Regarding all the discussion lately about whether Wikipedia ought to have coverage of breaking events right as they happen, this sort of thing is what brings out both the best and the worst of Wikipedia.
At its best, Wikipedia has up-to-date information on things of current interest, placed in historical context, something that no other medium can do in quite the same way: news media have info on what just happened now without much context, while printed encyclopedias have out-of-date information on what happened a long time ago without recent updates. The easy updatability of Wikipedia, combined with its ability to hyperlink things together, give it the ability to have simultaneous depth, breadth, currency, and history.
You also see it at its worst during times of rapidly-changing events, though; there's a dizzying succession of edits to any related articles which include the posting of rumors, hearsay, and speculation as if it were fact; lots of jumping to conclusions about what has happened, what effect it will have, and what it all means; and plenty of cases of outright vandalism. The high edit volume makes it an exercise in frustration to make any sort of update, due to edit conflicts. Thus, one can see why some would desire that current events be left out until they have a chance to settle down a bit.
On the other hand, such breaking events *also* show the best and the worst of the mainstream media. Look at tapes of the live TV or radio coverage of a major past event (the Kennedy assassination, the Reagan attempted assassination, the 2000 U.S. presidential election, the 9/11 attacks, Hurricane Katrina) and you'll see the same sorts of missteps and pratfalls you see on Wikipedia (though generally minus the outright vandalism). Announcers report rumors and then retract them. Things are reported as fact that turn out to be false. James Brady is dead... no he isn't! Bush is projected as the winner... no, Gore is projected as the winner... no, Bush... no, it's too close to call. The Pope is dead... no he isn't... OK, *now* he is. Announcers sometimes interrupt one another to bring in new bulletins.
So, everybody has some problems dealing with events that flood in too rapidly to keep track of. But at least Wikipedia's coverage eventually settles down to a reasonable article.
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
Regarding all the discussion lately about whether Wikipedia ought to have coverage of breaking events right as they happen, this sort of thing is what brings out both the best and the worst of Wikipedia.
...
On the other hand, such breaking events *also* show the best and the worst of the mainstream media. Look at tapes of the live TV or radio coverage of a major past event (the Kennedy assassination, the Reagan attempted assassination, the 2000 U.S. presidential election, the 9/11 attacks, Hurricane Katrina) and you'll see the same sorts of missteps and pratfalls you see on Wikipedia (though generally minus the outright vandalism). Announcers report rumors and then retract them. Things are reported as fact that turn out to be false. James Brady is dead... no he isn't! Bush is projected as the winner... no, Gore is projected as the winner... no, Bush... no, it's too close to call. The Pope is dead... no he isn't... OK, *now* he is. Announcers sometimes interrupt one another to bring in new bulletins.
So, everybody has some problems dealing with events that flood in too rapidly to keep track of. But at least Wikipedia's coverage eventually settles down to a reasonable article.
To some extent this question devolves into placing the boundary between Wikipedia and Wikinews. The overnight claim that Osama bin Laden had died of typhoid is apparently unverifiable and traced through a single source. See for example http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-09/24/content_5128781.htm This story is not ready for Wikipedia, but Wikinews probably needs to keep track of it. Early reports of the 9/11 attacks also suggested attacks in other places than those that were in fact attacked. The uncertainty in the 2000 election was always there; at least the newspapers were able to avoid the embarassment connected with Dewey's win in 1948. On the other hand, it has been 43 years since the Kennedy assasination, and the conspiracy theories haven't died down at all.
On the other hand Wikipedia is able to bring verifiable background information far more effectively than any other medium, even while the breaking aspects of the story are clouded with uncertainty.
Ec