On 7/9/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Why is it that Wikipedians seem to have so much trouble accepting legitimate criticism?
Legitimate criticism should be welcomed, but when the headline says "Wikipedia" as a whole has "confusion" and was "reeling," then that's sensational.
Academics and reporters who know that I've published about Wikipedia ask me - "So, how is that crisis on Wikipedia on Ken Lay?" One even requested to do a TV interview about it.
I've written a response on my blog to these folks, explaining the lifescycle of a Wikipedia article: http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2006/07/05/wikipedias-ken-lay-problem/
Wikipedia should be getting its facts *more* correct than the news outlets, not less. I remember a similar mess after the death of [[Jean Charles de Menezes]]. Wikipedia articles repeated unsubstantiated rumor as though it was fact.
Since Wikipedia depends on the first-hand reporting from news outlets, it can only be as good as the ability of human editors to converge on the best version of "the truth" using those sources.
-Andrew