Lawrence Lessig takes up the process of corrective behavior in a piece today entitled "first we're a "virus," now we kill people with AIDS:"
Matt's angry about an article in Billboard that is being distributed by Reuters. The article deserves some context.
It's an interesting essay providing surrounding data to what would appear to be sketchily researched and edited pieces - where facts get muddled in the process, perhaps, or context elided in the interests of space.
What I'm interested in watching for is if there's any subsequent change in behavior. One of Lessig's complaints is that the author of an inaccurate piece was subsequently assigned to produce a followup corrective piece which, if I follow his argument, muddies the water even further than the initial piece did, exaggerating threatening elements to the Billboard readership.
Of related interest in this thread, imho, is this morning's NYT piece about moves on the part of some Swedes to correct WH Auden's rendition of Dag Hammarskjold's "Markings" (or "Waymarks", part of the debate is the title itself). Once information enters the domain of ideas, and has the interpreter's particular imprint, how readily is it updated?
If it's taking 40 years to correct Auden's interpretation of Hammarskjold, does the online world provide (as we all likely believe) for more rapid response and corrective behavior for Butler's interpretations of the Creative Commons authors? And what if it's a cross-media corrective, between print and online debate?
One to be watched.Posted by esinclai at May 22, 2005 11:41 AM |