have gotten some of his historical information about ancient Mesopotamia from a website called historywiz ( https://www.historywiz.com/flood.htm ), which I suppose is good if you are writing a 8th or 9th grade paper on the topic, but not a book.

Interesting and informative. However your previous remark about Richard Dawkins opening up a Bible is a bit worrying. It is obvious that the missing historical information is not in the Bible, and that remark can be interpreted a bit like the point of view of Jehovah witnesses, that all you need to read is the Bible.

I think their statement about Dawkins’ apparently having never opened a Bible was in regard to his theological understanding, not historical.

Having read Dawkins, my primary critique of him overall is that he regularly demonstrates a willful ignorance as to what religious people actually believe. He’s content to attack straw men and not the propositional truth claims at the heart of religious belief.

Re: Mistakes Are Embarrassing the Publishing Industry

#56

Post by Finnucane » Sat, Sep 28, 2019, 9:49 PM UTC

coreypreston wrote: post #54

Finnucane wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some years ago, when I was working as production editor in New York, I had to manage a manuscript for a book of new-age woo that was trying to pass itself off as pseudo-science (one of these 'quantum magic' type books). Not only was the premise crap, but the author clearly did not understand even basic historical facts about science. I brought this up with the editor, who seemed surprised to be told that the author d…

Was the book ever published?

Yes.

Re: Mistakes Are Embarrassing the Publishing Industry

#57

Post by dhosek » Mon, Sep 30, 2019, 6:23 PM UTC

Chris2048 wrote: post #30

dhosek wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most (if not all) large magazines fact check their published material. The New Yorker even fact checks the poetry (seriously!)

Do "fact checks" include oversights and misleading premises? Would a fact check have caught the bias in a recent NYT article, for instance?

Nope, it's generally a case of looking up things asserted as fact or otherwise independently verifying them. Quotations may also be verified with the interviewee. If I had known that such a job existed when I was in college, my career path would have been very different.