How much does accuracy matter to you?

[HelenaWojtczak]

As some of you know I am currently writing a book about a Ripper suspect.

I am striving hard to get everything acsolutely factually correct and everything accurate down to every last detail, wherever this is possible (sometimes it isn't).

During my research I am constantly encountering errors in others' work (online, newspapers, books, articles). These errors range from misspelt names and wrong dates through to statements presented as facts when they are actually a complete invention by the author.

I've not seen much in the way of criticism of these errors and fictions.

I do realise of course that, most of the time, people don't realise that what they are reading is inaccurate. They trust the author to have taken all reasonable steps to verify information before presenting it, and to be honest in such a way as to make it clear when something is fact and when it is the author's supposition.

However, if you read two or three accounts of the same story, you will soon see the inconsistencies. How do you know who to believe? I've sometimes seen worse errors within a book by a famous, respected author than on an unattributed website posted on a free server.

How much does accuracy matter to you when reading something that is being presented as historical fact?

Please post a reply or take part in the poll.

Thanks for reading

Helena

[Robert]

Hi Helena

I didn't vote because none of the options appealed. I would not describe any error as "OK." Ideally one wants things to be as accurate as possible, and back in the days when I did a little newspaper transcribing, I would try to get it as accurate as possible, right down to the last semi-colon (it was a pain when the Times was writing things like 'Burdett-road' instead of 'Burdett Road,' but there you go). Sometimes if there's an obvious spelling error in a source one can give the details as written but add 'sic.'

On the other hand, to describe all errors as 'unforgivable' is rather harsh and utopian. I think that readers just have to apportion their trust in what they read to the trustworthiness of the writer : one is unlikely to find many outright errors in books by respected authors. However as in everything, unless one is to retrace the writer's steps and read everything that he/she read for oneself, one can never be quite sure in one's mind.

As for arguments, you're always going to get biasses coming through. Actually the more logical the book, the more the biasses stand out against the rest of the book : you are suddenly aware that there are missing steps, assumptions have been made, and so on.

[bolo]

Hi Helena,

I voted for the second option, even though it does not fully cover my opinion. Basically, a non-fiction true crime book should be as bug-free as possible to the best of the author's abilities. Apart from annoying and easily avoidable typos ("1988" instead of "1888", etc.) or timeline mix-ups that are the result of sloppy proof-reading, there will always be the problem of references to alleged facts based on the current state of research which eventually turn out to be false. Then there is the Chinese Whispers game that goes on in parts of the "scene", information gets passed from one person or book to another and may become distorted in the process. That is why I think it is imperative to stick to first-hand evidence/sources whenever possible and always take anything found in secondary literature or contemporary press articles with a grain of salt.

In other words, I have no problem with a couple of minor errors that crept in an otherwise impeccably researched and presented publication but dislike careless editing and the repetition of so-called facts that had been proven wrong time and again.

Regards,

Boris

[Beowulf]

As some of you know I am currently writing a book about a Ripper suspect.

I am striving hard to get everything acsolutely factually correct and everything accurate down to every last detail, wherever this is possible (sometimes it isn't).

During my research I am constantly encountering errors in others' work (online, newspapers, books, articles). These errors range from misspelt names and wrong dates through to statements presented as facts when they are actually a complete invention by the author.

I've not seen much in the way of criticism of these errors and fictions.

I do realise of course that, most of the time, people don't realise that what they are reading is inaccurate. They trust the author to have taken all reasonable steps to verify information before presenting it, and to be honest in such a way as to make it clear when something is fact and when it is the author's supposition.

However, if you read two or three accounts of the same story, you will soon see the inconsistencies. How do you know who to believe? I've sometimes seen worse errors within a book by a famous, respected author than on an unattributed website posted on a free server.

How much does accuracy matter to you when reading something that is being presented as historical fact?

Please post a reply or take part in the poll.

Thanks for reading

Helena

I did vote, small errors bug me, but if someone made them after meticulous striving to be accurate they are understandable, but they do bug me because they mislead...

...and I desperately want to know...who the heck was that guy?

[HelenaWojtczak]

...and I desperately want to know...who the heck was that guy?

What guy, darling?

[Sally]

I haven't voted because I'm not sure that we can judge errors to be 'acceptable' or not in general terms - I think its simplistic.

There is a distinction to be drawn between accidental or incidental errors and purposeful errors. Which are we talking about here?

The former are inevitable for a number of reasons. No researcher is perfect, however meticulous; and may make genuine mistakes. The past is not a perfect science either, and historic 'facts' can only be reported according to our current state of knowledge. Ultimately, there will always be grey areas, things that are not 100% certain in the study of the past. Whilst I think that uncertainty should be cited as such, there is no 'right' interpretation if the facts are uncertain (although clearly some are more realistic than others by common consensus)

The latter - a deliberate misleading, is not acceptable, no. But how many authors will admit to having done that? It is particularly difficult in a subject area like 'Ripperology' because we don't know who 'Jack' was, which inherently invites speculation. Suspect blindness/pushing is rife, isn't it - and bound to be reflected in the literature.

Ultimately, the question of 'errors' is a complex minefield without a simple solution. It might be best to stick to the facts (such as they are - and in some fields of study (not just Ripperology by any means) they are slim - but then if that's all you do, you end up with a reference book and not an argument.

Since part of the fun in Ripperology is to imagine that there's a chance of solving the mystery, speculation is bound to continue, and yes, that will involve some fact-spinning.

[HelenaWojtczak]

QUOTE=Sally

I haven't voted because I'm not sure that we can judge errors to be 'acceptable' or not in general terms - I think its simplistic.


Hi Sally, I am sorry I have not made it clear - did you read the poll question options?

There is a distinction to be drawn between accidental or incidental errors and purposeful errors. Which are we talking about here?


Both. I am asking, do typos bother you, and/or do factual errors bother you?

The former are inevitable for a number of reasons.

Yes, of course. Typos slip through in the best of books.

The latter - a deliberate misleading, is not acceptable, no. But how many authors will admit to having done that?

You could have taken part in the poll - you are very clear on what you do and don't find acceptable.

we don't know who 'Jack' was, which inherently invites speculation.

Nothing wrong with speculation. My gripe is with people who deliberately make things up and present them as facts because it supports their pet suspect.

It might be best to stick to the facts - but then if that's all you do, you end up with a reference book and not an argument.

I have to disagree with you there because I think you can build an argument (i.e. promote your pet suspect) from the facts. If you cannot, then the person is not a strong suspect (because the facts don't back him up). But to make up lies in order to make your weak suspect look like a strong one is, to me, utterly reprehensible and almost a hanging offence.

speculation is bound to continue, and yes, that will involve some fact-spinning.

But surely, putting a "spin" on a fact isn't the same as making up a fact?

Can I give you a real-life example, concerning George Chapman?

The writings of several researchers/writers claim that, when arrested, he ran into his cellar, hid behind beer barrels and pointed one (or two) revolvers at the arresting officers. Some claim he actually shot at them. However, the arresting inspector's sworn testimony, which was given three times (in a magistrates' court, at the inquest, and at the Old Bailey) makes it perfectly clear that Chapman was completely docile and co operative, and went voluntarily with him to the police station.

Now, to me, that isn't "spin". That is sheer fabrication. And the writers get away with it - they are never made to explain themselves, to justify the fabrication. And this makes me despair, for several reasons; firstly, it means that those of us who stick to the truth seem to be telling a less exciting story, and may therefore be seen as less interesting writers; it means that historical accuracy counts for nothing, and it means that integrity and honesty count for nothing.

There is absolutely no comeback on these writers who make up lies. I have in the past month emailed four authors who I know for certain have recently published fabricated stories about Chapman, asking them (very politely) to reveal to me the source of their "new material", or to point me to evidence or at the very least some corroboration for the tales. Three decline to reply, the fourth told me to get lost. And yet they all know that I am writing a long biography of Chapman, and they must realise that there is a very good chance that I will "name and shame" them in my book - and they do not give a damn. They clearly don't care a jot if they are publicly exposed in a book as barefaced liars, because if they did, they would (in my opinion) have replied with some mitigation ("I misunderstood" or, "I was misled by others" or, "I got that information from X" or even "I got Chapman's arrest confused with the arrest of some other villain").

But these authors of fabrications don't give a damn, don't live in fear of being caught out, and simply ignore anyone who points out that what they have written was untrue.

You have to bear in mind that MOST readers will not have themselves researched someone's life story, that is why they bought the book/magazine of course, to read the results of someone else's research, so they will not be in a position to spot the fabrications. It's only when some busybody like me comes along and decides to write a biography that the fabrications are brought under the microscope.

When I mentioned this issue to a few people a few months ago they just shrugged their shoulders and didn't seem to think it mattered. 'Never let the truth get in the way of a good story' seemed to be the attitude of some. That is what prompted me to start this thread: to try to establish if many other people think that presenting untruths as facts is acceptable.

Helena

[lynn cates]

error avoidance

Hello Helena. Robert has said it best. ALL errors are to be avoided. But "unforgivable"? A bit much there.

If I had voted, it would lie between options 1 & 2.

Cheers.
LC

[HelenaWojtczak]

Hello Helena. Robert has said it best. ALL errors are to be avoided. But "unforgivable"? A bit much there.

If I had voted, it would lie between options 1 & 2.

Cheers.
LC

Would option 2 not suit you perfectly then, Lynn?

[lynn cates]

errors not OK

Hello Helena. Thanks.

I would never say that an error is OK. At best, when it happens, one may, like Graham Chapman, avert the eyes.

Cheers.
LC

[HelenaWojtczak]

I am really glad that nobody said Yes to options 3 and 4. Makes me think my endeavours might be worthwhile. But I am sad that only a handful of people voted. That makes me fear that people care so little for the issue that they can't even bothered to vote :-(

[Sally]

Hi Helena -

Both. I am asking, do typos bother you, and/or do factual errors bother you?

That wasn't what I meant - I meant that errors of fact may be unavoidable, may by incidental, accidental - it is only possible to report according to our current state of knowledge, individually and collectively. Accidents happen, mistakes are made, and scholarship moves on, sometimes rapidly.

As for typos - that's down to the editor, surely? I should think most people accept that the odd typo slips through the net, don't they? Does anybody care? Unless it alters the context of what is being said, surely not. Unless they were truly pedantic.

we don't know who 'Jack' was, which inherently invites speculation.

Nothing wrong with speculation. My gripe is with people who deliberately make things up and present them as facts because it supports their pet suspect.

I would agree with you there - but more often people present their often baseless speculation as fact - not the same as invention, but similarly misleading I feel. I kind of wish they'd stop, but not much chance of that, I fear. Partly its because some people don't recognise the difference, or don't know how to state that what they claim is only their view. No more, no less.

I think you can build an argument (i.e. promote your pet suspect) from the facts. If you cannot, then the person is not a strong suspect (because the facts don't back him up). But to make up lies in order to make your weak suspect look like a strong one is, to me, utterly reprehensible and almost a hanging offence.

Ah now. The way it ought to work is that the conclusion should be supported by the facts. The facts should inform the conclusion - not the other way around. However, what happens at times I think is that people develop suspect/theory blindness; decide on the conclusion, and try to make the facts fit the theory, 'tailoring' - a catch all term for selective reporting, and careful fact spinning - information to their own ends.

I agree with you. But I don't see what is to be done about it, sadly. More peer-reviewed publications might help, I suppose.

.. writers get away with it - they are never made to explain themselves, to justify the fabrication. And this makes me despair, for several reasons; firstly, it means that those of us who stick to the truth seem to be telling a less exciting story, and may therefore be seen as less interesting writers; it means that historical accuracy counts for nothing, and it means that integrity and honesty count for nothing.

I know, I know - and you're quite right - its regrettable. I think that any serious student of 'Ripperology' would prefer the facts, whether less exciting or not, than a coffee table adventure story. At least, I hope so

Public perception, however, will probably continue to be dominated by silly, untenable nonsense - it goes down well, people like it. Doubtless the latest famous artist 'case solved' book will be a huge hit. Depressing, but true

Having said that, the idea that history should be 'true' is a fairly modern one -Lying Historians, as they say.

You have to bear in mind that MOST readers will not have themselves researched someone's life story, that is why they bought the book/magazine of course, to read the results of someone else's research, so they will not be in a position to spot the fabrications. It's only when some busybody like me comes along and decides to write a biography that the fabrications are brought under the microscope.

But its people who care, and who take the time, and who make the effort to get it right who produce the definitive works, Helena. Its a much better road than being a sensation-seeking Ripper Hunter in my book. It sounds as if your biography will be well worth reading if you pay so much attention to integrity.

[HelenaWojtczak]

Good afternoon, Sally

Not many women on these Ripper boards, so it's nice to chat with you


errors of fact may be unavoidable, may by incidental, accidental

I totally agree with you. There needs to be a clear distinction between whether we are talking about accidental errors or deliberate lies.

The facts should inform the conclusion - not the other way around. However, what happens at times I think is that people develop suspect/theory blindness; decide on the conclusion, and try to make the facts fit the theory

Yes, this is what I have seen in the case of Chapman, too. Some writers have decided he IS the Ripper then they go over his life searching for the tiniest little thing that can be overblown, exaggerated or twisted to support that. And when that does not look much, they then sit and write pure fiction to bolster their argument.

More peer-reviewed publications might help, I suppose.


That would be good! Y'know, R. Michael Gordon has written four, yes four books in which he tells Chapman's life story and presents evidence that he was the Ripper, and yet I cannot find any critical analysis of any of his books anywhere on casebook or The Other Place (are we allowed to name it? JtR forums). And yet on here at least there have been many long, detailed discussion threads about Chapman, so it can't be that people are not interested in him, more that they aren't interested in Gordon's books, but they won't say why. I even started a special thread about a year ago asking for comments/critiques of Gordon's books and I didn't get a single reply. There are one or two amazon reviews, but that is all. And yet I see the information that Gordon included in his book being repeated by casebook members (without citing him). It's all a mystery to me!


Doubtless the latest famous artist 'case solved' book will be a huge hit.

It was Rembrandt!

Having said that, the idea that history should be 'true' is a fairly modern one

You are about the fifth person to tell me that in the last few months. I feel rather conned; I always thought when I read a book about "true crime" or "true" anything in fact, that I was reading the true facts. I feel betrayed now, and don't know who or what to believe any more.

But its people who care, and who take the time, and who make the effort to get it right who produce the definitive works, Helena. Its a much better road than being a sensation-seeking Ripper Hunter in my book.

Indeed. I have noticed the huge respect that Sugden gets amongst Ripperologists. And in his introduction he stated his intention to cut through all the cr@p and just stick to the facts. I feel the same way.


It sounds as if your biography will be well worth reading if you pay so much attention to integrity.

Aw thanks hon :-)

I cannot claim it will be perfect, or always accurate (for the reasons you state) or comprehensive, but I will guarantee that there will be no invention on my part, and that I have striven to "cut through all the cr@p".

Helena

[Errata]

I think that my issue is that some facts are absolutely ascertainable. Names, dates, places, all available to a researcher, so a typo is the only reasonable error there. The other problem I have is that there are facts, and there are facts. For example: It is a fact that Hutch said that he saw what he saw. It is not a fact that he did indeed see what he said he saw. Even if he wasn't lying, he still may not have seen what he said he saw. Presenting the contents of his testimony as fact is irritating to me. It's not a fact. It's technically not a theory either. It leads to a possible avenue of exploration.

And I certainly have a problem with people presenting theory as fact, I don't have a problem with people presenting theory as truth. Patricia Cornwall is a good example. Although she does present certain theories as fact, her overall theory that Sickert was the Ripper is not presented as fact. It's presented as truth. And I have a brain that works, so I can read her argument and disagree. The difference between fact and truth seems like a fuzzy line, but it really isn't. The fact is, Amelia Earhart disappeared over the Pacific, and we don't why, or what happened. The truth is that Amelia Earhart probably ran out of fuel and crashed into the ocean. But she could have survived and died slowly on an atoll somewhere, or she could have been taken prisoner by the Japanese, or she could have been abducted by aliens, or she could have faked her death to run off. Fact is provable by concrete evidence. Truth is suggested through theories, evidence, gut feeling, etc. Fact is proven, Truth is felt.

[HelenaWojtczak]

Hello Errata

I think that my issue is that some facts are absolutely ascertainable. Names, dates, places, all available to a researcher, so a typo is the only reasonable error there.

I have seen an awful lot of published material in which names, dates and places are wrong even though the facts are readily available (and published correctly elsewhere).

It is a fact that Hutch said that he saw what he saw. It is not a fact that he did indeed see what he said he saw. Even if he wasn't lying, he still may not have seen what he said he saw. Presenting the contents of his testimony as fact is irritating to me. It's not a fact. It's technically not a theory either. It leads to a possible avenue of exploration.

Excellent reasoning there, Errata.

I don't have a problem with people presenting theory as truth.

Well, it's certainly true that it's a theory!

her overall theory that Sickert was the Ripper is not presented as fact. It's presented as truth.

Okay ..... gotta get my head round that...

The fact is, Amelia Earhart disappeared over the Pacific, and we don't why, or what happened. The truth is that Amelia Earhart probably ran out of fuel and crashed into the ocean. But she could have survived and died slowly on an atoll somewhere, or she could have been taken prisoner by the Japanese, or she could have been abducted by aliens, or she could have faked her death to run off. Fact is provable by concrete evidence. Truth is suggested through theories, evidence, gut feeling, etc.

I would put this different. I would say that the most likely scenario is that Amelia Earhart probably ran out of fuel and crashed into the ocean, and that a slightly less likely, but possible scenario is that she survived and died slowly on an atoll somewhere...or she could have been taken prisoner by the Japanese... and that an unlikely scenario is that she was abducted by aliens, or she could have faked her death to run off.


Fact is proven, Truth is felt.


I've never heard that expression before. Is it your own creation?

Helena