Wikinews:Water cooler/policy/archives/2015/August

Corrections versus updates

I was clearing through the {{editprotected}} backlog today, which included appending {{correction}} a couple of times (and I did a contemporary article while I was added). It got me thinking, so I dug in the archive for a bit and found some inconsistency. In Isolated native tribe discovered in Brazil we clearly, and inaccurately, stated a new discovery. That was dealt with by an {{update}} template. Likewise Norwegian police lower death toll in massacre. But in Ukranian manufacturer preparing to sell Adolf Hitler dolls, an admittedly more serious case of factual inaccuracy, we issued a correction linking to the new article. The question, therefore, is which should we prefer? BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 16:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking around, I also see Apollo Moon landings tapes reported missing as an example somewhere in the middle. That was also handled by {{correction}}. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 16:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some thoughts.
  • I think if we actually get it wrong we clearly should issue a correction. We want to inform anyone who looks at that article in our archives. We can and should attribute claims if we suspect current reports may be less than solid (as with the recent article about the gunman on the train in Belgium, where I'm kicking myself that I didn't inject more attribution during review); and if we don't, and the info turns out to have been wrong, we need to issue a correction. All the more reason for us to take full advantage of the wonderful tool of attribution.
  • The use of the update template seems to me a separate issue. I think there's plenty of room for us to use it more often than we do before we'd be in any danger of over-using it.
  • The first article you mention, Isolated native tribe discovered in Brazil, seems to me to call for a correction, but probably not much of one.
--Pi zero (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The articles using {{update}} are self-evidently wrong based on the updated articles' titles. Of course, those are less visible in two respects (placed much lower, and less aggressive colouring). Not sure if that's a sufficient correction for the purposes of avoiding the correction template. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 18:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mm. It does seem one would need something both at the top and more prominent. --Pi zero (talk) 19:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've bitten the bullet and issued them. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 20:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]