"Fred Bauder" wrote
It isn't so much that he's wrong, but how much can you learn about WIKIPEDIA by interviewing Larry Sanders and the management of Britannica? David Gerard had to show him the edit button... The piece reflects more on the reliability and integrity of the BBC than on that of Wikipedia. It was amateurish. However a nice note at the end encouraging people to edit, "It's your encyclopedia".
The piece was fine. Radio 4 is the "Middle England" channel. It won't have put a single person off Wikipedia, and it struck me as more than fair to the site. 'Amateurish' - no, that mistakes the tone. I would hazard that the average age of listeners to Radio 4 might be over 50, so that technology is approached very gently and discursively.
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
As the originator of this thread, (thanks for the analysis Fred) I just want to make a quick comment on this business. I'm a published critic (quite a different beast from a news journalist), but the plain and simple truth when it comes to the veracity and skill of any journalist is it depends on the journalist and their particular employer. This is just the same as wiki editors; some are hopeless fools with bad grammar, some are experts in their field and great writers. There is no hard and fast rule. But it can be said that the vast majority of journalists, especially those from a prestigious organization such as the BBC, have received specialized training that vastly enhances the abilities of otherwise mediocre people. Wikipedia users certainly don't go through 4+ years of school in how to adhere to NPOV. Not that I think they should.
When it comes to science coverage, I think this is kind of a special case. Take for example Charlie Rose the other night. He interviewed a table of experts and advocates on the search for a solution to the HIV/AIDS epidemic. The people sitting at that table have spent a lot of time in academic institutions just to understand the science around this, and then afr more time working professionally on the subject. I don't think Rose should be expected to pick it up handily in a week. But what he is there to do is understand it sufficiently to know what are the right questions to ask, so that his viewers can better understand it. And knowing which are the right questions to ask is not so easy as one would think.
On 7/25/07, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
"Fred Bauder" wrote
It isn't so much that he's wrong, but how much can you learn about
WIKIPEDIA by interviewing Larry Sanders and the management of Britannica? David Gerard had to show him the edit button... The piece reflects more on the reliability and integrity of the BBC than on that of Wikipedia. It was amateurish. However a nice note at the end encouraging people to edit, "It's your encyclopedia".
The piece was fine. Radio 4 is the "Middle England" channel. It won't have put a single person off Wikipedia, and it struck me as more than fair to the site. 'Amateurish' - no, that mistakes the tone. I would hazard that the average age of listeners to Radio 4 might be over 50, so that technology is approached very gently and discursively.
Charles
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 7/26/07, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
As the originator of this thread, (thanks for the analysis Fred) I just want to make a quick comment on this business. I'm a published critic (quite a different beast from a news journalist), but the plain and simple truth when it comes to the veracity and skill of any journalist is it depends on the journalist and their particular employer. This is just the same as wiki editors; some are hopeless fools with bad grammar, some are experts in their field and great writers. There is no hard and fast rule. But it can be said that the vast majority of journalists, especially those from a prestigious organization such as the BBC, have received specialized training that vastly enhances the abilities of otherwise mediocre people. Wikipedia users certainly don't go through 4+ years of school in how to adhere to NPOV. Not that I think they should.
When it comes to science coverage, I think this is kind of a special case. Take for example Charlie Rose the other night. He interviewed a table of experts and advocates on the search for a solution to the HIV/AIDS epidemic. The people sitting at that table have spent a lot of time in academic institutions just to understand the science around this, and then afr more time working professionally on the subject. I don't think Rose should be expected to pick it up handily in a week. But what he is there to do is understand it sufficiently to know what are the right questions to ask, so that his viewers can better understand it. And knowing which are the right questions to ask is not so easy as one would think.
Well, I think what most of us on this list have in mind when we bring up the BBC and science reporting is the horrendous gaffes they have made on their website by blowing things out of proportion and exaggerating/fabricating facts. (The case of cows supposedly having accents comes to mind.)
Johnleemk
Again, "it depends on the journalist and their employer". Some news media groups obviously tend to push their people to sensationalize certain stories. For the BBC, it might be science. Fox, it's sex offenders. I wasn't saying journalists are perfect. But they do serve an important purpose. I personally think anyone who isn't smart enough to realize the weaknesses and prejudices of the particular media groups they watch, read or listen to is asking to be duped. I might listen to NPR and read the NYTimes, and love them, but I'm not stupid enough to think they're god.
On 7/25/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/26/07, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
As the originator of this thread, (thanks for the analysis Fred) I just want to make a quick comment on this business. I'm a published critic (quite
a
different beast from a news journalist), but the plain and simple truth when it comes to the veracity and skill of any journalist is it depends on
the
journalist and their particular employer. This is just the same as wiki editors; some are hopeless fools with bad grammar, some are experts in their field and great writers. There is no hard and fast rule. But it can be said that the vast majority of journalists, especially those from a
prestigious
organization such as the BBC, have received specialized training that vastly enhances the abilities of otherwise mediocre people. Wikipedia users certainly don't go through 4+ years of school in how to adhere to NPOV. Not that I think they should.
When it comes to science coverage, I think this is kind of a special
case.
Take for example Charlie Rose the other night. He interviewed a table of experts and advocates on the search for a solution to the HIV/AIDS epidemic. The people sitting at that table have spent a lot of time in academic institutions just to understand the science around this, and then afr
more
time working professionally on the subject. I don't think Rose should be expected to pick it up handily in a week. But what he is there to do is understand it sufficiently to know what are the right questions to ask,
so
that his viewers can better understand it. And knowing which are the
right
questions to ask is not so easy as one would think.
Well, I think what most of us on this list have in mind when we bring up the BBC and science reporting is the horrendous gaffes they have made on their website by blowing things out of proportion and exaggerating/fabricating facts. (The case of cows supposedly having accents comes to mind.)
Johnleemk _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
John Lee wrote:
Well, I think what most of us on this list have in mind when we bring up the BBC and science reporting is the horrendous gaffes they have made on their website by blowing things out of proportion and exaggerating/fabricating facts. (The case of cows supposedly having accents comes to mind.)
Why shouldn't cows have accents?
More generally, journalists are rarely capable of handling scientific topics because very few have any kind of scientific background. In all likelihood during their school days they were the ones who did very well in classes where they could showcase their "creative" writing skills, and who did very poorly in science if they couldn't get out of such classes altogether.
Ec