Ken Lay Dead; Wikipedia Confused

Aw, Kaleb said pretty much was I was going to say.

Watch the news while a "breaking story" is happening, and you'll basically see this exact same phenomenon. Every tiny bit of here-say and rumour that makes its way into the newsroom seems to get on the air, if only to be corrected as soon as the NEXT rumour comes along. If people don't bitch about it when "real" TV, newspaper, internet, or radio news sources are doing it, why is it an issue that it happens on Wikipedia? Hell, conflicting stories from major news sources is likely a big part of the REASON this happens on Wikipedia. Before anyone launches into the "OMG WIKIPEDIA SUCKS" speech, consider how rarely ACTUAL news sources live up to those standards of accuracy in reporting breaking news before they get the facts straight.

Wikipedia = open info database to which anyone can contribute and edit. Wikipedia ≠ news site. Give breaking news time to becoming old news and the entries tend to get tidied into something approachably accurate.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by DATAGONK

Wikipedia is not a news site? O RLY?

Obviously it has entries on current events, and obviously pre-existing entries can get a bit hectic when the topic/person/event/whatever is suddenly a developing news story. But click on one, then scroll down and check the sources. It's mostly a collection of information gathered from major-and-minor news sources and often-recent articles (neither of which are ever consistant or infallible by any means). Wikipedia itself isn't reporting anything, and it tells you flat-out that information related to developing stories is subject to change. It's just a hub for people to cobble together the information gathered from the numerous sources out there. The current event entries are the same as anything else on Wikipedia: a generally good starting point (especially when a lot of cited sources are linked in the article so you can check them all out for yourself), but it shouldn't be the ONLY place you go to get your information.

There IS a sister-project wiki for news (though it seems to have much the same approach with stricter citation rules). But the article quoted in the first post was specifically targetting Wikipedia, not Wikinews.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by DATAGONK

Looks like you obviously didn't click on my link, since I linked to Wikinews.

Also, Wikinews is run by the same people as Wikipedia. I don't see how it's any less relevant.

I did mouse-over the address to see where it led, but I guess my eyes deceived me and read "Wikipedia" instead of "Wikinews" in the URL. Ah well. Same point, anyway.

Even if Wikinews and Wikipedia are run by the same people, they're different projects with different goals. Though either way, I maintain that the original article is just complaining about nothing. Like I said, ACTUAL news sources mis-report and change their facts all the time, sometimes to the point of reporting things that are complete bunk. Yet no one ever seems to call them on it in the same way that they like to complain about Wikipedia and the like. At least Wikipedia has the excuse that it's publically edited.

Quote:

You make a good point about Wikipedia just being a bunch of links to other news sources. One of the three founding principles of Wikipedia is that original research does not belong on Wikipedia. That logically extends beyond scientific research to journalism as well.

That seems to be Wikipedia's main intention, yeah. It's not claiming to create anything, really. It's just a place where people can contribute information that's available to the public, and help to condense it into what (in a best-case scenario) will become both a more-or-less accurate overview of the topic and a decent list of cited sources.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.