In spite of armies of editors and proof readers, main stream publishing has a long history of published typos. And as a writer I can tell you, it’s really easy to miss something, especially in something as substantial as an article or a book. Even if you know how to spell.
Even when a mistakes were caught, it wasn’t reasonable to assume publishers would recall books and reissue them with corrections. Errors wouldn’t be fixed until the second edition. If there was a second edition.
One of the most earth shattering things to happen to the world of proof readers was our move into the digital age with the invention of the spell checker. Suddenly proof readers became obsolete.
But all spell checkers are not equal. When the typo is a real word, no spell checker is going to flag it. The thing we often forget about technology is that it is no more perfect than any other tool; human supervision is still required.
Wikipedia is the poster child for self publishing. Not only does it rely on the good will of the public to add articles and factual information, if errors are made, Wikipedia is self-correcting: the public has the power to correct errors and ommissions, whether of fact or spelling.
All those mainstream publishers who no longer employ enough staff to adequately proof read their content are publishing online in digital formats. Instead of hiring proofreaders, they often have a “report typo” option on their webspage so readers can catch their mistakes for them. Just as CBC does.
This way, when a reader gets hit between the eyes by an annoying typo, we can report it, so others won’t have to suffer as we have.
When I found a typo in the CBC article Chippewas of the Thames vow to continue pipeline fight good neighbor that I am, I decided to let CBC know so the error could be fixed.
So I clicked on the link— it should be easy, right? But it seems CBC isn’t as interested in being told about typos as it is interested in getting personal information about anyone who wants to correct a typo.
This isn’t a news issue, or even a matter of opinion. If I point out the author probably didn’t mean the word “pit,” it doesn’t matter who I am or where I live. I could be living in Iceland and it would still be a typo. Either I’m right or I’m wrong.
Something that ought to take a minute and cost me nothing but a bit of time I was willing to spend, ended up costing me privacy.
There is no need for it, but this has become a prevalent practice online. Our personal information has become a valuable commodity that companies want for themselves, and very often to sell.
If you’ve ever wondered why you get spam, this is why. (I know someone who gave up an email account because he got so much spam.)
We need to stop giving our personal details to companies who have no legitimate need of them.
If you’re buying something that needs to be delivered, sure, you have to give your address. But if you’re making a donation to a political party and they want to be able to connect with you, they will need an address, a phone number, or an email address— but not all three. If you’re leaving a comment or signing a petition, they want to make sure you’re a real person, not a bot.
Companies want it all; whether they need it or not. If you give it to them, when you tell them to stop phoning you, they can send you junkmail or spam. If CBC or any person or company tells you information they have no right to is “required” the correct answer is “none of your business.”
Privacy is an important part of personal security; don’t give up any more than you have to.