Unfortunately par for the course these days. At least they did remove the article. Citing "editorial standards" is weak sauce though, the point of having editorial standards is so they can be applied by the editor before publication...
I think you might just be disappointed in humanity, rather than any particular agency or person. Humans come together to get the right answer eventually; not multiple times a day, every day, without fail. Sometimes the software doesn't do what you want. Sometimes that article has a factual error. Eventually we figure it out. It's not the end of the world.
They got an opinion piece with an extraordinary claim about something the writer saw in a slide presented at a trial. She wrote the entire article about it creating theories and then how it needs to be stopped. Not to mention, she had previously worked with a competitive search engine. The central piece of fact checking was seeing that slide, that would have been the second question after "Are you sure you saw something like that?". The entire article hinges on that one slide she saw and what she understood from it.
This is not a case of missing a boundary condition. This is missing the central premise. At any level, it would be inexcusable.
PS: In a sense, as the artifacts are becoming public, i think more such confusions would surface in the coming weeks where merely misunderstanding what is on the slide would lead to a lot of rumors. Probably best we have an initial case and some intuition that this can happen.
There's a wide spectrum of how fucked your software can be when you release it without it being a huge deal, like if I push a broken release for my hypothetical build system that jumbles the error messages a little that's probably fine, if I push a broken build of the google dot com landing page that's raising a few more sirens and I really shouldn't make a habit of it, if I deploy critically broken firmware to your pacemaker or your crewed rocket ship I should probably be exiled from the field. I imagine there's a similar spectrum for journalists and we can't really figure out where on the spectrum to the article from the OP should be with just analogies to a different field. Complaining about a trend of publications slipping towards the yolo'ier end of the spectrum doesn't seem on its face hypocritical.
This would be like the SWE equivalent of pushing to production without code review. It's not an excusable mistake like when a bug gets through.
Publications can simultaneously be praised for “rolling back a bad build” while being criticised for letting that build roll out to prod in the first place.
Think about the opposite. Imagine we pickup a bug in a live application and update it citing "our QA standards". This magical word does not absolve us of the fact that we let a bug through to production. And it's implied that we'll do better next time to pick up this kind of bug.
Is that really something you are challenging? Which pieces of popular software you can think of are bug-free? And are you thinking of more than a handful?
And they themselves were responding to someone criticizing media for using "editorial standards" as an excuse when they "retract a release".
And I explained how we are the same and supposedly strive to not release bad content/software, we just don't get to magically absolve fault with an excuse that "it doesn't meet our QA standards" as an analogy to "editorial standards".
Anywho, the whole thing breaks down when we have to beat it with a stick. It's a discussion, assume a charitable interpretation.
Editorial standards should stop bad stories from being published. Saying "we retracted this story because it doesn't meet our editorial standards" begs the question "why are you publishing things that don't meet your editorial standards in the first place?"
It doesn't take responsibility for or explain the mistakes in the article. It doesn't state that the article had factual errors. It's a frustrating cop-out. I sincerely hope this is a temporary measure while Wired gets a more comprehensive retraction put together.
Wouldn't it be better to add a correction at the top of the article instead of deleting it?
Deleting it I'd think would just fuel (current or budding) conspiracy theorists, as they can point to something that existed but got removed, rather than something that got corrected.
But in the end, it's probably a loosing battle anyway...
No evidence: obviously the evidence is being suppressed, proves the claim
Evidence against the claim: shills obviously trying to control the narrative, proves the claim
I showed him the IMDb and Wikipedia pages for it and a clip. Without missing a beat - remember they literally had never heard this before and have already decided it’s misinformation planted by the CIA - he said “Well it’s an independent show he put on that happened to be shown on RT.”
I mean what can you say to that?
They should have mentioned 1) what the article got wrong and 2) that the article was written by a former Duck Duck Go executive who should know better.
I generally find that anyone expecting error-free perfection in any subjective field from an entire industry can be safely dismissed as a complete idiot. Intelligent people look at the processes that produce outcomes, not the outcomes.
(In this case, the process that produced the outcome was a former DDG employee mailing in an oped of incredibly questionable quality that criticized a DDG competitor, that was eventually pulled. Wired should look into reading op-eds before publishing them.)
Admitting it was trash is proof of inaccurate reporting, whether they remove TFA or not
As for the conspiracy folks, they'll think what they want, regardless of evidence presented to them. That's the whole point.
The way to solve it is for "investigators" to get access to said source code and give us an honest assessment. Get someone neutral, get NDAs in place, have them look at the source in an air-gapped clean room, anonymize DB access, etc etc.
Instead we go around in circles. Journalism at the end of the day then becomes "we got some info that points to X, but we have no proof, and we won't look for it. We'll just wait till someone, somewhere, at some point, who knows when, finds some proof and puts it out in the public, only then will we say it's conclusive. Until then, you all go nuts, especially the conspiracy theorists. Don't worry, we'll ride this gravy train and report on those nut jobs too!".
It's a mess, and I'm not at all surprised that conspiracy-theorists have a field day with it.
Hey, let's get a bounty up so that a whistle-blower from Google comes forward. Maybe Mozilla foundation can take some of that sweet sweet endowment they use for "Social Justice" and pony up to fund this investigative effort. After all they claim to be fighting for a free internet. I'd say this is a much better use of money than paying random DEI consultancies huge speaking fees.
Making your mistakes suddenly disappear as if they never happened is tempting, but it's going to leave users feeling gaslit, distrustful, or even just misinformed.
“Ain't nobody got time for that”.
The role of journalists is to provide facts, but the business model of media in the internet age is about “creating content” and “engagement” and they don't work well together …
[1] 'The gun went off and the shot hit Mr. Smith's head' versus 'Officer Sloan shot Mr. Smith in the head.' [2]
[2] Both of these are 'just the facts', but one of them blames the gun for going off, the other blames the person who made the gun go off. Passive voice versus active voice, very different presentation of the same facts, both are correct, and both are biased.
Yes, that's why you need press freedom with multiple point of views. But it is orthogonal to the point I was making.
Maybe there were lots of articles that were never published due to editorial standards, but we only see the ones that slipped through.