Stephen Bain wrote:
On 9/21/06, Peter Jacobi peter_jacobi@gmx.net wrote:
"Stephen Bain" stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
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.
If a Wikipedia article is "the best source available", it has become original research.
Note that I'm referring specifically to current events articles. While online media outlets and the print media do occasionally offer "in-depth" stories on current events, setting out background information and historical context, they're rarely (if ever) as comprehensive or as timely as Wikipedia's articles are.
Also note that I'm talking about sources that Wikipedia would be competing against. A personal account written by a veteran journo on the scene may well be the best thing to read about an event, but it's not something that's comparable to Wikipedia.
In avoiding original research we create a composite. With thousands of eyes watching the development of a topic from different angles we are in a better position to represent multiple sources. A for-profit media outlet can't possibly afford to take into account whether its sources are independent of each other. In the interest of getting the information out quickly, or at least more quickly than its competitors it needs to go with what it considers reliable sources,. like the wireservices. Once the story is public it can't unprint the newspapers. The opportunities for broadcast media are a little better. We (especially in Wikinews) are in a position where we can more easily adapt our report based on evolving information. Not only that, but our article histories are able to chronicle how the story developed. Background information can be tracked down almost on demand.
Ec