I agree with all of your points, but I think we should avoid pointing out every mistake the press makes when reporting us. This makes us seem slightly self-righteous and pig-headed. Sure, the mainstream press makes mistakes (my newspaper carries several corrections a day), but this doesn't remove from the validity of them, just as our mistakes don't remove (or shouldn't remove) from our validity.
On 13/07/06, Mathias Schindler mathias.schindler@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.intelliot.com/blog/archives/2006/07/12/reuters-stinks/
"Wow. This has got to be one of the worst news stories of all time. It doesn't make sense that it was even written, much less published. And much, much less the fact that it mentions Wikipedia and tries to pass it off as valid news."
http://science.slashdot.org/science/06/07/12/2140252.shtml
Reuters offers correction to Wikipedia slam. junger writes "Reuters put out a hit piece on Wikipedia, saying that the encyclopedia wasn't credible in 'covering' the breaking news of the death of Enron's Ken Lay, but then Reuters has to correct their own story because they couldn't properly identify one of their sources."
http://www.jasonunger.com/2006/07/10/the-irony-reuters-slams-wikipedias-cred...
So Wikipedia can get confused because inital reports were varied about the cause of Lay's death, but Reuters can't even identify who gave them the information they used in their report?
And journalism has sunk to a new low.
For sake of completeness: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2006-07-10/Reuters _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l