On 15/12/06, wikipedia2006@dpbsmith.com wikipedia2006@dpbsmith.com wrote:
Someone found what looked like a valuable confirming source: a recent article in the New York Daily News that said, "Rutgers might have joined the fledgling Ivy League and altered its destiny. But the school declined the offer - arguably the dumbest mistake in its history. Ever since then, Rutgers has scrambled to prove itself worthy of playing football with the big boys." Good, right? Unfortunately the reporter did not cite his source. So someone contacted that reporter and asked. And, guess what: the reporter's source was the Wikipedia article.
I just did an interview with the Press Gazette (UK), who wanted to know what we thought of journalists using Wikipedia as a source. I said it's an excellent, convenient and up-to-date resource for a quick backgrounding, BUT "always describe it as being from a source, say 'According to Wikipedia'", and gave this as an example of the sort of thing that can happen if you don't ;-)
(article should appear in Jan 5th issue and should show up on http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/ )
- d.