I&#x27;m not sure I buy this argument at all. I&#x27;ve certainly heard the argument enough times that it&#x27;s less critical to get everything right on the first pass on the Web because you can always update it. I&#x27;m not a particular fan of this mindset but it&#x27;s out there. And I&#x27;d note it&#x27;s the offline pubs that are far more likely to still have people in a fact checker role--however vestigial. And making errors of fact too many times was more than frowned upon at traditional newspapers.<p>Having said that, a lot depends on the person and the context. I&#x27;m sure we could all name columnists&#x2F;bloggers who are more interested in being controversial than in being correct; some predate online publishing though. On the other hand, there are some contexts where you don&#x27;t to state bald opinions that you can&#x27;t back up. I&#x27;m not convinced any of this has to do with Web or non-Web.