Does The NY Times Donate To Wikipedia For Being A Massive Source Of Information?
from the questions,-questions dept
Glyn Moody points us to an interesting analysis, by David Gerard, of yet another problem with the NY Times' moronic paywall: that it means the NY Times will be cited a lot less on Wikipedia, thereby handing over the "first draft of history" to other publications like The Guardian and the BBC.But the even more interesting point comes after that:
Every journalist I've spoken to since 2006 uses Wikipedia as their handy universal backgrounder. Funnily enough, there's a distinct lack of donations to the Wikimedia Foundation from newspapers and media organisations. How much did the New York Times donate in the fundraiser?Marcus Carab, who works in a newsroom, made a similar point in response to that article a few weeks ago when the NYTime's Bill Keller claimed that the Huffington Post was a "pirate site," in that newspaper reporters rely on tons of other sources that never get any credit, let alone payment (excuse Marcus' Canadianisms, he can't help it):
We do this stuff for everyone to use and reuse. Journalists taking full advantage of this is absolutely fine. But claiming we should then pay the papers for the privilege is just a little odious.
Forget the fact that pavement-pounding reporting is a form of aggregation from the public - newspapers actively aggregate from tonnes of published sources too. Every newsroom has a table covered in copies of every other newspaper in town - in case you missed something, or they got an angle you didn't, or you think one of the stories can be taken further. In addition to reporting, all journalists do research: they look up other articles on the topic, find past magazine interviews and pull data from published reports. Many science articles in newspapers are just summaries of journal articles.So this raises a really good point about the silly claims from the NY Times and others about how they need to get paid, since they believe that they're the "originators" of the news. I do wonder how many of the people at the NY Times did contribute to Wikipedia? I would bet many of the folks who insist that their own work needs to be paid for by users, have in turn never once contributed to Wikipedia.
And that's just what went on and still goes on in the traditional media ecosystem, amongst the old players. Newspapers actively aggregate from blogs too. Every journalist in entertainment or technology starts his morning looking for leads on blogs, and the first thing any reporter does when they get an assignment on a topic they aren't familiar with is look it up on Wikipedia.
Information comes in all sorts of forms from all sorts of places. The NY Times is good at what it does. No one is denying that. But it's delusional in its thinking that it somehow is the piece of the puzzle that is worth the most here.
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
Filed Under: donations, journalism, paywall, sources
Companies: ny times, wikipedia
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Warning: may contain sarcasm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oy
So true, and so wrong. They're 'originators' much like record labels are. And increasingly equally disposable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are newspapers bound to only use the rules of "absolutely free and open information" when they publish their newspapers, or are they allowed to use the existing laws as they see fit to apply copyright, etc?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Newspapers are not in the information ecosystem?
What ecosystem are they in? The one with wolves and bunnies in the forest?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's not quite the same thing, unless of course you squint your eyes a lot and consumer a fair amount of booze.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ahhh..apparently another industry which really doesn't understand what business they are actually in.
Kind of like the railroad industry thinking that they were in the railroad business when really it was the transportation business. The railroads were way behind the 8-ball when they started to get competition from trucking and didn't know how to react in a timely fashion because of it.
Keep thinking like this and newspapers will become as about relevant as the town crier is nowadays.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I usually ignore typos, but that one is rather telling.
The NY Times thinks it is in the business of providing news to consumers. Passive, dumb consumers who just buy what they are sold. And yes, that is part of the wider information ecosystem. But that part is shrinking, and the growth is in the interactive information system where active users (not passive consumers) get involved in spreading and rebutting information.
Isn't that what you do, AC? Even though you fail miserably at the rebuttal part, I would put money that you spend much more of your time on TechDirt interacting with the writers and other commenters than you do passively reading the news from the NYT or any other newspaper than you can name. If you don't reply, I'll assume I'm right. If you do reply, you've proven I'm right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ahh Morton's fork - nice!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Reality hits!!
You swing wildly and miss!
You swing wildly and miss!
The point hits.
You died. DYWYPI?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What is also kind of funny is the amount of times I have seen commenters here on Techdirt completely disregard someone's argument because they used Wikipedia as source.
I guess Wikipedia is more reliable then some people think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The trick to using Wikipedia is to never mention that your source of information is Wikipedia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Which is sort of true - because every Wikipedia article is supposed to include citations from another source. Wkipedia is never truly a source - rather it is a conduit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
job of the news. The paper contains outright political propaganda. You can often identify these stories by their distinctive weaselspeak. For example, an article saying that
Climate Change is being widely criticized but does not provide
an names for the critics, who are actually Rush Limbaugh and
his clones.
For more documentation, see www.dailyhowler.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wages
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The mainstream media is falling to many of the same economic pressures as other media: it is a lot cheaper to do reporting if you never have to get up and leave your desk. It's even easier if you disclaim all responsibility by saying that you're not reporting, you're opinion blogging.
I would vastly prefer if there were more reporters out there in the world with boots on the ground collecting facts as close to the source as possible. And if those reporters were held to high standards.
Nobody seems interested in figuring out how to make that profitable, though. Everyone is too busy tripping over themselves heralding how awesome aggregation is, how everybody is doing it, how objectivity is a myth, how the emergent behavior of the crowd will cause decentralized reporting organically (backed up by little more than anecdotes), etc.
It seems to me that the public at large undervalues good reporting and overvalues newsertainment-punditry. Or it can't tell the difference. In doing so, it undermines its own interests. This smacks very much of "you get the government you deserve." Who is served by that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That may be one of the more ridiculous statements. Plenty of us have been working hard to demonstrate all sorts of compelling and profitable business models.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Most of them, I would think. People find original reporting quite valuable. For those who can do it, it's hard to beat the business models those enable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But people can get the exact same reporting, plus a lot of other stuff (community, commentary) from any of dozens of aggregator sites, often within minutes of it being released on the "original" source. Notwithstanding the fact that people seem to find good original reporting and much-cheaper punditry and demagoguery about equally valuable.
If original reporting is so valuable, why aren't you hiring reporters?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I disagree with almost all of this. I don't think people find those things equally valuable when you're really talking about good reporting. I think the issue is that most reporting just isn't that good, so it doesn't engender a reaction of value.
However, take a good piece in the Atlantic or the New Yorker, and you can bet that people are fascinated by the original work and will go to it.
As for the claim that people can get the exact same thing, this is also false. The actual reporters aren't in those communities. That they're not in the communities that publish the original works is part of the problem, but I can write about Malcolm Gladwell all day here and the likelihood of him showing up to discuss is likely nil. But if he showed up and discussed stuff on the NYers website, people would come. In droves.
You can't copy that.
And that's the point. Focus on providing additional value that can't be copied. Then, the stuff that is copied only makes those "can't be copied" things more valuable.
The more widespread a discussion about a particular article is, the more people would be interested in discussing it further with the original reporter.
If original reporting is so valuable, why aren't you hiring reporters?
Logical fallacy. That's not our business. Just because I describe what a good business is, it does not mean that I also need to pursue it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No one journalist or paper can fact check as well as half a million interested members of the public, whether they have to leave their desks to do it or not.
When I do read the the websites of newspapers and major news organisations, I value the opinion pieces more highly than the ubiquitous 'The government/BPI/self serving industry group has announced...' re-edited press releases that have become the norm for most journalists.
If mainstream news was as good and relevant as it claims to be, people would read it. And if the vast majority of people are so stupid that they would rather read "newsertainment-punditry", then the obvious solution for the newspapers struggling to make ends meet is to produce that kind of news.
Trying to tell people that what they want is the wrong thing is rarely a good business strategy, no matter how noble the intention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's expanding the meanings of both good and does, often the Times is crappy and the writers lazy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
reporting is aggregating
Typical sophistry. There's a big difference between a reporter who spends hours, days or months on a story and some aggregator who spends minutes or even seconds. Heck, some so-called aggregators are completely automated.
Society doesn't work if we don't reward the people who are doing the heavy lifting. To lump all of the checking and rechecking in the same general ballpark as some schmoe who copies a link and a big chunk of text is foolish. There's a big difference in their effort and there should be a big difference in how they share the fruits of this labor. If not, the real workers stop working.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: reporting is aggregating
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: reporting is aggregating
False dichotomy. Who said anything about not rewarding the people doing the heavy lifting? That's where you're just making stuff up again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Going to all lengths to get the story...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
David Gerard, and Fred Bauder too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Clarification
- i.e., Cohen was calling Wikipedia a bunch of thieves for daring to use the NYT as a reference source. o_0
I and others directly questioned him on this at the time, but he didn't answer. I presume he stands by this opinion. See if you can get him to expand on it, I've always wanted to know how he justifies that one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]