On 28/03/07, William Pietri <william(a)scissor.com> wrote:
What sort of editorial oversight do you believe is in
place for an
interview in a normal publication? My understanding is that when a
newspaper or magazine says you said something, then the fact-checker
verifies that you said it, not that it is true.
If they bother with the fact checking.
The notions of the reliability of printed media in this thread are
ridiculous in my experience.
As to the latter, there's no technical barrier for
web publishers of any
sort, blogs or magazines. The main protection is convention; in both
realms it is customary to note changes on the page, and you risk
ridicule if you don't do that. But the original text is not sacrosanct.
To overcome this would it be sufficient in your eyes to cite from the
Internet Archive or WebCite?
I do that when citing the words of organisations with a history of
paid PR writing, e.g. on [[AdTI]].