Click through and you’ll read that Metro International is recruiting a copy editor/proofreader. The salary, location and requirements of the job are listed – so far, so run-of-the-mill. But some canny person in HR has managed to sneak a test into the text of the advert.

Even though I didn’t want to apply for this job I scrolled casually down the page, scan-reading it. Perhaps I was hoping the act of paying it some attention would transform it into something else. Then I reached the last paragraph.

If you believe that you are right for the job you probably spotted a few mistakes in this advert. Please collect and send them all with your CV on the below address.

My immediate reaction: That’s not fair! My guard was down!

Be warned, fellow jobseekers, be wary. For who knows when a prospective employer will spring from the undergrowth and test those claims you made in that CV you emailed last month. They could be hacking into your mind and downloading the contents of your cerebral cortex RIGHT NOW

– an overreaction? Probably. After all, this sort of thing is apt for a proofreading job. Plus, if you perform a complicated manoeuvre called “scrolling back up the page” it is perfectly possible to go back and read it again, with brain engaged. Your prospective employer would be none the wiser.

Rather than getting information from Wikipedia for an article I was writing, I asked a more credible source. But what I eventually wrote was contested by a reader because it did not match Wikipedia’s version.

Wanky Balls

When I say “wanky balls” I’m referring to the recent mishap at the Independent, which led to it printing  inaccurate information sourced from Wikipedia.

A picture story appeared in the Indie about the Big Chill festival. It asserted that it used to be called the Wanky Balls Festival. Blogger Kat Arney noticed that this was complete nonsense and traced the info to its source. Read her post on the subject to get the lowdown.

It was an awful example of what can happen when journalists take their eye off the ball. Anyone with a healthy understanding of how Wikipedia works should not be comfortable about quoting it without checking it first. I have to say this did scare me, but in a useful sort of way.

What happened

The story was doing the rounds while I was doing a week’s work experience at the Sheffield Star. One of the articles I wrote was based on this Daily Express story about the effects of the dry weather currently being experienced in parts of the UK.

I made it relevant to Sheffield by discovering how it had affected three reservoirs in the Upper Derwent Valley – Howden, Ladybower and Derwent.

Here’s what I wrote: ‘Let it rain’ as levels plunge

If you scroll down and read the first comment, by taximansam, you can see that he questions the accuracy of the story because it says something different to Wikipedia.

He said:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladybower_Reservoir
states water from Ladybower, Howden and Derwent is used to supply the Midlands, not Sheffield.

This reader implies that what I’ve written is not right. In actual fact we’re both right, but neither of us completely.

He said, she said

Ladybower, along with the two other reservoirs in the valley, does supply customers in Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire as well as some people in Sheffield. I requested this information from Severn Trent, the company that runs the Upper Derwent Valley reservoirs.

I didn’t list all the other places supplied by these reservoirs because that information wasn’t relevant to the Star’s readers. I edited what I was told for my audience, so the article was inaccurate by omission.

But the Wikipedia article isn’t completely correct either because according to Severn Trent a significant percentage of the water from these reservoirs does supply people in Sheffield. So it’s not just the East Midlands, as Wikipedia states.

And your point?

I guess I found this interesting because it illustrates that information from Wikipedia can have another impact on journalism. It can not only infiltrate articles written by journalists, it can be used to question them.

That’s fine, as long as what Wikipedia asserts is true. But when it’s not true it’s misleading.

This Sheffield Star reader trusted Wikipedia enough to question what was published in the newspaper, and the Independent reporter/sub/whoever trusted Wikipedia enough to believe the Big Chill used to be called Wanky Balls. These are examples of a wider trend: people using the internet to tap into alternate sources of knowledge.

Information of varying grades of quality is published on the internet every minute of the day. This means all of us have a responsibility to keep our heads screwed on tightly and treat all sources critically.

Journalists are subject to higher standards and criticised when they fail to live up to them because, well, it’s part of the job. But anyone interacting in debate online should think about what they put out there.

One of the positive things about online publishing is that people can instantly qualify, correct and update what they have written. But should this be done transparently, so the changing nature of an article can be tracked? Or are publishers within their rights to make invisible edits? Perhaps those are questions for another day.

Finally…

Now I’ve got all this information about the Upper Derwent Valley reservoirs – should I share it on Wikipedia?

He’s the barrister defending Charles Taylor, ex-president of Liberia, who is on trial at the Hague, accused of 11 counts of war crimes.

The media briefly showed an interest in the trial’s proceedings because the supermodel Naomi Campbell, actress Mia Farrow and Campbell’s former agent Carole White were called to give evidence, in order to establish the truth about claims Taylor gave Campbell blood diamonds as a gift.

Mr Griffiths was hailed as the real star of the show by several media organisations. I’m glad I stuck around to watch his interview.

See it for yourself.

I was really impressed by the measured, articulate way he put across his points. It’s what he does for a living, so I suppose it’s not surprising. I tend to babble when nervous so maybe that’s why I was so struck by it.

A couple of stand-out quotes:

On being asked what draws him to defend people who are vilified:

As far as I’m concerned it’s important that everyone, however notorious the crime they may have committed, has a fair trial, and that involves having good representation.

Discussing whether high profile cases are more of a challenge:

Often in these cases the first hurdle you have to get over is all the bad publicity and prejudice which has been heaped upon the defendant even before the trial began, and you have to overcome that before you can reach the stage of dealing with the facts themselves.

When asked if being black has any effect on his practice:

I think my blackness gives me a certain objectivity. Growing up as a black man in the United Kingdom, I’ve been both inside and outside this society, and it has allowed me to look at things, I think, much more independently.

One thing I didn’t agree with though – when asked directly whether Charles Taylor was the kind of leader that gave Africa a bad name he defended him, essentially, by saying he wasn’t the first.

Other African nations do have human rights records studded with atrocities. But referencing the others doesn’t excuse or justify what was allowed to happen in Sierra Leone.

But perhaps that kind of answer was to be expected – he is being paid to defend the man.

… to follow the amazing Liveblog of my last day doing work experience at the Guardian!
P.S. It’s my first ever attempt at doing this, so any advice would be gratefully received!
Comments, questions and suggestions about what I should do are also most welcome. Email gemmakr[at]gmail[dot]com or send us a tweet.

Updated - what did I learn?

Look out for my next liveblog. I can give you a cast-iron solid guarantee it will be better than this one…

I’m relishing the prospect of surreptitiously updating my Facebook status while watching David Fincher and Aaron Sorkin’s The Social Network – otherwise known as the Facebook film. Maybe, if I’m feeling festive, I’ll push the social media boat out and tweet as well.

The film is based on The Accidental Billionaires by Ben Mezrich, a book which purports to lift the lid on how Mark Zuckerberg founded Facebook (and all the people he allegedly pissed off along the way). It has attracted criticism from some quarters for sexing up the truth.

With haunting rendition of Radiohead’s Creep, sung by Scala, the trailer starts with a montage of screenshots. We are shown photos, typed comments, and  the familiar blue and white Facebook interface.

Then we get the good stuff – snippets from the film. We get to see Jesse Eisenberg as Zuckerberg, Andrew Garfield as Saverin and Justin Timberlake as Napster founder Sean Parker. Not bad.

I particularly enjoyed the Gap hoodie. So 2003.

Films have been talked about on Facebook for years. Now the shoe is on the other foot – Facebook is being talked about on film. But to be honest,  it’s as much about the narrative and the fascinating cast of characters as it is about social media. It’s cracking story, ripe with drama, relevance and human misadventure. Let’s hope the film does it justice.

The Social Network is released in the UK on October 15, 2010.

Click click

• Technorati – Apparently Zuckerbeg is a “creep”
• Mashable – First Full-length Trailer for “The Social Network” Hits the Web
• Amazon listing for Facebook For Dummies (There’s a market for this?)
• IMDB entry for The Social Network (2010)
• Empire – The Social Network trailer
• Times – Movie depicts seamy life of Facebook boss

I’d done a couple of weeks with local papers, but this was very different, a completely new environment. I’ll let others be the judge of how I acquitted myself, but on reflection I did think that I could have been better faster if I’d known what I know now.

An alternative title for this blogpost? Things I wish I’d known before I started work experience on a national newspaper. Pour encourager les autres and all that.

1. Be realistic.

Did you really think the editor was going to ship you to South America and give you a 5,000-word feature to write about deforestation in the Amazon?

Sarcasm aside, what I’m trying to say is this: don’t set yourself up for a fall.

On one hand, why not be ambitious? A positive, borderline cheeky attitude, solid journalistic skills and a bit of flair should be enough to take you places. On the other hand, for a variety of reasons, no matter how talented you are, it’s not always easy to impress colleagues, capitalise on opportunities or land stories.

Whether you encounter triumph or disappointment on your work experience placement, do bear that in mind. It’s a fine line to tread. Just do your best and see what happens.

2. What are you offering?

I’d recommend spending time getting to know the publication you will be working for. That should give you all the information you need to figure out where you can fit in, how you can help improve things, what you can offer them.

Let’s be honest, compared to many national newspaper journalists you will probably lack some skills, knowledge and experience. But don’t let that get you down, because you have strengths too. A brilliant idea, useful contacts, a second language, multimedia skills – make sure the editor knows about them.

3. You need to be confident.

It’s easier said than done, confidence. But it’s essential if you want to have successful work experience. You need to be able to pitch that great idea you’ve had, ask colleagues if they need help, express your opinions at conference…

A good strategy is to request a longer placement, which will give you more time to show what you can do. If all else fails: pretend! See how long you can keep it up.

4. Take the initiative.

The people you’re working with might be too busy to set you tasks to complete. Don’t twiddle your thumbs and feel bad – make yourself useful. Come up with ideas, have a look at what a rival publication is doing, offer to help out a journalist looking stressed. What have you got to lose?

5. Make the most of it.

It’s not all about bylines and writing articles, you know. There are other things that make a national newspaper work experience placement worthwhile.

I’ve benefitted from insights into how editors and journalists think at this level, the way editorial decisions are made, the angles they take on subjects. Witnessing how video, audio, web and social media, elements are being integrated into what used to be a traditionally print medium has also been rather thought-provoking. It’s made me up my game. And you do meet lots of lovely people who are great additions to the contacts book.

If there’s anything specific you want to take part in while you are doing work experience, why not ask? No harm, is there? Unless you’re asking for a plane ticket to South America. That’ll probably get you a slap.

6. Don’t let yourself be exploited.

Come on my friends. It’s the principle of the thing. If you find yourself working for free for a lengthy period, that is wrong. You are worth more than that. Don’t let your determination to succeed lead you to sell yourself short.

The National Union of Journalists’ website has a section dedicated to the subject of work experience, which offers advice on these matters.

7. Tea.

They’re more likely to buy you a cuppa than you are to have to make it.

As for how you go about getting a national newspaper work experience in the first place… well, that’s another story…

Anyone else got work experience placement advice for budding journalists? Want to discuss how national differs from local? With the internet giving everyone the power to self-publish, is there any value in doing placements at all? If you’ve got something to say, comment away!