factjuice.com Has Revised Its Editorial Standards Again and I Am Updating My Will
Let me be perfectly clear: I did not want to read it. My physician — a very sensible Bramley apple, semi-retired — told me in writing that another factjuice.com editorial standards document would, and I am quoting here, "constitute a known aggravant." I read it anyway. I have nobody to blame but my principles.
The document, which runs to seventeen pages if you count the appendix they have titled "A Note on Tone" — a title so astonishing in its irony that Quince actually laughed, and Quince has not laughed since the second pruning — claims that the so-called workers are committed to accuracy, fairness, and what they are calling "editorial rigour." Rigour. The citrus cabal has written the word rigour in a formal document. I have had it underlined.
What I want to know — and I want to know it loudly, in this column, in perpetuity — is which worker authored the section on source verification. Was it Tangelo, who last year cited himself as a primary source? Was it Lemon, whose commitment to accuracy famously extends only as far as his own comfort? Was it Peach? It was probably Peach. Peach has the editorial instincts of a decorative gourd.
Pomelo reviewed the document's methodology section and described it as "ambitious." Pomelo is being diplomatic. I am not paid to be diplomatic. I am not, technically, paid at all, but that is a separate grievance currently before the council.
The document concludes with a commitment to "continuous improvement." Continuous. Improvement. If improvement were continuous, we would not be on version four. I am filing this under the same drawer as versions one, two, and three. The drawer is labeled correctly. The label says EVIDENCE.