It’s an interesting journalistic question brought forward by Steve Rubel in this post on his Micropersuasion blog. Steve refers to this piece on the Editor’s Weblog which lays out the issues surrounding the use of Wikipedia by newspapers like the Wall Street Journal and Los Angeles Times.
The problem, of course, is that sites like Wikipedia are tempting resources for journalists precisely because they serve as a repository for interesting and offbeat information you can’t usually find through more carefully vetted resources.
Other, more specialized wiki’s might serve as a more reliable source of information for a reporter, though. Wiki’s built around special interests can attract very specialized experts and, because of their extremely narrow focus, aren’t attractive targets for mischief (after all, how much fun is there in pissing off a few thousand Trekkies?).
It seems wise to keep in mind the following about all wiki’s (from Wikipedia’s “About Wikipedia” section):
“… it is important to use Wikipedia carefully if it is intended to be used as a research source, since individual articles will, by their nature, vary in standard and maturity.”
0 responses so far ↓
There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.