Photo: Flickr user lifeontheedge

Friday, July 07, 2006

Newspapers have been complaining about wikipedia's coverage of Ken Lay's death. Specifically, there was a period of 6 minutes (the time the story was breaking) during which the w'pedia entry's "cause of death" sentence transmogrified through various rumours into fact (including an incident of vandalism that lasted less than a minute).

So it was refreshing to see the readers of a Chicago Tribune blog rise up en mass and argue the blogger down.

(I used to have to do that kind of thing myself =P )

Followup: How I learned to stop worrying and love the wiki.

2 comments:

junger said...

Have to agree with you here. These mindless old media folks don't realize that Wikipedia is not a news site -- it is an encyclopedia. Frank Ahrens in the Washington Post had an even bigger hit piece than the original Reuters story -- he didn't even bother to mention Wikipedia's note that fresh information can often be incorrect.

junger said...

Sorry, don't mean to hit you up with too many comments, but I thought I'd share my thoughts re: the Ken Lay incident.
http://www.jasonunger.com/2006/07/10/wikipedia-and-ken-lay-not-a-real-story/