Yesterday a guest blogger published an entry in which he argued that university policies allow for professors to designate grading proxies to grade papers and that such policies would therefore have permitted Deborah Crowder to grade Julius Nyang'oro's papers. Within a half-hour, an expert in higher education noted that standard policies only allow for proxies to enter grades, not actually to do the grading. I immediately added an editor's update with that information. However, I have now decided to remove the blog entry entirely.
Since I began blogging about the controversies at UNC, I have been critical of several journalists and news outlets for publishing unverified claims and spreading inaccurate information. Well, I deserve similar criticism for my publishing of my guest blogger's entry last night. The author and I seem to have misunderstood the university policy on which he was commenting. As the blog's editor, I should have consulted with an expert before publishing, and I apologize for not doing so.
Removing the blog entry therefore seems like the responsible action for me to take.
Unfortunately, throughout the coverage of the paper-class scandal at UNC, journalists and editors at actual news outlets-each of which has a far greater reach than my blog-have been remiss to act likewise. If Sara Ganim, Paul Barrett, or their editors had consulted with experts in educational assessment, they would have learned that Willingham's vague claims about combining tests results to determine grade equivalents were specious. Furthermore, earlier today, I published an essay demonstrating that much of what Willingham claimed to Ganim last year is contradicted by Willingham's annual reports, which were recently released in response to a public records request.
Will CNN now add an update to each of their stories about Willingham? I am doubtful.
BusinessWeek's and CNN's failure to edit with integrity does not excuse my mistake yesterday. However, I am left wondering why editors who manage the great responsibility of content for actual news outlets seem not to have yet learned the lesson I just learned through merely managing the small responsibility of content for a free blog.
BB
Since I began blogging about the controversies at UNC, I have been critical of several journalists and news outlets for publishing unverified claims and spreading inaccurate information. Well, I deserve similar criticism for my publishing of my guest blogger's entry last night. The author and I seem to have misunderstood the university policy on which he was commenting. As the blog's editor, I should have consulted with an expert before publishing, and I apologize for not doing so.
Removing the blog entry therefore seems like the responsible action for me to take.
Unfortunately, throughout the coverage of the paper-class scandal at UNC, journalists and editors at actual news outlets-each of which has a far greater reach than my blog-have been remiss to act likewise. If Sara Ganim, Paul Barrett, or their editors had consulted with experts in educational assessment, they would have learned that Willingham's vague claims about combining tests results to determine grade equivalents were specious. Furthermore, earlier today, I published an essay demonstrating that much of what Willingham claimed to Ganim last year is contradicted by Willingham's annual reports, which were recently released in response to a public records request.
Will CNN now add an update to each of their stories about Willingham? I am doubtful.
BusinessWeek's and CNN's failure to edit with integrity does not excuse my mistake yesterday. However, I am left wondering why editors who manage the great responsibility of content for actual news outlets seem not to have yet learned the lesson I just learned through merely managing the small responsibility of content for a free blog.
BB
