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
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
On 7/13/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
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.
I disagree - I think the WP community should keep the press accountable on how Wikipedia is reported. However, I do agree that critcism should be constructive, and not snarky and obnoxious, as comments on this list tend to be.
Take the latest [[Ken Lay]] debate. With wire outlets like Reuters, their story gets regurgitated in many different outlets - paper, online, television, radio, etc. The media reports this as evidence that Wikipedia is in trouble. If the story is obviously inaccurate, they should be called on it.
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
On 7/17/06, Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com wrote:
I disagree - I think the WP community should keep the press accountable on how Wikipedia is reported. However, I do agree that critcism should be constructive, and not snarky and obnoxious, as comments on this list tend to be.
IMHO, snarky and obnoxious is fine for this list - even if it's publicly readable, it's essentially an internal, private mailing list. That is, statements on it should not be taken to reflect any broader "on record" sentiment. The Wikipedia Signpost is a different matter.
Take the latest [[Ken Lay]] debate. With wire outlets like Reuters, their story gets regurgitated in many different outlets - paper, online, television, radio, etc. The media reports this as evidence that Wikipedia is in trouble. If the story is obviously inaccurate, they should be called on it.
Wikipedia-bashing is becoming more prevalent. The slightly tragic thing is that its quality is obviously increasing greatly with each passing year. However, its increasing popularity means that despite that, the effect of increasing numbers of people coming into contact with its deficiencies is that the general populace thinks it's getting worse. If that makes sense.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 7/17/06, Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com wrote:
Take the latest [[Ken Lay]] debate. With wire outlets like Reuters, their story gets regurgitated in many different outlets - paper, online, television, radio, etc. The media reports this as evidence that Wikipedia is in trouble. If the story is obviously inaccurate, they should be called on it.
Wikipedia-bashing is becoming more prevalent. The slightly tragic thing is that its quality is obviously increasing greatly with each passing year. However, its increasing popularity means that despite that, the effect of increasing numbers of people coming into contact with its deficiencies is that the general populace thinks it's getting worse. If that makes sense.
It's the price of being big.
Ec
On 7/13/06, Mathias Schindler mathias.schindler@gmail.com wrote:
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."
What's actually apparent in all this is that Wikipedia was one of the first places the Reuters journalist turned to when he needed to write an obituary. And he got upset when the information kept changing on him.
Steve