Anatomy of a rumour

Rumours, which are basically stories that are not, are a fascinating subject. Not only for journalists but of course for us too. Here is an anatomy of one, explained by Scott Kelby who unintentionally started it himself.

What is very valuable, I think, is that we have the information from the source, which is something you seldom have with rumours. It also shows an interesting feature of the Internet – it is not only a good tool to spread rumours but also to stop them in their tracks (even though I am quite sure there will be someone debating the Nikon 11-24mm VR lens in few years time). I guess that spreading rumours is much easier than killing them even if one is the source of a rumour.

Anyway from this point of view the Google Cache feature becomes less of a feature, I think. It will bring you a cached info that is – in this case – plain wrong without the correction.

Also Scott Kelby himself, I think, did not do quite enough to lp the “VR” rumour – he deleted the VR from the original post but let the two comments (the one discussing the VR and his joke-answer) untouched. And he did not link the original article and the explanation of the rumour. So when someone reads the comments under the original post, there is stil a (very low) potential spark for misunderstanding. Even though, and this has to be appreciated, he did much more than other people do in similar situation.

But, hey, he is a nice guy.