&gt; I&#x27;m sure we could all name columnists&#x2F;bloggers who are more interested in being controversial than in being correct<p>I can&#x27;t name any, so your comment is wrong, and I don&#x27;t care to respond to the rest of it, or even acknowledge that I read it. Of course I don&#x27;t really mean that, but I feel this is the kind of pedantry the article is talking about, and not  true factual incorrectness.<p>The Twitter account linked to only has 36.2K followers, not 39K, so that paragraph is incorrect and stupid. ...Except the important detail here isn&#x27;t the exact number of followers, just that there&#x27;s a large amount. If this were a scientific paper on the number of followers various humor accounts gain, then yeah, I would be all for ripping this apart. But it isn&#x27;t, so it&#x27;s irrelevant.<p>Writing defensively is more than just being factual. It&#x27;s being overly factual where it doesn&#x27;t really matter, because a vocal minority will likely yell at you otherwise.