[WikiEN-l] Blogosphere takes notice of Reuters confusion

[Oldak Quill]

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 at 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-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
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


-- 
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)