How Do You Handle Bad/False Info?

It depends what the reading audience is. The smaller audience, the more impact your correction will have. It gets tiring, and ridiculous how much misinformation gets put out there, and you can't correct it all.

RetiredUSNChief said:

Lord...it depends on so much.

Writers of technical books, as well as writers of entertainment books, in general want their books to be accurate. For technical books, it's mainly about technical accuracy. For entertainment books, this can vary based on spelling/grammar and major issues with the story where it actually counts. (For instance, general fictional stuff in SciFi isn't "major" because it's fiction. However, if the book takes place in a historical setting then major historical errors are important which wouldn't otherwise fall under "artistic license".)

If it's a book about laws, written by attorneys or judges for example, they would want errors fixed.

If it's just an article...depending on the venue, you might get a redaction printed. Or nothing at all. Hard to tell with articles, because articles don't carry the "weight" of a book on a subject. Articles come and go...they're read and quite often forgotten or lost. Books are different.

Probably, the best thing to do is draft something professionally worded, clear language, with citations on references as well as links to the references themselves. Kinda "butter up" the author a bit in your opening to set a positive tone.


"I read your article a few days ago and was captivated on the subject. I liked they way you (nice, positive buttering up on some of the good aspects) and I think this will really enlighten a lot of people."

"However, there are some portions that I disagree with and I'd like to explain why and provide the reference/source documentation to clarify my stand."

Then lay it out systematically and in clear language. Provide real references like you would in a research paper. Maybe cite some relevant experts in the field, possibly even with contact information if suitable.


How any given person would react is up in the air. I can tell you how I would react, which basically amount to "if I'm wrong, I'm wrong and I'll go fix myself". But that's no guarantee anybody else would react the same.

Now...if they're non-responsive or not open to corrections? Time to steer others away.

Click to expand...

The Sheldon Cooper in me usually wants to innudate them with data, as well as anecdotes, (as in my example below) proving my point beyond a doubt. (Mom always said I('d be a good lawyer...)
When I'm wrong, I'm wrong, and follow the example of the one columnist who would admit it in her column, and say, "Mea Culpa".

DustyGmt said:

I considered this same thing recently, if I had the ability to contact the author I would have. It was an article on trap shooting, I think I typed "trap shooting fundamentals for beginners" into Google and it was just one of the links that came up. I can't find it now but there were all kinds of errors and badly structured diagrams, etc... for instance they had a diagram showing hold points and on the diagram they had station 1 and 5 reversed and referred to station 1 as being on the far right of the illustration, etc.. they had a bunch of errors like that and if I hadn't already learned a good deal about trapshooting by that point I would have been very misguided.

I wanted to contact the author but there was only the initial of the last name. Like "Jeffery S." or something like that.

So, yeah with completely erroneous information such as the OP caught, I would consider it my duty to inform the author and request the article be fixed. People obviously shouldn't get their legal advice from web articles but people who aren't lawyers shouldn't publish it either.

Click to expand...

I'm in the middle of a doozy on another gun forum. A coach, who has coached several youth that eventually made the Jr. Olympics, taught them how to shoot with both eyes open, and claimed he could get anyone to do so. (Not true.) When presented with the evidence of that (I am one who cannot, and many others chimed in) and the facts to back that up, (remember what I do for a living) he backpedaled and said when he has a student with such issues, he tries for a while then drops them if he can't achieve it. Another member, who works with autistic kids trying to change how they think and react to stimuli, went very in depth into why some people will never be able to shoot shotgun two-eyed, and still this coach 'stands by his record'. Well, yeah when you cherry pick students and choose only young emmetropes, of course you are going to be successful getting them to shoot two-eyed.
Both the therapist and I suggested some reading, but "I don't read".

Dusty, that Remington pamphlet is old, and meant to be a starting point. I still handed them out to new shooters on the HS team, because the fundamentals in there still apply, just like the video. I always encourage new shooters to try new stances, hold points, etc. if their current ones are not working for them.

Good correct information is not actually hard to find. I mean even if someone thought that was right, they would go to an FFL and tell them what they wanted and he would (likely) correct them.
Much more serious would be a case of “you just put the pistol upper on your current rifle and you’re gtg!” Personally, I still hold to the correct information isn’t hidden, and it’s my responsibility to find it and confirm it, before I take action. It’s Bob’s responsibility to do the same.

as far as what I’d do.
I would chuckle a little and read the next sentence and continue or if the article hadn’t been that Interesting I would just be done with it.

In no case would I have given it more than about 3 seconds worth of thought.

Correcting the false information is best. You need to verify corrections with legitimate information from viable sources. Such as the ATF or FFL regulations in the example. Attaching web links to the comments add the most valid points from the government organizations.

JShirley said:

I was reading an article from a few months ago, and found this gem:

Before ever building or buying an AR pistol, you have to go to an FFL to have the serialized lower classified to be used as an AR pistol. This comes with a tax stamp price of $200 as well.

Additionally, the author claimed the way ATF defined pistols was "barrel length. Any barrel under 16 inches is considered a pistol."

So, how do you handle incorrect information? The author of this piece would generally be considered an ally of ours, since this is a competitive shooter, who is clearly on the side of gun ownership. However, there was not a comments section at the end of the article.

Click to expand...

I can see how someone with all the misinformation out there that a person could get things messed up like this. What I tell them is the laws are not the same everywhere. I would counsel them to go back with a clear mind & read those laws again. They are probably going from what they have been told not what they have read.

JShirley said:

However, there was not a comments section at the end of the article.

Click to expand...

If there is no convenient means of contacting the author with corrections, I would post it here and there in hopes he or enough of his readers would notice.

So who and where was it?

What do you think the average fed would do if you asked him to register one of these nothing guns?

entropy said:

Dusty, that Remington pamphlet is old, and meant to be a starting point. I still handed them out to new shooters on the HS team, because the fundamentals in there still apply, just like the video. I always encourage new shooters to try new stances, hold points, etc. if their current ones are not working for them.

Click to expand...

Oh I wasn't referring to that remington pamphlet, that and pretty much everything you've steered me to has been very helpful, this was something I found on my own and it was peppered with garbage......

Contact the author. She's confusing SBR's with AR pistols.

But she's a competitive shooter and 2A supporter, so it's probably just an honest mistake.

Email him why it's wrong. But keep it super short. Include a link if he wants to read more.

Or send him a completely unrelated meme:

Doesn't matter if its gun related or not. I can tell right off the bat if the individual making claims is set in their beliefs.

If thats the case theres no point wasting time.

If not then I most times will try to share what I know.

Found it.
Looks like she edited out the error.

I try to allow clearly marked opinions slide. Some times I will present a counter opinion and the reasoning.

On one You Tube video, the narrator mentioned a S&W Model 10, made in the early forties (1940s). I did have to mention 1957 in the comments.

I do counter information I know to be false and dangerous. Usually by contacting the author as gently as I can.

It depends on the amount of effort and their actual transparency. Author in question is working thru one of dozens of clickbait sites which appear to be ok but in reality hire anyone to post an "article" which may or may not be accurate. With no comments section or feedback, I don't spend another moment. They don't want to know better or could care less, which it typical of those sites, and likely it's because there's really nobody there watching the screens to reply.

A blog can be different, with active comment sections. There, you post where it will be read, and the author does interact with posters. One who has changed their writing style likely did so because they indulged in a lot of !!! at the end of sentences!!!! And added another ! in the next !!!!! He's a good read now. Others were proclaimed as being subject matter - well, not experts, but knowledgeable - and you discover that subject is really not in their wheelhouse. No, .300 Blackout was NOT invented wholesale, it was a SAMMI dodge changing a few dimensions and it's interchangeable with .300 Whisper so that they could sell more suppressors. And it wasn't the first incarnation, wildcatters were trying to submit AR's in the cartridge in the early days of 3Gun and getting kicked out despite meeting the letter of the rules. What 3Gun wanted was main battle rifle .30's, not a .30 bore poodleshooter and they weren't very nice about it.

Actual eyewitness to that at an invitational shoot in Columbia MO back in the day. None of that was in the article but it was in my post. And now, you know.

Answer their inaccuracy as you best choose, I don't bother much now with firearms disinformation as so many already handle it. There are much bigger areas of ignorance in the public right now and it's driving extremely negative policies where they don't need to happen.

RetiredUSNChief said:

... the best thing to do is draft something professionally worded, clear language, with citations on references as well as links to the references ... Then lay it out systematically and in clear language. Provide real references like you would in a research paper.

Click to expand...

JohnKSa said:

I will try to provide accurate information.

Click to expand...

WisBorn said:

Correcting the false information is best. You need to verify corrections with legitimate information from viable sources.

Click to expand...

Jim Watson said:

I would post it here and there in hopes he or enough of his readers would notice.

Click to expand...

JShirley said:

how do you handle incorrect (bad/false) information?

Click to expand...

My response pertains to general misinformation that persists on the internet, especially on gun forums including THR.

Whenever I can, I comment/post the correct information citing supporting data, articles, reference and laws/regulations/court cases. I take this course of action to be "High Road".

In recent years, for topics that continue to persist in incorrect/misinformation, I have taken the "High Road" to spend the time and money to conduct various "myth busting" threads as one of my life/retirement "projects" to clear the air with measurable and repeatable data.

I think the most iconic "myth busting" thread was whether digital scales (including cheap $20-$35 ones) were accurate and repeatable enough for reloading and while there were many that believed beam scales were better than cheap digital scales, with the help of various THR members we busted that myth wide open with "actual" hard data - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...tal-scale-accuracy.759750/page-6#post-9614543

Recently, another "myth busting" thread ventured out to confirming and busting various misnotions about digital scale zero drifting to even "hacking" analytical/lab type digital scale to maintain zero in not only resolving Varget down to single kernel but determining different cut/size of kernel will weigh differently from .02 to .03 gr - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-scale-zero-drift-and-can-it-be-fixed.893402/

And we finally put to rest the perennial issue with Hodgdon not publishing load data for WST in 9mm in this clarification thread referencing actual published load data with case fill calculations using different OALs - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...ished-load-data-for-9mm.870180/#post-11544839

Cleared the air regarding primer misfires and storage of primers/powder supported by reference information from US AMU, SAAMI, powder manufacturers - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-and-discussions.778197/page-11#post-12029676

Definitive "myth busting" thread on why taper crimp won't improve neck tension and how bullet setback can be reduced/eliminated (Using shorter OAL/thicker case wall brass) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...neck-tension-and-bullet-setback.830072/page-4

There are many other myth busting and clarification threads not to mention shooting over 26,000 rounds of 22LR in various rifles to buying two brand new 10/22 and T/CR22 to capture 10 shot groups out of the box with various brand/weight ammunition to trend group size as trigger/barrel breaks in that led us to "myth busting" 50 yard challenge with cold barrel (I am working on dirty vs clean 22LR barrel accuracy myth busting thread from 3000/1000 rounds fired without cleaning) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/myth-busting-“real-world”-22lr-50-yard-challenge.895021/

I believe in "Truth shall set you free" and in our gun world, measurable and repeatable data will clear the misinformation where "Holes on target speak volumes".

Jim Watson said:

Found it ... Looks like she edited out the error.

Click to expand...

Nice.

JShirley said:

I couldn't find an outright email, but I did find a form online to contact her. I advised that neither buying an AR-15 pistol from a manufacturer, nor building an AR pistol from a bare receiver required paying the $200 fee. I also pointed out the definition of a pistol was based on its ability to be fired with one hand, not barrel length.

The sad thing is that the correct sources were listed at the bottom of the article. It's almost as though author Kenzie Fitzpatrick found the sources that should have the correct information, but didn't bother to actually read them! It seems she offers CCL classes, too, which is a shame for someone who doesn't understand common firearm law.

John

Click to expand...

So it looks like you could not do A (or could for only so long), so you tried B, and then went the C & D. Sounds like you covered all the bases.

Probably should work to not try to discredit the author so much as discrediting the article. No reason to make it personal on a given factual topic.

Now, if the author is regularly wrong on stuff, then that might be another matter, but for a singular issue, focus on the errant information. Personally, I find nothing wrong with the notion of correcting wrong information. Nobody likes their work to be corrected and some will take it personally, but them taking a factual correction personally is different than you attacking the person for the error.

Double Naught Spy said:

Now, if the author is regularly wrong on stuff, then that might be another matter, but for a singular issue, focus on the errant information. Personally, I find nothing wrong with the notion of correcting wrong information. Nobody likes their work to be corrected and some will take it personally, but them taking a factual correction personally is different than you attacking the person for the error.

Click to expand...

I write engineering procedures as part of my work. What I find frustrating isn't that someone else corrected my errors, but the fact that I had errors to correct in the first place. It's a matter of professional pride in many ways. One has to do with my own performance. Another has to do with not optimizing my boss' time (errors that I make means my boss has to devote subsequent time re-reviewing my work after I've fixed my initial errors).

But in the end, we have to acknowledge that we all make mistakes and the proper way to handle such matters is acknowledge your errors, then go forth and do better.

JeffG said:

It depends what the reading audience is. The smaller audience, the more impact your correction will have.

Click to expand...

Even for a bigger audience, I'd argue that the r.o.i. will ultimately still be small. I'd also weigh the reasons I'm even bothering in the first place. And maybe most importantly, I'd make sure I was 100% right about what I'm posed to fire off to some stranger. Lastly, I'd put verbosity aside and try to stick to one major point of correction. Unless you're talking to an investigative reporter and you have some proprietary information to share, sending someone unsolicited reams of documentation isn't going to make the impression you intend. Don't send someone homework.