To err is human...

No, not a juicy admission of some personal cock-up (though I have made my fair share, thankfully mostly in private, over the years): rather, it is obvious to anyone who surfs the net, and especially certain websites, that, today, the stakes are rather higher than before. Make a mistake now, and the whole world could know about it a few hours later, if the bird having been claimed was rare enough to attract attention. This is all well and good, news of a corrected misidentification is nothing harmful, but, perhaps, we should all bear our own fallibility in mind when faced with someone else's honest mistake, and treat the news accordingly. 'There but for the grace of God', and all that.
As someone who twitches, I personally would feel a duty to disseminate news of anything that I find (yes, younger readers, I actually have found birds rare enough to generate a twitch, though not for some time now), yet I also recognise the need to be at least somewhat sure of an identification before releasing news. The balancing act is trying to get to a position of comfort quickly enough to spread news promptly, while not rushing the identification process. I would hazard a guess that many (the majority) of errors made by relatively experienced birders are due to such pressures, and, if people wish to be made aware of news promptly, then some leeway and understanding is necessary when 'good' birders mess up: schadenfreude is understandable, particularly if the person making the mistake is someone with whom one doesn't get on, but I would claim that there is no room for triumphalism where bird identification is concerned (this also applies when involved in an ID debate, being proved correct should not be seen as a 'victory' against those proponents of an alternative solution). This applies across the board, lest it be seen that I am taking anyone's side here: if anyone makes an honest mistake, friend or mere acquaintance, especially if they admit their failings, then the slate should be cleaned and no recriminations forthcoming.
String, of course, is another matter entirely, but, even here, one should treat even the stringer with some basic human respect. Sure, it can be frustrating to hear claims of which one is automatically unsure, yet, at the same time, even 'dodgy' observers occasionally find good birds, and we have all been through a phase where imagination and a desire for new birds has overcome common sense and a more rigourous approach to identification. In my own case, this period was mercifully short, but it saw me claim such birds as a juvenile Pacific Golden Plover, a Nightjar over my house, Tree Pipit near Cork city in March, and other such unlikely birds. In most cases, I know that the proposed identification was wrong (the 'Nightjar' didn't even fly like one, or a Nighthawk, and was most likely a late-flying Kestrel), and, anyway, I had my own personal 'night of the long knives' when I was 19 or 20, where all those dodgy birds were removed from my list. It hurt at the time, but it had to be done: all any of us can do is be totally honest with ourselves, and try to be as objective as possible when questioning one's own sightings. I believe that most birders are honest, it's just that we are, no more or less than anyone else, all imperfect, so errors can and do creep in...we must remain vigilant.