RSS
Irony: Reuters Article Slamming Wikipedia For Corrections... Needs Correcting
from the funny-how-that-works dept
There are a group of folks who just love to criticize Wikipedia -- usually because they want it to be something it's not. As long as people understand the methodology in creating Wikipedia entries, there's really no issue at all. That's why it seemed so bizarre last week, after reports of Ken Lay's death showed up, that Reuters ran what was a pretty useless article about how Ken Lay's Wikipedia changed rapidly after reports of his death came out -- and some of those changes were somewhat different than the eventual story that came out. There's nothing particularly newsworthy there. Like any breaking story, some of the details may get confused at the beginning, but as the details become clearer the story gets crafted. Plenty of mainstream news stories have experienced the same exact thing. In fact... it happened in this very Reuters article. Slashdot points to someone who noticed the irony over the fact that Reuters needed to issue its very own correction on the story after it got its sources confused. What's even more ironic is, of course, that there are still plenty of versions of the uncorrected Reuters piece out there, but over at Wikipedia you can easily look back at the history yourself and see the corrections. So, where's Reuters breathless article on how Reuters' mistake "underscores the challenges" facing a news agency like Reuters "which as the news was breaking offered a variety of [sources] for [its story]"?
13 Comments | Leave a Comment..
- If The RIAA Wants To Talk About Misinformation Campaigns, Let's Start With The RIAA's Misinformation Campaign
- UK Report Blames The Internet For Terrorism, Says ISPs Should Take Down Content
- NY Times: RIAA & MPAA Exaggerate Piracy Impact Stats... But We're Going To Assume They're True Anyway
- Author Jonathan Franzen Thinks That Ebooks Mean The World Will No Longer Work
- Misguided Twitter Protests... And Why Twitter Could Have Explained Itself Better
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Hmm?
1. It's not good for whose business? It's not impacting ours any.
2. "Being a journalist." We're not journalists. Never claimed to be.
3. The point was that the *original* story wasn't newsworthy -- which is partly why we didn't bother posting it. What did seem interesting and newsworthy, though, was what happened afterwards. Hence this post.
4. Thanks for the advice.
:)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Mike: thanks for the post and comment. good points all around.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
I never did see a correction on that article.
-cmh
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Ban em all
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
wait a second
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Wikipedia = HHGTTG
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: HHGTTG
Don't Panic!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Wikipedia = HHGTTG
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment