Rarely do data users suspect that the data they access may be faulty. Even more rarely do they gain an insight into how (or even whether) data is corrected. This makes last month's Guardian post by Richard Nelsson, "How we correct the record in the Guardian archives as well as on our pages", all the more interesting reading.
|The Guardian's reputation for being error-prone|
is undeserved: for explanation click here
|A Guardian data host|
" ... Guardian content is also to be found on many other databases around the world, so these too have to be amended. Each day the syndication department sends out an email to more than 60 clients such as the newspaper text database hosts LexisNexis and Factiva, containing a summary and link to the corrections page. Again a note is added to the original article ...".How aware are investment advisers and data analysts that the information they access online may come from a syndicated source and that it may have been amended or corrected at source without their being aware of it? In an era of instant information, when the demand for a swift response is so strongly felt by consultancies and professional services, double-checking one's data is rarely if ever a realistic option. Bearing this in mind, use of data from truly reliable sources such as the ORoPO not-for-profit database of verified patent ownership records is particularly welcome.