Breaking News and Wikipedia (Week 8)

In my last blog post, I was a little hard on Wikipedia. Let me put it all in context. I do not believe Wikipedia is a good place to cite information for any particular news story or for an op-ed of sorts. However, it is a great place for new communities to form, and it is considered both an online crowd and an online community. And even though all the information on a Wikipedia page is not always accurate, they have never been sued successfully for libel. Essentially, Wikipedia is protected by the first amendment: speech, religion, assembly, press, and petition.

All that being said, this brings me to my next topic of discussion: Does the latest breaking news cycle affect Wikipedia’s credibility? When it comes to Wikipedia, if the breaking news story is accurate, the post on the Wiki page will be correct. If the breaking news story is off, then the information on the particular Wiki page will also be incorrect.

For example, remember the developing news stories about the “balloon boy” fiasco? 

Check out the initial CNN Breaking News Story:

At first, most news networks reported the 6 year-old boy was trapped in a hot air balloon flying over Colorado. This was mainly because the family of the 6 year-old boy expressed fears to authorities that their son could be inside the balloon. Of course we all know now this was a hoax because authorities later reported the incident was stages by the family.  CNN released a news story three days aftermath of the hoax. But did someone update this on the Wikipedia page regarding the incident?

Another example of this could be the whole Tiger Woods debacle. Let’s be honest, every news network wants to keep this story going because it boosts ratings. However, just like many of the stories regarding Tiger’s latest drama, information reported is constantly changing. Therefore, the information on the Wiki pages regarding Tiger should also be changing – whether it be regarding his latest drama or his golf game. Wikipedia pages need to be updated as new information is delivered.

Furthermore, it is a fact that information is going to change as a story develops. That is why it is important for communities and/or the editors of the Wikipedia pages to keep a close eye on the evolution of breaking news stories and how this relates to the information on the Wiki pages.

Is Wikipedia Considered Trustworthy? (Week 7)

I am home sick today with the cold and flu, which means I have consumed an inordinate amount of cold/cough medicine. That being said, I hope this blog entry makes sense…

I am one of those people who have a grudge against Wikipedia. I cannot use something as a reference that gives just about anyone the power to add information to the pages, whether or not the information is accurate. Based on my experience, I have seen lots of untruths posted to Wikipedia pages, and it is hard to get that information removed. 

I do not trust Wikipedia, and may never trust it because I have seen so many inaccuracies.  You know the saying, “You get what you pay for?” Well, Wikipedia claims it is the “free encyclopedia.” I would rather pay for a professional published Encyclopedia over a free Wikipedia page, created by just about anyone who knows how to edit it or add content to it.

Michael from The Office has some interesting thoughts on Wikipedia. Check out the following video:

Are we a society that discounts standards? The bottom line: one can’t believe everything one reads, and it’s important for individuals to think for themselves. If one does this and seeks the truth, everything will be all good.