On 9/21/06, Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com wrote:
At Wikimania 2006, I described this phenomenon - Wikipedia uniquely fills the gap between "the news" and the history books. It's an instantaneous cumulative view of the state of the world, given the best information at that point in time. Rather than shedding this function, we should be embracing and celebrating it.
An excellent way of viewing it, I agree wholeheartedly. This is an area, in my view, where the wiki model really shows its strengths compared with traditional formats. Rolling news coverage from the large outlets can offer detail and nuance that a Wikipedia article can't match, but there's really no equivalent to a Wikipedia article in terms of providing a comprehensive overview of a news story, including its historical context, as it happens.
Take [[2006 Thailand coup d'état]], already a pretty strong article with plenty of references. It covers the immediate events, the current state of affairs politically, and summarises the responses in Thailand and abroad. It's even beginning to synthesise a little analysis emerging from the media.
The articles on last year's London bombings are also good examples. [[2006 transatlantic aircraft plot]], within a few hours after the story broke, was just about the best source available.