JeffG
Member
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.
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.
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.
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.
However, there was not a comments section at the end of the article.
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......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.
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?
... 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.
I will try to provide accurate information.
Correcting the false information is best. You need to verify corrections with legitimate information from viable sources.
I would post it here and there in hopes he or enough of his readers would notice.
My response pertains to general misinformation that persists on the internet, especially on gun forums including THR.how do you handle incorrect (bad/false) information?
Nice.Found it ... Looks like she edited out the error.
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
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.
Yes, the information appears to be completely correct now.Found it.
Looks like she edited out the error.
It depends what the reading audience is. The smaller audience, the more impact your correction will have.