• Morphit @feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      3 months ago

      I understood [reference] and am continually amazed how news sources don’t have some kind of automated review process to stop stupid errors like that.

      • floofloof@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Newspapers used to employ teams of sub-editors to fix up the articles. I used to do that job for a major newspaper, and it was surprising to see how bad some of the stuff coming from journalists was. Sometimes you’d basically have to rewrite the whole article from scratch. With the decline in quality of what gets published, I can only assume that when paper sales collapsed and revenues dropped they all decided to cut costs by firing the sub-editors.

        But this is just some website that probably never had any quality control to start with.

        • Morphit @feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          I’d love to have human editors to fix up stories, but we have the technology now. There are FOSS tools like redpen that will help with spelling and grammar. AI tools ought to do a somewhat reasonable job of appraising a piece of text and yeah, a second human ought to sign off before publishing. I’d have thought content management systems would have review stages like software development. Authors could accept or override suggestions, but be required to acknowledge them. Like why isn’t journops a thing?

          • floofloof@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            With this article I wonder whether we’re seeing a content-management screwup. It looks almost like it’s rendering the metadata markup associated with text instead of the text itself.

      • threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        For posterity, here are the relevant sentences which were left incomplete in the article:

        [City, State] – [Date] – The Northrop Grumman Cygnus spacecraft, carrying vital supplies and scientific experiments to the International Space Station (ISS), has encountered an issue during its journey to orbit.

        According to NASA officials, the Cygnus spacecraft, named “S.S. Michael Freilich” in honor of the late NASA Earth Science Division director, launched successfully from Wallops Flight Facility in Virginia on [Date].

        “We are currently assessing the situation and working to determine the best course of action,” said [Name], spokesperson for NASA.

        The mission was scheduled to dock with the station on [Date], but this timeline is now uncertain.

        The company has a long history of successful missions to the ISS, with this being its [Number] resupply mission.

        While the exact nature of the issue has not been publicly disclosed, speculation within the space community suggests that it could involve [Possible issue speculation, e.g., a problem with the propulsion system or a communication failure].

      • Carrolade@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Maybe they just wanted to leave it. You know, a sort of MadLibs make-your-own-article thing, for fun. Can’t be any worse than existing internet misinformation sources.

  • catloaf@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    3 months ago

    We’re really at the point where we’re publishing articles before we even finish writing them?