"David Gerard" wrote
Journalists are a good audience to get this across to, because they looove Wikipedia - it's the universal background resource (an area where our breadth is a strength).
This is also useful for getting across to journalists that saying "according to Wikipedia" is as appropriate as it would be using any useful but non-canonical source. Attribute your sources!
Unsourced recent reports of deaths on WP are in the same class as 'unconfirmed reports', i.e. rumours that have got onto the wire services qua rumours. If the hacks take unsourced stuff from WP without provenance they are not doing the job they are paid for.
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
On 17/01/07, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
"David Gerard" wrote
Journalists are a good audience to get this across to, because they looove Wikipedia - it's the universal background resource (an area where our breadth is a strength). This is also useful for getting across to journalists that saying "according to Wikipedia" is as appropriate as it would be using any useful but non-canonical source. Attribute your sources!
Unsourced recent reports of deaths on WP are in the same class as 'unconfirmed reports', i.e. rumours that have got onto the wire services qua rumours. If the hacks take unsourced stuff from WP without provenance they are not doing the job they are paid for.
With some prominent recent firings of journalists for plagiarism from Wikipedia, I think this matter is in their awareness!
I also find it useful telling them the story of the circular reference that was discussed on this list a short while ago - Wikipedia article gets reference added, editor tracks down journalist who wrote reference, journalist says he read it on Wikipedia ... ahem! That's embarrassing for them too. "Always note 'According to Wikipedia', like you would quoting a person."
- d.