PDA

View Full Version : Wikpedia is accurate


Claudius
12-19-2009, 02:53 PM
If you don't agree, I challenge you to find a factual error.

samster
12-19-2009, 02:56 PM
Wikpedia...is that a new website?

samprasvsfederer123
12-19-2009, 03:02 PM
hm well it has its ups and downs,, theres one page that says michael jackson has sold like 900 million albums, another 750, another 500, they should be more organized with their info.

ramseszerg
12-19-2009, 03:12 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_University#History

Just to demonstrate a point.

p.s. I'm impressed by how quickly that got corrected.

Claudius
12-19-2009, 03:16 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_University#History

Just to demonstrate a point.

p.s. I'm impressed by how quickly that got corrected.

What error are you referring to?

ramseszerg
12-19-2009, 03:43 PM
I messed up the entry, it got corrected within a minute.

OroDeSantoro
12-25-2009, 02:46 PM
Wikpedia?
Anyway, wikipedia once told me that Ray J directed the movie Obsessed

jazzyfunkybluesy
12-25-2009, 03:55 PM
It is not 100 % accurate but continues to be updated every day. I wouldn't cite the source as fact.

CyBorg
12-25-2009, 05:29 PM
I messed up the entry, it got corrected within a minute.

This does indeed demonstrate a point.

Wikipedia is I think pretty reliable when it comes to supporting one's point with "basic" information. One does not assume that the facts contained are any more likely to be wrong than in a journalistic article. I would say wikipedia is much more trustworthy, better cited than any media article and the fact that it is constantly open to revision is a good thing.

Wikipedia has a bad rep in schools, but in my opinion it is such a great tool for education that it makes teachers' jobs that much more challenging. Now they have to convey to students something more than what they can already discover on their own. Besides one can now easily call a teacher on his/her ******** in a matter of minutes.

diggler
12-25-2009, 05:58 PM
This does indeed demonstrate a point.

Wikipedia is I think pretty reliable when it comes to supporting one's point with "basic" information. One does not assume that the facts contained are any more likely to be wrong than in a journalistic article. I would say wikipedia is much more trustworthy, better cited than any media article and the fact that it is constantly open to revision is a good thing.

Wikipedia has a bad rep in schools, but in my opinion it is such a great tool for education that it makes teachers' jobs that much more challenging. Now they have to convey to students something more than what they can already discover on their own. Besides one can now easily call a teacher on his/her ******** in a matter of minutes.

Why would it make teaching harder? It is an additional resource for the teacher or student to use, not in competition with it.

The internet makes teaching so much easier. Instead of cutting out relevant newspaper articles and keeing them in a scrapbook, you can just google for up to date articles at any time.

SuperFly
12-25-2009, 07:20 PM
Abotu a year ago, wikipedia said the first team to ever win the Super Bowl and I quote, the "detriot tigers". :) I fixed it though.

fruitytennis1
12-25-2009, 07:38 PM
For any papers in any class we arent allowed to use(if we have to cite the source) WIKI. WIKI kick teachers butt

diggler
12-25-2009, 07:46 PM
For any papers in any class we arent allowed to use(if we have to cite the source) WIKI. WIKI kick teachers butt

You can use other websites but not Wikipedia?

heycal
12-25-2009, 08:55 PM
One does not assume that the facts contained are any more likely to be wrong than in a journalistic article. I would say wikipedia is much more trustworthy, better cited than any media article

What are you smoking there, Cyborg? News stories in traditional media are written by professional journalists with an incentive to get the facts right or risk losing their jobs. Wikipedia entries are authored by people with no such incentives or obligations.

Plus, more obscure subjects are particularly suspect since there is often no one to come along and correct things. I myself purposely inserted a supposed "fact" into an entry mostly as a joke almost a year ago, and its still there today.

mucat
12-25-2009, 11:57 PM
Wiki is a good starting point for looking for information and that's about it. The thing is, in Wiki, information is not written by specialist on the subject, it could be anyone.

Anaconda
12-26-2009, 02:45 AM
You can find errors in a lot of places in Wiki, they also leave key bits of information out. It's a good starting point but there are better sources for information.

webopedia is good. Wikipedia is ok for some things.

SuperFly
12-26-2009, 09:21 AM
For any papers in any class we arent allowed to use(if we have to cite the source) WIKI. WIKI kick teachers butt

Here's a tip: read the wiki article about your subject then click on the citation number after the sentence. It'll bring you to the site where they found the info. :)

ttbrowne
12-26-2009, 10:14 AM
Last year at Wrestlemania, we (the radio media) were invited to Houston for 4 days of fun and interviews. We had a good sized room for 7 morning shows from different markets to interview the wrestling stars. I keep up with quite a bit of wrestling but these interviews can run 15 minutes. I, along with some other morning shows, relied occasionally on Wikipedia for info. It was embarrassing when a couple of times the stars didn't know what we were talking about because of info obtained from Wikipedia.
That's when I learned not to take everything as the gospel on Wiki.

zapvor
12-26-2009, 10:32 AM
given its format wiki is pretty darn useful

tudwell
12-26-2009, 10:47 AM
The best part of wikipedia is all the sources it links you to at the bottom of the page.

meowmix
12-26-2009, 01:30 PM
One of my friends decided to change a couple pages with random facts. The changes went unnoticed for a few weeks. For example, on the page about the Netherlands, he changed the main newspaper to "The Rock Way Journal", the newspaper in our high school.

Just putting that out there.

beedlejuice22
12-27-2009, 04:53 AM
I hate it when teachers say you can't use Wikipedia as a source. I have never found an article with bad information or trolling. It's one of the best sites out there.

NonP
12-27-2009, 09:54 PM
One of my friends decided to change a couple pages with random facts. The changes went unnoticed for a few weeks. For example, on the page about the Netherlands, he changed the main newspaper to "The Rock Way Journal", the newspaper in our high school.

Just putting that out there.

One thing to keep in mind is that how these changes are dealt with depends on the size of the article and the level of interest in the subject. Your example is a case in point. The Netherlands article is large and divided and subdivided into sections as comprehensive and complex as its national history, economy, culture and other subjects of varying public interest. No doubt there are more than just one or two "full-time" editors assigned to these sections. It's just not feasible to expect them to catch every single factual error that creeps in once in a while.

But it's different when the article happens to be relatively short and about a popular public figure, and I can confirm this firsthand. About a year or two ago I added to the Borg article the part about his exceptionally low resting heart rate being a myth, which is still there. Sure, it's been shuffled around since, but I'll bet that the tidbit would've been promptly removed had I not provided a proper reference. Why am I so sure? Because when I tried to modify another celeb's page with her correct weight my entry was removed almost immediately. I just failed to cite a reliable source this time. And note that both of these cases involved two beloved celebs of whom there are enough groupies willing to check their heroes' Wiki pages every nanosecond.

CyBorg
12-27-2009, 10:04 PM
What are you smoking there, Cyborg? News stories in traditional media are written by professional journalists with an incentive to get the facts right or risk losing their jobs. Wikipedia entries are authored by people with no such incentives or obligations.

Plus, more obscure subjects are particularly suspect since there is often no one to come along and correct things. I myself purposely inserted a supposed "fact" into an entry mostly as a joke almost a year ago, and its still there today.

Oh, you couldn't be any more wrong. This is coming from a guy who worked as a journalism for several years. Journalists are not necessarily committed to the truth, few are. The fact that wikipedia is written by people with "no incentives" is what makes it good for me. Incentives means agendas.

Journalism is, by and large, split up into 1) PR, 2) punditry. The journalistic style of writing is typically watered down and aimed at delivering superficial information to the layman. The lack of references is the main reason why I dislike journalism.

On wikipedia I can usually tell if the info is accurate or not. Even if what is posted is a bit nonsense (let's say something done as a joke, as some have mentioned here) it will be apparent that the info is not cited and often pointed out to be questionable. The lack of source is immediately evident.

That being said, I do not believe that wikipedia should be cited in papers, even high school ones. Just used for personal interest.

P.S. I should mention that I love blogs. Or at least the idea of blogging. It's good stuff, but it serves a different purpose than wikipedia. Wikipedia provides us with a quick recap of important things we should know. Blogs thrive due to the immediacy, quickness and crispness of delivery. I like both.

CyBorg
12-27-2009, 10:07 PM
Why would it make teaching harder? It is an additional resource for the teacher or student to use, not in competition with it.

The internet makes teaching so much easier. Instead of cutting out relevant newspaper articles and keeing them in a scrapbook, you can just google for up to date articles at any time.

It makes teaching harder for bad teachers, is what I mean. I've had my share of awful ones.

Teachers can no longer get away with conveying a basic history of ideas. Because it is all already out there. Teaching now has to have more a) practical and b) abstract value.

diggler
12-28-2009, 12:12 AM
It makes teaching harder for bad teachers, is what I mean. I've had my share of awful ones.

Teachers can no longer get away with conveying a basic history of ideas. Because it is all already out there. Teaching now has to have more a) practical and b) abstract value.

As a teacher, it is not your job to know everything. The kids learn more by finding out themselves.

ramseszerg
12-28-2009, 01:42 AM
As a teacher, it is not your job to know everything. The kids learn more by finding out themselves.

Yup. The students can learn valuable research skills. Science especially is about not knowing things and asking questions than it is about knowing things anyway.

aphex
12-28-2009, 02:12 AM
.............................

ramseszerg
12-28-2009, 04:27 AM
Real classy "aphex".

aphex
12-28-2009, 04:37 AM
Real classy "aphex".

well i didn't do it...but you're right, i'll delete it.

heycal
12-28-2009, 08:14 AM
Oh, you couldn't be any more wrong. This is coming from a guy who worked as a journalism for several years. Journalists are not necessarily committed to the truth, few are.

I have a background in journalism as well and that's an absurd statement. I don't think I've ever met one person who didn't want to get the facts correct. Some might be better at it or care more than others, and I'm often shocked at the level of sloppiness I see, but that goal is shared by all.

The fact that wikipedia is written by people with "no incentives" is what makes it good for me. Incentives means agendas.

Don't puts quotes around my words to imply I said something I did not. I was talking about an incentive to get things right or risk losing a job. Accuracy is not an "agenda".



Journalism is, by and large, split up into 1) PR, 2) punditry.

Another absurd statement. 98 percent of journalism is news gathering and reporting. That's mostly why people read and watch the news. There's not a lot of PR or punditry involved in reporting on an attempted terrorist attack on a a plane or that robbery at your local 7/11.




On wikipedia I can usually tell if the info is accurate or not. Even if what is posted is a bit nonsense (let's say something done as a joke, as some have mentioned here) it will be apparent that the info is not cited and often pointed out to be questionable. The lack of source is immediately evident.

So if you with your fancy journalism background think you can detect bogus material, the average high school kid who uses wikipedia should be able to as well?

Wikipedia, by and large, is written by unsupervised people with an intense interest in the subject, which generally means they have some sort of agenda. Most journalism is written by vetted professionals whose chief interest is not in any one topic, but in furthering their own career, and part of the way they do that is by writing good and accurate stories.

CyBorg
12-28-2009, 04:37 PM
As a teacher, it is not your job to know everything. The kids learn more by finding out themselves.

This is not a coherent thought.

stormholloway
12-28-2009, 04:44 PM
The difference is that a) journalists have incentives to be accurate because they get paid and b) they are held to a higher standard and are also held accountable if they make an error.

The problem with modern journalism isn't its inaccuracies as much as its selective omission of the 'complete' story and or alternate versions of those stories. Wikipedia, thankfully, seems to address every version of the events/topics it covers. Corporate journalists are basically just mouthpieces for government these days.

CyBorg
12-28-2009, 04:48 PM
I have a background in journalism as well and that's an absurd statement. I don't think I've ever met one person who didn't want to get the facts correct. Some might be better at it or care more than others, and I'm often shocked at the level of sloppiness I see, but that goal is shared by all.

I'm not saying that journalists intentionally get facts wrong. Nor did I even claim that they gets facts wrong - rather the problem is the ways in which they spin 'facts'. The journalistic 'craft' is not grounded in methodology nor are journalists required to cite their sources. Journalism routinely mixes reportage and punditry for many reasons, the biggest of which is that they serve a serve a body that looks, first and foremost, to make money. Facts are always secondary.

Don't puts quotes around my words to imply I said something I did not. I was talking about an incentive to get things right or risk losing a job. Accuracy is not an "agenda".

"Get things right" doesn't mean anything. What TMZ aims to get right is not what is right by the standards of another. Every newspaper or news agency has their own idea as to what is right for them.

Another absurd statement. 98 percent of journalism is news gathering and reporting. That's mostly why people read and watch the news. There's not a lot of PR or punditry involved in reporting on an attempted terrorist attack on a a plane or that robbery at your local 7/11.

People watch the news to get interesting stories. Journalists work to concoct interesting stories out of real life. They constantly invent.

Never, ever has journalism been about "gathering and reporting". Journalism is creative writing, based on some semblance of reality.

As for PR - this is the reality of our time. Most big-name news agencies serve big business interests.

So if you with your fancy journalism background think you can detect bogus material, the average high school kid who uses wikipedia should be able to as well?

Wikipedia, by and large, is written by unsupervised people with an intense interest in the subject, which generally means they have some sort of agenda. Most journalism is written by vetted professionals whose chief interest is not in any one topic, but in furthering their own career, and part of the way they do that is by writing good and accurate stories.

Wikipedia is not perfect. What I am saying is that I like it more because of its framework (not to mention that the purpose of wikipedia is completely different than that of journalism - a better argument would be between yesteryear reportage and blogging) . Wikipedia is not set up to practice punditry - rather it is a concise and abstract encyclopedia. The fact that it is written by people makes it a democratic resource, with all the good and bad things that come with it.

The kind of thinking you practice whereby you rate the opinion of those people who are supposed "professionals" is extremely out of fashion and naive. Journalists are not authorities on any particular "truth" about our world, but simply footsoldiers for a particular corporate point of view.

If you ever work for a big name newspaper you will understand this. If one wishes to speak about an underground newspaper or a student newspaper then one is free to disagree, but those serve an agenda, such as a political one, as well.

CyBorg
12-28-2009, 04:55 PM
The difference is that a) journalists have incentives to be accurate because they get paid and b) they are held to a higher standard and are also held accountable if they make an error.

"Facts", truths-untruths are not the issue. "Spin" is the issue.

Spin, skillful spin, is never untrue. It is stated as true without necessarily being outright wrong.

Opinion journalism is also not untrue. It is often based on truths or facts, but ultimately constructs narratives to suit particular points of view. Usually corporate.

soyizgood
12-28-2009, 05:26 PM
On the issue of great forehands, Wikipedia mentioned Jankovic among others. I immediately corrected that one.

heycal
12-28-2009, 11:47 PM
I'm not saying that journalists intentionally get facts wrong. Nor did I even claim that they gets facts wrong - rather the problem is the ways in which they spin 'facts'. The journalistic 'craft' is not grounded in methodology nor are journalists required to cite their sources. Journalism routinely mixes reportage and punditry for many reasons, the biggest of which is that they serve a serve a body that looks, first and foremost, to make money. Facts are always secondary.



"Get things right" doesn't mean anything. What TMZ aims to get right is not what is right by the standards of another. Every newspaper or news agency has their own idea as to what is right for them.



People watch the news to get interesting stories. Journalists work to concoct interesting stories out of real life. They constantly invent.

Never, ever has journalism been about "gathering and reporting". Journalism is creative writing, based on some semblance of reality.

As for PR - this is the reality of our time. Most big-name news agencies serve big business interests.



Wikipedia is not perfect. What I am saying is that I like it more because of its framework (not to mention that the purpose of wikipedia is completely different than that of journalism - a better argument would be between yesteryear reportage and blogging) . Wikipedia is not set up to practice punditry - rather it is a concise and abstract encyclopedia. The fact that it is written by people makes it a democratic resource, with all the good and bad things that come with it.

The kind of thinking you practice whereby you rate the opinion of those people who are supposed "professionals" is extremely out of fashion and naive. Journalists are not authorities on any particular "truth" about our world, but simply footsoldiers for a particular corporate point of view.

If you ever work for a big name newspaper you will understand this. If one wishes to speak about an underground newspaper or a student newspaper then one is free to disagree, but those serve an agenda, such as a political one, as well.

Sorry, but your going to have to come up with some examples to support your paranoid view of the world, where stories are slanted to suit some "agenda" of the "corpoaration" -- as if the New York Times or CNN gives a damn about what the actual news is 99 percent of the time or has an incentive to slant it in a particular direction. As mentioned, their main incentive is to stay in business, not pursue some vague politcal agenda.

Do you really have a background in journalism? Because you speak as if you are stuck on a college campus with a radical professor reading only the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal or something and fantasizing about how the great unwashed are leading us to journalistic integrity by controlling the means of news production through the noble Wikipedia.

Let's say you are presented with two versions of, say, the history of the Rolling Stones. (I choose them simply because I happend to have read about them recently.) One story is published in the New York Times. One is 'published' on Wikipedia.

Which of the two would you trust to be the more accurate, comprehensive, and well-researched and reported?

I personally feel confident that the Times will do a much better job in all respects, and I would feel safe in passing on information about the Stones to a friend that I had learned about in the Times. But if I read it on Wikipedia? Forget about it. I woudn't repeat a damn thing I read about the Stones on wikipedia without checking another source first.

Even StormHolloway will admit that professional journalists have an incentive to get the facts right and are held to a higher standard and are accountable for their errors. But a wikipedia author's sole incentive may be to make sure the great Brian Jones gets plenty of credit for the Stone's success, or whatever.

CyBorg
12-29-2009, 01:09 AM
Sorry, but your going to have to come up with some examples to support your paranoid view of the world, where stories are slanted to suit some "agenda" of the "corpoaration" -- as if the New York Times or CNN gives a damn about what the actual news is 99 percent of the time or has an incentive to slant it in a particular direction. As mentioned, their main incentive is to stay in business, not pursue some vague politcal agenda.

You're making it sound like I am some kind of conspiracy theorist. "Staying in business" means exactly it says - being a businessman. That means giving the people what they want and likewise the ones who have and give the money. When one is a journalist, eventually a day comes when a really big story comes along and you've got a big honcho to interview. More often than not, if you wish to keep your job you will ask the kinds of questions that he will want you to ask. It's just the way things work.

And the public... they also expect certain things from their journalism and the journalists, let's just say, are not in the business of convincing them otherwise. Turn on the 11 o'clock news and you will see two basic kinds of stories: a) the kinds of stir up our emotions (terrorize us), and b) the kinds of comfort us. It seldom shifts from this. Journalists know what the public wants. It's not the hypedermic needle - it's mutual consent.

Do you really have a background in journalism? Because you speak as if you are stuck on a college campus with a radical professor reading only the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal or something and fantasizing about how the great unwashed are leading us to journalistic integrity by controlling the means of news production through the noble Wikipedia.

I don't see wikipedia as noble. I see it as something full of flaws. But those flaws are more apparent, because of the format. Journalism is just skilfull ******** - more creative and more dangerous. More deceitful, because it is full of salesmen.

Wikipedia is not like this because a) businessmen are more interested in the present and future, while Wikipedia covers mostly the past; b) Wikipedia's content is constantly altered and subject to scrutiny.

I personally like this and believe that it makes for reasonably reliable product. It's not scholarship, far from it. I think you're purposefully misrepresenting what I am trying to say. Wikipedia is neither great writing nor great recordkeeping - it's just more modest and more ********-free than journalism.

Let's say you are presented with two versions of, say, the history of the Rolling Stones. (I choose them simply because I happend to have read about them recently.) One story is published in the New York Times. One is 'published' on Wikipedia.

Which of the two would you trust to be the more accurate, comprehensive, and well-researched and reported?

I personally feel confident that the Times will do a much better job in all respects, and I would feel safe in passing on information about the Stones to a friend that I had learned about in the Times. But if I read it on Wikipedia? Forget about it. I woudn't repeat a damn thing I read about the Stones on wikipedia without checking another source first.

I will turn to the Times for a well-written story any day of the week. If you think you will get the truth from there you are being very, very silly.

I should clarify to you that I am not disparaging the ability and power of a journalist to draw me into an interesting world. A good journalist will do that - he will write something that can overwhelm me. There are few really good ones, but the ones who are can weave a great narrative.

Ideally, I would just get a book. But there are few good books on rock bands. Most of the stuff you will find is pure journo crap - the kind where they ask questions that don't offend. Because they'll want more stories later.

Even StormHolloway will admit that professional journalists have an incentive to get the facts right and are held to a higher standard and are accountable for their errors. But a wikipedia author's sole incentive may be to make sure the great Brian Jones gets plenty of credit for the Stone's success, or whatever.

Facts isn't really the matter, nor matter how much you pretend it to be. One can be very selective with facts.

I'll put it this way to you - I like my fiction. And I like it well written. Some prefer to call their fiction journalism. This is when I usually know that they're are full of something foul. Most of the time.

I don't fault them for having good intentions.

Gorecki
12-29-2009, 03:04 AM
i once saw the entry on Roger Federer saying his gear was a Yonex RQiS 002... :)

heycal
12-29-2009, 07:49 AM
You're making it sound like I am some kind of conspiracy theorist. "Staying in business" means exactly it says - being a businessman. That means giving the people what they want and likewise the ones who have and give the money. When one is a journalist, eventually a day comes when a really big story comes along and you've got a big honcho to interview. More often than not, if you wish to keep your job you will ask the kinds of questions that he will want you to ask. It's just the way things work.

I will turn to the Times for a well-written story any day of the week. If you think you will get the truth from there you are being very, very silly.

Ideally, I would just get a book. But there are few good books on rock bands. Most of the stuff you will find is pure journo crap - the kind where they ask questions that don't offend. Because they'll want more stories later.


This is complete fantasy. You are sounding more and more like a conspiracy theorist with each post.

You are also confusing entertainment/soft journalism with real journalism, which is the only place some of the things you allege are true. I'm going to call up my friend who has written hard-hitting exposes on various subjects for national publications with huge corporate parents and tell him he's actually been writting puff pieces all these years and only asking the questions his subjects want him to ask. He can then share this news with our big time editor friend at the New York Times, a man who has more integrity in his little finger than either of us could hope to have in a lifetime. Turns out they are really just glorified PR hacks who might as well quit those jobs and go work for US Weekly writing stories about Tom Cruise or something, according to your naive and paranoid world view.

heycal
12-29-2009, 07:54 AM
i once saw the entry on Roger Federer saying his gear was a Yonex RQiS 002... :)

Not surprising. Wikipedia entries like this are written by fanboys who have neither the education or background of real journalists, who know how to evaluate sources of information. Some kid could pick up something like that on Talk Tennis and throw it on to Wikipedia without a second's thought. But a journalist for the Washington Post would be a lot more careful about who he trusted for his information.

Rippy
12-29-2009, 08:00 AM
I've always found Wikipedia to be pretty decent. I've seen people write fake facts, but they usually get changed within a minute, even on some obscure page that surely wouldn't be popular.

Gorecki
12-29-2009, 08:13 AM
Not surprising. Wikipedia entries like this are written by fanboys who have neither the education or background of real journalists, who know how to evaluate sources of information. Some kid could pick up something like that on Talk Tennis and throw it on to Wikipedia without a second's thought. But a journalist for the Washington Post would be a lot more careful about who he trusted for his information.

might be so, but it sounds much more like a wikiprank... they are always around!

CyBorg
12-29-2009, 10:00 AM
This is complete fantasy. You are sounding more and more like a conspiracy theorist with each post.

You are also confusing entertainment/soft journalism with real journalism, which is the only place some of the things you allege are true. I'm going to call up my friend who has written hard-hitting exposes on various subjects for national publications with huge corporate parents and tell him he's actually been writting puff pieces all these years and only asking the questions his subjects want him to ask. He can then share this news with our big time editor friend at the New York Times, a man who has more integrity in his little finger than either of us could hope to have in a lifetime. Turns out they are really just glorified PR hacks who might as well quit those jobs and go work for US Weekly writing stories about Tom Cruise or something, according to your naive and paranoid world view.

You are taking this way too personally.

I do not doubt that there do exist journalists who abide by a grounded methodology. But they are exceptions.

heycal
12-29-2009, 09:37 PM
You are taking this way too personally.

I do not doubt that there do exist journalists who abide by a grounded methodology. But they are exceptions.

I don't suffer fools gladly. When people who don't know what the hell they are talking about portray entire professions in a false and negative light, and possibly influence others reading this to rely on Wikipedia for better information than professional journalists, I do take it personally. I'm thinking my pulitizer prize winning brother-in-law who teaches a journalism class and gives an automatic "F" to any student whose paper contains even a single factual error would take it personally too...

heycal
12-29-2009, 09:39 PM
might be so, but it sounds much more like a wikiprank... they are always around!

Don't know anything about that, but believe it. Not so many
"Cnn-i-pranks" though...

CyBorg
12-30-2009, 05:56 PM
I don't suffer fools gladly. When people who don't know what the hell they are talking about portray entire professions in a false and negative light, and possibly influence others reading this to rely on Wikipedia for better information than professional journalists, I do take it personally. I'm thinking my pulitizer prize winning brother-in-law who teaches a journalism class and gives an automatic "F" to any student whose paper contains even a single factual error would take it personally too...

I'm glad for you, but if you read what I actually wrote carefully rather than letting your emotions get in the way you would see that your Pulitzer prize-winning brother-in-law has nothing to do with this. I never claimed that there do not exist journalists who write thorough, grounded works.

Rather I made a very modest and simple point that one is not any more likely to encounter incorrect information on wikipedia than in journalism. You took this as an affront on all journalists. If your relative is an exceptional writer, investigator or researcher then he should be proud to be ahead of the pack. Not insulted.

But you do whatever you like.

P.S. Roger Ebert has a Pulitzer Prize and David Bordwell does not. I believe that this says a lot.

heycal
12-31-2009, 12:26 AM
Rather I made a very modest and simple point that one is not any more likely to encounter incorrect information on wikipedia than in journalism. You took this as an affront on all journalists.

Yes, because it's an idiotic statement. Hence, the affrontary.

Once again, Wikipedia is authored mostly by amateurs who know little or nothing about good reporting and with no incentive to get the facts right. Journalists are experienced professionals with a strong incentive to get the facts right. If you think that doesn't matter or effect the level of accuracy, you are more naive than I thought.

heycal
12-31-2009, 12:29 AM
P.S. Roger Ebert has a Pulitzer Prize and David Bordwell does not. I believe that this says a lot.

Never heard of the guy. In any event, are you trying to impugn the credentials of those who have won Pulitizer prizes by citing this tidbit?

CyBorg
12-31-2009, 12:44 PM
Yes, because it's an idiotic statement. Hence, the affrontary.

Once again, Wikipedia is authored mostly by amateurs who know little or nothing about good reporting and with no incentive to get the facts right. Journalists are experienced professionals with a strong incentive to get the facts right. If you think that doesn't matter or effect the level of accuracy, you are more naive than I thought.

There is really nothing wrong with being an amateur and being a "professional" does not mean that one is committed to the truth. One could be a professional and work for Fox News.

I've already explained my point of view on this and in a much more nuanced way than you pretend. You can make this personal and call me an idiot if that makes you feel better.

CyBorg
12-31-2009, 12:48 PM
Never heard of the guy. In any event, are you trying to impugn the credentials of those who have won Pulitizer prizes by citing this tidbit?

David Bordwell writes film theory. Roger Ebert is a journalists who writes fluff.

I know that the latter won a Pulitzer prize. Draw you own conclusions.

heycal
12-31-2009, 02:15 PM
There is really nothing wrong with being an amateur and being a "professional" does not mean that one is committed to the truth. One could be a professional and work for Fox News.

I've already explained my point of view on this and in a much more nuanced way than you pretend. You can make this personal and call me an idiot if that makes you feel better.

Your point of view is not nuanced at all. You seem to think amateurs -- people with no experience in reporting and no incentive to get things right -- are just as likely to get the facts right as experienced professionals who might get fired if they make too many errors. Is that correct?

If you believe this, it's an idiotic belief.

David Bordwell writes film theory. Roger Ebert is a journalists who writes fluff.

I know that the latter won a Pulitzer prize. Draw you own conclusions.

You're saying Ebert's film reviews are fluff, or film reviews in general are fluff, and those who write them shouldn't receive Pulitzer prizes?

If that is your position, do you film the same way about sports writers who cover mainstream sports and teams, that it's also just fluff?

Please clarify your position on this.

btw, I just had occassion to seek information on a health issue. I checked out several different sites as I gathered information, but pretty much ignored Wikipedia's entry all together, not wanting to to be led astray. I mean, who are you going to trust to learn about some condition you're unfamiliar with: the Mayo Clinic, or some unknown author's musing on Wikipedia regarding the symptoms and treatment of XYZ disease?

Finally, I do think Wikipedia has a place in this world, and I use it often by default. I just don't trust it as much as other sites. Also, what bothers me just as much as its iffy accuracy is its often amateurish writing. Call me old fashioned, but I like reading stuff by people with experience and ability in writing, and are good enough to earn a living at it. Many of wikipedia's entries read like they are written by high school kids. (Of course, many probably are...)

CyBorg
12-31-2009, 05:28 PM
Your point of view is not nuanced at all. You seem to think amateurs -- people with no experience in reporting and no incentive to get things right -- are just as likely to get the facts right as experienced professionals who might get fired if they make too many errors. Is that correct?

If you believe this, it's an idiotic belief.

- Wikipedia has a framework and abides by some standards of accountability .. it is not merely an open page for someone to come in and scribble .. it does not treat all of its contributors equally.

- You are reducing the topic to 'getting facts right', which is not what was stated by me. I am talking about deception and spin, not a mere getting across of facts. I find it amazing that you cannot even meet me halfway here - instead you intentionally misrepresent my statements and then claim that they are absurd. This lacks good will - maybe you're just not following me. I'm not too sure.

It should be clear by now that I have not been talking about simple errors, but about the lack of grounding, a penchant for bias and pitfalls of narrativizing events. Journalism is highly creative writing and most of it takes many great liberties with language. It is much more ambitious in what it attempts than wikipedia and is likewise much more irresponsible.

Good journalists are very hard to find. I respect the good ones.

You're saying Ebert's film reviews are fluff, or film reviews in general are fluff, and those who write them shouldn't receive Pulitzer prizes?

If that is your position, do you film the same way about sports writers who cover mainstream sports and teams, that it's also just fluff?

Please clarify your position on this.

Ebert's reviews are opinion pieces with no real grounding in any theory or research. They do not further the discourse on films. This is true about most film criticism in general. There is some I like, which is rare.

Sports writing is also extremely problematic. It is a very corporate world, wherein existing realities are made to suit predetermined narratives. Even books on tennis history that I admire so much are riddled with errors (many of which have been corrected by hardworking Wikipedia members, many of whom post here - some really intelligent and insightful "amateurs"), but those are written by historians. Though some of them have also worked as journalists.

btw, I just had occassion to seek information on a health issue. I checked out several different sites as I gathered information, but pretty much ignored Wikipedia's entry all together, not wanting to to be led astray. I mean, who are you going to trust to learn about some condition you're unfamiliar with: the Mayo Clinic, or some unknown author's musing on Wikipedia regarding the symptoms and treatment of XYZ disease?

You will probably want to ignore both wikipedia and journalism, unless you're looking for some basics. I would probably look for a professional medical website or actual research on the topic, preferably scholarly/scientific.

Most people who have a health issue and are looking for information, I would bet, are every bit as likely to ask questions on bulletin boards (or read information from bulletin boards) as they are to search for journal articles on the matter. From my personal experience, I tend to look for first-person accounts. But I am aware of the risks of this and tend to remain skeptical.

This is really the best we can do when we have a medical issue. We can find some information, but it's up to the doctor to provide the real info. Journalism, wikipedia and bulletin boards can at most provide us with superficial information. The advantage of wikipedia is that it typically provides a well organized summary on an issue, with added references and links. Bulletin boards, again, provide first-person accounts.

Finally, I do think Wikipedia has a place in this world, and I use it often by default. I just don't trust it as much as other sites. Also, what bothers me just as much as its iffy accuracy is its often amateurish writing. Call me old fashioned, but I like reading stuff by people with experience and ability in writing, and are good enough to earn a living at it. Many of wikipedia's entries read like they are written by high school kids. (Of course, many probably are...)

I like well-written stories as well. But there is good prose and there is grounded, methodologically-sound research and theory. And journalism does not provide this. Journalism is, almost exclusively, a narrative medium and, as such, it has pitfalls of subjectivity. It drowns itself in the stylistics of language and privileges opinion over modestly conveying a situation. Journalism, in catering to the public, is in the business of entertainment. Just like movies.

This does not mean that there do not exist people who can use the medium to do something worthwhile. And their work can be worthwhile in a great variety of ways. But commitment to accuracy and empiricism is not common, regardless of what you may claim.

We can't really speak of wikipedia as thesis-or-antithesis to journalism. My point is simply that wikipedia is much less dangerous and much more modest in terms of the way it conveys information. I greatly admire the effort by wikipedia to develop a set of standards on its website to organize information and encourage its users to cite their sources.

The results are not only reasonably trustworthy, but also devoid of the kind of journo-speak that I particularly detest. This is because wikipedia is about conveying the most basic and important information, while minimizing unnecessary adventures in style. Journalism lacks such standards across the board - it is a field open for and ripe with charlatanism. And it is so because it is by its nature a) immodest and ambitious and b) conveys a false sense of professionalism and expertise.

Most journalists who write on such varied topics as medicine, economics and politics are not truly qualified to do so, even though they may be "professionals" per se.

heycal
01-01-2010, 10:21 AM
- Wikipedia has a framework and abides by some standards of accountability .. it is not merely an open page for someone to come in and scribble .. it does not treat all of its contributors equally.

- You are reducing the topic to 'getting facts right', which is not what was stated by me. I am talking about deception and spin, not a mere getting across of facts..

Let's boil all this down to basics. Now, you can can correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems over the course of this thread you believe two main things:

1) Wikipedia is just as factually acccurate as most professional journalism.

2) Journalists are comitted to serving their corporate masters above all else, and journalists will ask the questions their subjects want to hear if they want to keep their jobs and things to that effect, and most have no interest in accuracy, honesty, or any other noble journalistic concept.

My view boils down to this: your first opinion is silly for the previously stated reasons of professionalism and incentive, and the second belief is some paranoid fantasy that seems fostered by too much time spent on college campuses and not enough time in the real world. Doesn't mean I think all journalists are noble heroes who never make mistakes and all media outlets are great -- as someone who is written about from time to time, I know how badly professional journalists can screw things up. But, by and large, professional journalists are more reliable in every respect than wikipedia.

Your musings about spin and slant are beyond the scope of this discussion, or at least my interest in it.

-

Ebert's reviews are opinion pieces with no real grounding in any theory or research. They do not further the discourse on films.

So?

"Theory"? "Research"? I think the average person would vomit if they had to read some boring piece on film theory. They want to read Ebert's opinion on what's playing at the theater -- they aren't looking for a plate of spinach. Who are we to look down upon them for that desire, or on those who fulfill that desire?

CyBorg
01-01-2010, 11:07 AM
Let's boil all this down to basics. Now, you can can correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems over the course of this thread you believe two main things:

1) Wikipedia is just as factually acccurate as most professional journalism.

2) Journalists are comitted to serving their corporate masters above all else, and journalists will ask the questions their subjects want to hear if they want to keep their jobs and things to that effect, and most have no interest in accuracy, honesty, or any other noble journalistic concept.

I believe that one is not any more likely to find untruths in journalistic pieces than on wikipedia and the kinds of untruths in journalism are more likely to be 'cloaked', 'spun'.

Journalism is, by and large, corporate. Resources like "The Real News" attempt to draw attention to this and fight this by committing to hard-hitting and independent coverage of issues. With mixed results, but I appreciate what they do.

You misinterpret what I say about the intentions of journalists - I don't believe that they necessarily have no interest in accuracy and honesty. I believe that many are in fact quite well intentioned, but are often incompetent, unqualified and either incapable or unaware of ways of properly grounding their work.

My view boils down to this: your first opinion is silly for the previously stated reasons of professionalism and incentive, and the second belief is some paranoid fantasy that seems fostered by too much time spent on college campuses and not enough time in the real world. Doesn't mean I think all journalists are noble heroes who never make mistakes and all media outlets are great -- as someone who is written about from time to time, I know how badly professional journalists can screw things up. But, by and large, professional journalists are more reliable in every respect than wikipedia.

I've been in both college campuses and I've worked as a journalist. I've been influenced by all kinds of points of view, but ultimately I base what I say on what I read. I currently write theory, aesthetics, but I spent years as a journalist before putting that stuff to rest.

I am not really sure how to address most of what you've written above. You simply repeat again that you feel that journalists are reliable. I can say again that I don't think they are. I can reiterate once again that I think that wikipedia and journalism are two very different things. My comments here have been primarily about the ways that language is used to convey information for the dissemination of knowledge.

"Theory"? "Research"? I think the average person would vomit if they had to read some boring piece on film theory. They want to read Ebert's opinion on what's playing at the theater -- they aren't looking for a plate of spinach. Who are we to look down upon them for that desire, or on those who fulfill that desire?

But that's completely fine with me. I read journalism. I enjoy narratives as much as any person. My position is simply that they are, by and large, not true.

I even enjoy the odd Roger Ebert review for what it is.

Journalism is staying right where it is. It thrives on public interest; it conforms to it.

heycal
01-01-2010, 11:26 AM
I am not really sure how to address most of what you've written above. You simply repeat again that you feel that journalists are reliable.

More reliable. I think they are more reliable in every respect than wikipedia. But I'm astonished at how reporters can make errors even when interviews are conducted entirely via email, which is my preferrred way to be interviewed these days. (I'm not some big shot, btw, just someone who does something that garners some minor media attention from time to time.) So let's not overstate my position.


I even enjoy the odd Roger Ebert review for what it is.


Why were you critical of him receiving a Pulitizer Prize? Just because there is some other guy in a related field who's work you think deserves recognition is not sufficient grounds to criticize him for getting one and/or the committee who awarded it to him -- life is so full of people who do good work without recognition that there seems little point in even mentioning it.

CyBorg
01-01-2010, 11:36 AM
Why were you critical of him receiving a Pulitizer Prize?

I'm not really. I just know that he got the Pulitzer prize and when you mentioned the Pulitzer this came to mind. I don't know enough about the Pulitzer, but knowing what I know about Ebert I suspect that it isn't an award I would much care for.

Awards are very political. Not always in a bad way. If awards were merely handed out for greatness, brilliance, genius then this would be a very different world.

Obama just got the Nobel. I didn't fuss about it. It's a gesture of good will that invests in a promise for the future. How worthwhile this is for any of us I have no idea.

heycal
01-01-2010, 11:50 AM
You will probably want to ignore both wikipedia and journalism, unless you're looking for some basics. I would probably look for a professional medical website or actual research on the topic, preferably scholarly/scientific.

Meant to address this one earlier:

Yes, of course I was talking about basics. I'm not saying one should decide how to treat their cancer based on what they read on the internet. But if you want to learn some basic information about a condition you're unfamiliar with, you sure don't want to rely on wikipedia. Almost as unreliable as bulletin boards.:) Your best bet will certainly be Mayo Clinic-type websites that contain articles written by professional writers with an incentive to get things right and who are vetted by editors by an incentive to get things right.

The Mayo clinic or NIH has a reputation to uphold -- Bob, the guy who is writing the wikipedia entry or passing on rumors on a bulletin board, does not.

heycal
01-01-2010, 11:56 AM
I'm not really. I just know that he got the Pulitzer prize and when you mentioned the Pulitzer this came to mind. I don't know enough about the Pulitzer, but knowing what I know about Ebert I suspect that it isn't an award I would much care for.

Didn't Woodward and Bernstein also win a Pulitzer?

What is that you "Know about Ebert"? He works in the entertanment field and provides a service by writing acccesible and entertaining reviews that help people decide whether it's worth spending their money on the latest Clint Eastwood movie. He may not be feeding starving children in Africa, but does that mean it's wrong to give him a prize for excelling at what he does? Or suggest that the prize is worthless because some of the the fields in which it is awarded are not as serious or important as other fields in which the prize is awarded?

Here is the list of hacks and charlatans who won in Ebert's year. Hate to be among these no-goodniks.
http://www.pulitzer.org/awards/1975

CyBorg
01-01-2010, 12:44 PM
Meant to address this one earlier:

Yes, of course I was talking about basics. I'm not saying one should decide how to treat their cancer based on what they read on the internet. But if you want to learn some basic information about a condition you're unfamiliar with, you sure don't want to rely on wikipedia. Almost as unreliable as bulletin boards.:) Your best bet will certainly be Mayo Clinic-type websites that contain articles written by professional writers with an incentive to get things right and who are vetted by editors by an incentive to get things right.

The Mayo clinic or NIH has a reputation to uphold -- Bob, the guy who is writing the wikipedia entry or passing on rumors on a bulletin board, does not.

I would most definitely be hoping that the information on that kind of website is not written by a journalist, but by someone employed in the clinic. At the very least a pharmacist.

CyBorg
01-01-2010, 12:47 PM
Didn't Woodward and Bernstein also win a Pulitzer?

Okay. Not sure what you are getting at here.

What is that you "Know about Ebert"? He works in the entertanment field and provides a service by writing acccesible and entertaining reviews that help people decide whether it's worth spending their money on the latest Clint Eastwood movie. He may not be feeding starving children in Africa, but does that mean it's wrong to give him a prize for excelling at what he does? Or suggest that the prize is worthless because some of the the fields in which it is awarded are not as serious or important as other fields in which the prize is awarded?

Here is the list of hacks and charlatans who won in Ebert's year. Hate to be among these no-goodniks.
http://www.pulitzer.org/awards/1975

In case it wasn't clear enough before, your mention of the Pulitzer prize was not really relevant to the conversation and was not an effective refutation of my points. I addressed this to my eventual chagrin, as I can now see you spinning webs.

heycal
01-01-2010, 12:50 PM
I would most definitely be hoping that the information on that kind of website is not written by a journalist, but by someone employed in the clinic. At the very least a pharmacist.

What's the difference? We are talking about professionals who get paid to write and are held accountable for what they write. In other words, journalists.

CyBorg
01-01-2010, 12:55 PM
What's the difference? We are talking about professionals who get paid to write and are held accountable for what they write. In other words, journalists.

Journalism - tied in to media, press, popular appeal. If you simply mean 'writer' then that's something much more broad and could refer to almost any person.

heycal
01-01-2010, 01:02 PM
Journalism - tied in to media, press, popular appeal. If you simply mean 'writer' then that's something much more broad and could refer to almost any person.

Here's what I mean: regardless of the subject matter or labels, I trust professionals who get paid to write and are held accountable for what they write more than amateurs accountable to no one such as those found on wikipedia.

CyBorg
01-01-2010, 01:05 PM
Here's what I mean: regardless of the subject matter or labels, I trust professionals who get paid to write and are held accountable for what they write more than amateurs accountable to no one such as those found on wikipedia.

I'm glad we understand each other. My point is not the opposite of yours, but I hope I've been able to get across effectively why I disagree.

heycal
01-01-2010, 01:22 PM
Okay. Not sure what you are getting at here.



In case it wasn't clear enough before, your mention of the Pulitzer prize was not really relevant to the conversation and was not an effective refutation of my points. I addressed this to my eventual chagrin, as I can now see you spinning webs.

My orginal mention of the Pulitzer was relevant, and meant to inform you that those who strive for truth and accuracy in their work and demand it in others definitely exist in this field, and they are honored for their efforts -- a counter to your naive "journalists are hacks whose chief allegiance is to corporate masters" mentality. In turn, you took an indirect shot at Pulitzer prize winners and the prize in general by pointing out that someone you didn't respect had won one. My last post rebutted that by providing you with some of the great journalists and authors who had also won the prize for their important contributions to society. So, what aren't you getting?

CyBorg
01-01-2010, 01:29 PM
My orginal mention of the Pulitzer was relevant, and meant to inform you that those who strive for truth and accuracy in their work and demand it in others definitely exist in this field, and they are honored for their efforts -- a counter to your naive "journalists are hacks whose chief allegiance is to corporate masters" mentality. In turn, you took an indirect shot at Pulitzer prize winners and the prize in general by pointing out that someone you didn't respect had won one. My last post rebutted that by providing you with some of the great journalists and authors who had also won the prize for their important contributions to society. So, what aren't you getting?

Okay, but I never said that all journalists are hacks. Again, the point is that one is not likely to encounter accurate information in journalism relative to wikipedia, while I like the wikipedia framework. And I love that ordinary people post information, and they do have to abide by a set of rules.

Referring to an award simply because it is a high profile prize is not really relevant to the discussion.

Individuals should not be judged by awards they receive, but by the excellence of their work. It does not surprise me that a big name award like the Pulitzer has awarded many brilliant people. So have the Oscars - and I'm hoping we both agree that the Oscars are for show.

I very much doubt the Pulitzer prize is truly worth anything, any more than an Oscar. But even if it truly was a clear indication of excellence that would still not perturb my arguments.

P.S. Of course I would prefer a well-written, well-researched work of journalism to an encyclopedia entry (a research paper or even a creative essay is only a work of journalism if disseminated as such). But most works of journalism are sensationalist pieces of garbage. Wikipedia, again, is modest encyclopedia stuff.

heycal
01-01-2010, 03:26 PM
Again, the point is that one is not likely to encounter accurate information in journalism relative to wikipedia, while I like the wikipedia framework. But most works of journalism are sensationalist pieces of garbage.

"Sensationalist pieces of garbage"? This is complete nonsense, as is your oft repeated claim that Wikipedia is just as accurate as journalism. You give the latter way too much credit and the former way too little.

heycal
04-09-2010, 09:27 PM
Just had an occasion to read a Wikipedia entry on something I was already familiar with, and was reminded about how awful it can be.

Avles
04-26-2010, 09:57 PM
It's often not so much the false information that bugs me about Wikipedia as it is the true but stupid information.

For example, for a while last fall, the Wikipedia entry on Tsonga had this under "Playing Style":


In the video Game Grand Slam Tennis, Jo is classed as an all-court player, and his special ability is his 'Hustle'.

Centered
04-26-2010, 11:22 PM
Wikipedia is often very distorted with selective facts and imprecise wording.

For instance, I was just reading an article and it had a variety of distortions and missing information in it.

But, it's a helpful resource nonetheless.

lethalfang
04-27-2010, 07:26 AM
As I've always said, Wikipedia is a great place to start due to its wide breadth, convenience, and cost (free). But due to its open, anonymous, and fluidic nature, it's not meant to be a serious citation source on any subject.

heycal
04-27-2010, 07:51 AM
It's often not so much the false information that bugs me about Wikipedia as it is the true but stupid information.


That's definitely another problem. But this is what happens when an entry is written by some kid with no writing experience and free reign, instead of a professional journalist with an editor looking over his shoulder.

max
04-27-2010, 12:03 PM
Here's what I mean: regardless of the subject matter or labels, I trust professionals who get paid to write and are held accountable for what they write more than amateurs accountable to no one such as those found on wikipedia.

This makes eminent good sense.

Sidd Finch
04-27-2010, 12:28 PM
Wikipedia is often very distorted with selective facts and imprecise wording.

For instance, I was just reading an article and it had a variety of distortions and missing information in it.

But, it's a helpful resource nonetheless.

Maybe the Texas Board of Education got their hands on it and changed (or left out) the information to fit their screwball agenda.

Centered
04-27-2010, 12:31 PM
Maybe the Texas Board of Education got their hands on it and changed (or left out) the information to fit their screwball agenda.
People with various agendas tend to try to take over certain articles. The Ronald Reagan article, for instance, once read like a press release from a former PR agent.

Some actually act like they own certain articles and will revert changes and abuse "citation needed". Some will even refuse to acknowledge citations' relevance and will revert.

But, it's still better than having nothing.

CyBorg
04-27-2010, 12:43 PM
People with various agendas tend to try to take over certain articles. The Ronald Reagan article, for instance, once read like a press release from a former PR agent.

Some actually act like they own certain articles and will revert changes and abuse "citation needed". Some will even refuse to acknowledge citations' relevance and will revert.

But, it's still better than having nothing.

Agendas are commonplace in all kinds of media.

And it's far more damaging and scary when it's dressed up with false legitimacy.

Centered
04-27-2010, 12:46 PM
Agendas are commonplace in all kinds of media.

And it's far more damaging and scary when it's dressed up with false legitimacy.
Sure. At the same time, though, editing on Wikipedia is "easy come easy go", with pages that are constantly morphing, making accountability difficult.

When the more traditional media is wrong, people like Glenn Greenwald can document it at length for all to read (although not so many do).

Centered
04-27-2010, 12:48 PM
December 15, 2005 3:35 PM PST
Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html

So that's something.

richw76
04-27-2010, 01:06 PM
For News I'll stick with NPR and BBC.

But Wiki is usually very accurate from what I've seen. That being said shouldn't you always do your own research to confirm any source.

Centered
04-27-2010, 01:44 PM
For News I'll stick with NPR and BBC.
I've had serious bones to pick with both of them at times, actually. NPR, for instance, presented a "history" once that was really propaganda for a corrupt business. The BBC showed no morality by sensationalizing the execution of people once, too.

There is no perfect news, not even close. As great as Glenn Greenwald is, even, I think his logic is faulty when it comes to free speech absolutism, too

Centered
04-27-2010, 01:52 PM
The BBC: How to Report the News (http://www.break.com/index/how-to-report-the-news.html)

richw76
04-27-2010, 02:12 PM
The BBC: How to Report the News (http://www.break.com/index/how-to-report-the-news.html)

:) that was great!

Illustrates the point that no single source is going to get it right all the time. That being said I think that NPR, Wiki, and even BBC are a little more honest and reliable.

1st off they don't depend on advertising as much due to public funding and ten year review by the bbc and individual funding on NPR. They aren't trying to drag people away from the Jersey Shore so there's LESS titillation and sensationalism.

I have seen wiki entries for example on the Armenian genocide in and near Turkey and although the info is single sided it appears to be mostly accurate.

heycal
04-29-2010, 07:46 AM
This makes eminent good sense.

On would think. Apparently, some paranoid types disagree with this notion.



Illustrates the point that no single source is going to get it right all the time. That being said I think that NPR, Wiki, and even BBC are a little more honest and reliable.

Setting aside the issue of whether wikipedia is as accurate as the BBC or NPR, which I find highly doubtful, this still doesn't adddress the problem of the rampant amateurism on wikipedia. Many of the entries seem authored by high school kids or those who write like them, making them poor sources of information and miserable to read even if their factual error rate is not any higher than other sources.