[WikiEN-l] Blogosphere takes notice of Reuters confusion

[Mathias Schindler]

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-credibility-issues-own-correction/

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