That people with a good understanding of the subject matter won’t question authors or criticise their errors on Twitter because of the ensuing pile-on organised by said authors is understandable but I can guarantee it makes for shit history being prioritised. Thread 1/ https://twitter.com/nickhewitt4/status/1301991149335347202">https://twitter.com/nickhewit...

The idea that those of us who understand the subject matter and can correct the errors should do so in private is a quaint harking back by 100 years or so when the great unwashed weren’t supposed to embarrass our ‘betters’. 2/

The authors promote themselves on Twitter and elsewhere. They take our money. Yet somehow accountability for their errors and mistakes is supposed to not be part of the bargain. For real? 3/

So if your view is that we should question and correct using the same medium, then you might want to ask yourself what kind of study of history you are promoting. It ain’t the rigorous kind, in my view. 4/

Instead, by not calling out the errors and shitty ahistorical hot takes, we allow these to become accepted wisdom, because a writer with authority uttered them. 5/

Must be nice. My view is different. If you take peoples’ money for a factual history book you owe them acknowledgement when errors are detected. Organising pile-ons in response is not accountability. Oh, and you’re also not the judge and arbiter of what is appropriate. 6/end

Postscript. The people doing the actual piling on, defending their & #39;hero& #39; author from legitimate questioning and criticism are a massive part of the problem. I will never understand their thinking, since they demonstrate that they prefer flawed historical writing and research.