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]"?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
:)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike: thanks for the post and comment. good points all around.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I never did see a correction on that article.
-cmh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ban em all
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wait a second
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wikipedia = HHGTTG
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wikipedia = HHGTTG
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: HHGTTG
Don't Panic!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]