Royal Navy Web site - Offical reporting of inaccurate facts

Discussion in 'History' started by Blood, Jun 28, 2007.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Not sure if this is the right forum, or current affairs but...
    Found on our own RN web site and I quote:
    21st May 2007 HMS Exeter is the last Royal Navy ship still in commission from the Falklands campaign and she is due to visit Cornwall and Scotland during the coming weeks.
    Which is then followed by the most recent:
    26th Jun 2007 HMS Exeter, one of two Royal Navy warships still in commission from the Falklands conflict.

    Only two, if they mean involved in the conflict then me thinks the answer is 4? I know one of these is a Sub, but still the correct answer is,
    BRISTOL – ok not sailing but still commisioned.

    If they mean still in commission, then we have to remember those that are still in commission and came down, just after:

    Would be nice for the media to get things right, but surely the RNs own website should be 100% right!!
  2. There seems to be a culture growing these days, perhaps because such errors are easily corrected, that means that things do not need to be checked for accuracy before publishing. So many official things these days contain cockups it is beyond belief for us old farts.
  3. I agree with Maxi_77 on this one. Not identical but I often worry when Wikipedia is used as a supporting reference; and I'm occasionally guilty of that. By definition, anyone can create, add, delete or change entries in it. How competent are the editors? How do we know that the error we are reading hasn't yet been edited. I see it as an example of the publish first and verify second mind-set. As identified by others in other Threads, the 24 hour news culture and its commercial linkages may very well encourage such behaviour. When the Focus paper was originally released, I regularly contacted them to point out errors (so it's not that new a problem) and, in the end, gave up.
  4. Re: Royal Navy Web site - Offical reporting of inaccurate fa

    I'd agree that Wikipedia is a high risk source, and any time I point someone there I usually provide the caveats; look at the talk page and look at the page history to get an impression of reliability.

    In terms of what it is, Wikipedia is a good example of knowledge as a social phenomenon. I think it's breaking down, through ineffective nd inefficient frameworks, but it is quite an interesting eperiment.

    with respect to the thread subject, the PR team in Leach is quite small, and pretty busy, but I'd expect a bit more accuracy about basics.
  5. "with respect to the thread subject, the PR team in Leach is quite small, and pretty busy, but I'd expect a bit more accuracy about basics."
    100% agree Karma, all I ask for is proof reading and accuracy checking, just for credibility sake.
  6. I agree about Wikipeedia and it's reliability, but today far to many people will say because it was on the www it must be true. It is however useful when one is aware of it's limitations and is often a quick way to see whether a subject is work delving further intofor the real proof.

    Truth as a general comodity though seems to have les s value thes days where spin and propoganda are the real powerhouses of world thought

Share This Page