Yet, it apparently did meet their standards of reported evidence a couple weeks ago. That means they owe a detailed explanation of what exactly changed in that time (some info has been given by the ombudsman) and how the failure will be prevented in the future.
The original article should not be removed under any circumstances because it serves as part of the reporting record of NPR. For people to form accurate conclusions about the veracity of news sources, their failings must not be buried from view.
Oh come on. You're patting them on the back for a serious failure to do their jobs in the first place, followed by a questionable strategy for mitigating that failure (complete removal).
For all the hysteria about fake news these days, it seems that "reputable" institutions (like NPR, CNN, WaPo) get a free pass every time their lax standards are exposed just for doing the bare minimum to acknowledge the mistake. There's nothing impressive about that.
While not a new problem at all, this is a perfectly good application of machine learning in support of a useful feature. The article is more direct and matter of fact than you'd expect from a hype obsessed company like Apple, suggesting that an engineer is in charge of these blog posts. I'd imagine that the marketing team isn't too thrilled with something as mundane as Siri being able to recognize the device owner's voice being portrayed as an achievement when she's supposed to have solved world hunger by now, but I found it refreshing.
"Gatekeeping BS" seems to be term du jour used by laypeople when reminded that there are actually some deeper concepts and subtleties requiring proper study underlying the canned code or GUI they're blindly throwing at a data set. We've gone from "anyone can code" to "anyone can do data science and machine learning" feelgoodism, leaving out the fact that this only applies at very rudimentary level.
Sadly, overblown coverage of the latest blog post by Google or Facebook seems to be norm, especially since those two companies in particular have been loudly beating the AI hype drum over the last few years. Tech news sites are of course more than happy to oblige in the interest of driving clicks.
The root of the problem is that most tech writers aren't actually technical experts at all, let alone engineers with a degree in the field they're covering. So while they love to look down their noses at the mainstream media's clumsy coverage of scientific and medical advancements, these same "tech journalists" can routinely be found making the same kinds of inaccurate and outright misleading claims.
You're aware the ISPs don't generally do any of the research and development of telecommunication equipment? They just put their stamp on modem they rent you. The "ISP innovation" line has always been pure propaganda.
Compared to the pure software startups whose announcements are splashed all over the front pages of ycombinator, who are generally trying to spin old and boring ideas as grand innovation, I'd say there's a lot of tech behind these companies.
The only thing resembling a campaign one may notice is the breathless praise heaped on Elon Musk by his army of fanboys whenever Tesla or SpaceX are on the receiving end of criticism from the media. It's surpassed even a Steve Jobs tier of cultism.
If you're the kind of person who dismisses anything coming from Breibart or fox news as unreliable, it's absurd to turn around and use the likes of rational wiki as a source for any kind of serious argument. It's a pure propaganda website with no editorial standard.
Notice how subjective those descriptors are. It's been very clear in the past that moderator intervention is rampant for articles / posts that merely strike a raw nerve.
Moderators should in no way be able to bury posts or even nudge them downwards. This is a cowardly way to try to control discussion. If it isn't explicitly against the site rules, let the readers decide.
The original article should not be removed under any circumstances because it serves as part of the reporting record of NPR. For people to form accurate conclusions about the veracity of news sources, their failings must not be buried from view.