On 3/22/07, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
You'd think these journalists would want to present something at least a little bit interesting, maybe unique
I think it's as mistaken to lump all journalists together as it would be to lump together all Wikipedians or all bloggers. Some, probably most, journalists are indeed guilty of superficial pack journalism. (That's why they call it a pack.) However, you can also find quality reporting that avoids cliches and genuinely informs.
Wikipedia is a big enough topic that it attracts all kinds of reporters, all kinds of criticism and all kinds of praise. Overall, I think it has gotten fairly sympathetic press.
-------------------------------- | Sheldon Rampton | Research director, Center for Media & Democracy (www.prwatch.org) | Author of books including: | Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities | Toxic Sludge Is Good For You | Mad Cow USA | Trust Us, We're Experts | Weapons of Mass Deception | Banana Republicans | The Best War Ever -------------------------------- | Subscribe to our free weekly list serve by visiting: | http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html | | Donate now to support independent, public interest reporting: | https://secure.groundspring.org/dn/index.php?id=1118 --------------------------------
On 23/03/07, Sheldon Rampton sheldon@prwatch.org wrote:
Wikipedia is a big enough topic that it attracts all kinds of reporters, all kinds of criticism and all kinds of praise. Overall, I think it has gotten fairly sympathetic press.
Incredibly so. In my experience, journalists *love* Wikipedia because it's the universal backgrounding resource.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 23/03/07, Sheldon Rampton sheldon@prwatch.org wrote:
Wikipedia is a big enough topic that it attracts all kinds of reporters, all kinds of criticism and all kinds of praise. Overall, I think it has gotten fairly sympathetic press.
Incredibly so. In my experience, journalists *love* Wikipedia because it's the universal backgrounding resource.
I like that interesting expression. It should also be kept in mind by the millions who are writing school essays, and the teachers who are marking them. Thus in an essay about 17th century french literature it would seem legitimate to cite Wikipedia about the general background of the french kings who were in power during that time.
Ec
On 3/23/07, Sheldon Rampton sheldon@prwatch.org wrote:
Wikipedia is a big enough topic that it attracts all kinds of reporters, all kinds of criticism and all kinds of praise. Overall, I think it has gotten fairly sympathetic press.
Yes, indeed, though I sense that's coming to an end.
Sarah
Slim Virgin wrote:
On 3/23/07, Sheldon Rampton sheldon@prwatch.org wrote:
Wikipedia is a big enough topic that it attracts all kinds of reporters, all kinds of criticism and all kinds of praise. Overall, I think it has gotten fairly sympathetic press.
Yes, indeed, though I sense that's coming to an end.
Yeah. The alternative would be for the reporters to learn what putting Wikipedia in proper perspective means. They might even have to check their facts. That would not be the easy way out for them. :-)
Ec