From: Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com
- Wikipedia pounds other 'pedias when it comes to current events coverage
One of the things Wikipedia does best, IMHO, is to cover "history in the making" by synthesizing and integrating news stories.
There are large numbers of Wikipedians with interest in the news, and large numbers of detailed news articles available. It's much easier to research the story of pre-Katrina hurricane preparation in New Orleans than it is to research what happened to Liberal Arts Inc. in Pittsfield, MA in 1947. You actually do have collaboration between many editors and the stories end up well-written, well-balanced, with concise summaries of developing events and facts supporting the main points of view.
I used to find that the weekly newsmagazines did a more consistent job of following and following UP stories than the daily newspapers. Wikipedia does a better job than the newsmagazines. Three months after an event, when the news stories are no longer available in Google News, Wikipedia has good, detailed yet selective summaries of what the news was.
Of course, it's a little scary if Wikipedia is relying on the press as its source while the press is relying on Wikipedia!