On 7/8/06, Andrew Lih <andrew.lih(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/9/06, Anthony <wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote:
Why is it that Wikipedians seem to have so much
trouble accepting
legitimate criticism?
Legitimate criticism should be welcomed, but when the headline says
"Wikipedia" as a whole has "confusion" and was "reeling,"
then that's
sensational.
Sensationalism is what US newspapers (generally) do. Of course, I
think the headline that "Ken Lay's death prompts confusion on
Wikipedia" is perfectly accurate. The headline doesn't even say that
Wikipedia is confused - it says that there was confusion "on
Wikipedia".
Academics and reporters who know that I've
published about Wikipedia
ask me - "So, how is that crisis on Wikipedia on Ken Lay?" One even
requested to do a TV interview about it.
I've written a response on my blog to these folks, explaining the
lifescycle of a Wikipedia article:
http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2006/07/05/wikipedias-ken-lay-problem/
Criticising the news media has its place. But I think there's a lot
more to learn from this than that the news media engages in
sensationalism.
Wikipedia
should be getting its facts *more* correct than the news
outlets, not less. I remember a similar mess after the death of
[[Jean Charles de Menezes]]. Wikipedia articles repeated
unsubstantiated rumor as though it was fact.
Since Wikipedia depends on the first-hand reporting from news outlets,
it can only be as good as the ability of human editors to converge on
the best version of "the truth" using those sources.
And if those sources aren't rock solid, they should be cited and
attributed. Even to this day I wouldn't feel comfortable saying that
"Kenneth Lay died from coronary artery disease" without attributing
that fact to the coroner.
What can be done about this? Well, as was pointed out by mboverload,
one possible thing is to "stop anons from editing". But there are an
infinite number of other, less harsh tweaks, both technical and policy
based.
This assumes, of course, that there's a problem in the first place,
other than the fact that newspapers sensationalize.
Anthony