Comments on: Journalism and Wikipedia

By: Cincinnati Lawyer

Cincinnati Lawyer — Mon, 27 Aug 2012 16:23:33 +0000

Wikipedia is updated so fast, that sometimes it can be slanted incorrectly before all the facts about a current issue are known.

By: Tampa Lawyer

Tampa Lawyer — Sat, 25 Aug 2012 20:55:59 +0000

I am still confused what so bad if Wikipedia has become one of the largest sources for providing old records. Regardless of their information, I am not going into the debate of whether that is wrong or right but they should be at least credited for the services being provided. Yes, Journalism must need to remain above all leans. In many of the articles, Wikipedia clearly mentions that “Citation required” or “Verification in Process” and many other notes and that is what appealing to me.

By: Steven J Fromm

Steven J Fromm — Wed, 15 Aug 2012 22:00:11 +0000

Very interesting issue. However, what about lost artwork from many generations ago that has now been lost or stolen or destroyed. We lost the “records” there too. We are now gaining the capacity to preserve our history with things like Wikipedia and who knows what may come down the road.
Really something to think about. Thanks for the post.

By: Richard Stacy

Richard Stacy — Mon, 06 Aug 2012 16:34:26 +0000

Not sure that Wikipedia is necessarily the answer – but the problem you have identified is a serious one. Now that so much of what is shaping history is taking place within digital spaces, we need to find a way of creating or preserving an access to these spaces, or else we risk losing history.

First flagged this back in 2009 in relation to retaining access to Twitter tags http://richardstacy.com/2009/06/18/twitter-is-making-and-then-destroying-history/

By: Seth Finkelstein

Seth Finkelstein — Tue, 31 Jul 2012 21:40:44 +0000

Oh, absolutely, there’s plenty of room online for noble goals and good intentions. Ideally, I’d propose expanding the BBC and NPR and having similar sort of projects. However, in the current political climate, I know that’s a nonstarter at best, and a Red-baiting opportunity at worst.

By: Geoff

Geoff — Tue, 31 Jul 2012 16:16:22 +0000

As a fellow 47er I support your view.
With any major ‘news’ incident eg London 7/7 suicide bombing I found Wikipedia an invaluable up to the minute update on the situation. Far better than ANY old school organisation eg BBC.
I’ve contributed to a few Wikipedia articles especially in my old field of ironmaking.

By: Doc Searls

Doc Searls — Tue, 31 Jul 2012 13:56:45 +0000

Two thumbs-down so far. None up. Looks like this idea is a dud.

By: Mike Loukides

Mike Loukides — Tue, 31 Jul 2012 12:42:40 +0000

I’d turn the question around. Do I want Wikipedia to be journalism? If so, what kind of journalism? The yellow journalism of Fox News? The “report the controversy, we won’t bother to check the facts” journalism of the New York Times? The “better keep the new boss happy” journalism of the Wall Street Journal? The “write 3 pages about possibly drunk girls getting killed in a car crash with a police cruiser, and ending with one sentence saying that the police cruiser was travelling 90 MPH with its lights off” of the New Haven Register?

I know how Wikipedia works, and there’s no way to keep journalists off it if they want to show up, but if I could, I would. (I suspect journalists aren’t there for all the wrong reasons, but that’s another story.) Wikipedia is far from perfect, but it has certainly turned out better than I expected back when it started. Journalism is seriously ill, and I don’t think it’s getting better any time soon.

I know, this really doesn’t address the “public record” issue.

(Disclaimer: I made a grammatical correction in a wikipedia article once, just to see how it worked.)

By: Doc Searls

Doc Searls — Tue, 31 Jul 2012 12:35:44 +0000

Do you think there is room, or need, online, for something with the positive aspirations of Wikipedia? If so, what would you propose?

By: Seth Finkelstein

Seth Finkelstein — Tue, 31 Jul 2012 03:45:00 +0000

Sigh. Consider the following hypothetical exchange:

A: “Housing is so difficult to find nowadays. Except for Crackhouse Hill, there’s little else low priced. Maybe the solution to the local student housing problem is having more of them move to Crackhouse Hill.”
B: “Crackhouse Hill is a horrible neighborhood. It’s full of drug-dealers and addicts. People should stay away from it, it’s no place to live.”
A: “I’ve known people who lived in Crackhouse Hill, and aren’t drug-dealers and addicts. I’ve been to the neighborhood, and I wouldn’t be able to find the alleged narcotics kingpin if I wanted to deal drugs. There’s many people there who are just trying to make the best of limited options.”

What’s the logical fallacy? It would be taking “X is full of Y”, and which granted is technically an ambiguous statement, but clear in conversational English, and reading it as “Every single member of X, to the slightest extent, is a Y to the maximum possible degree, with no exceptions or qualifications”. Then knocking that down at length.

That is, “Wikipedia is a cult” does not reasonably mean “Every single person who has made the slightest contribution to Wikipedia turns into a will-robbed zombie who chants “Walesss … Walesss …” in a mindless quest for fresh brains to consume and then excrete as building material for the hive.”

Thus, to address “And why, if Wikipedia is as you describe, should it remain so?”, the short answer is that its structural incentives favor, repeat “unhappy people being sold a delusion that they can have status and power by working for free.”, as I examined an infamous case in the column I wrote.

Additionally, it should not be a controversial observation that there’s a politics of Wikipedia hype vs criticism, in which the Berkman Center is a significant (n.b. not “only”, not “monopoly”, not “sole and exclusive”, but *significant*) player. I did not say anything like “This post is following a Berkman Center directive”. But is the case that there’s quite a difference if the wind is at one’s back as opposed to in one’s face.