Features Podcasts Family Video Comics Music Tech Science Books Film & TV Games ✚

Jill

Weinberger: Why the media can't get Wikipedia right

Cory Doctorow at 9:52 am Mon, Jan 2, 2006

— FEATURED —

THE LATEST

Guatemala: Archive of documents from Rios Montt genocide trial, overturned 10 days after guilty verdict

Feature

Eurovision 2013: An American in London

Book Review

The Twelve-Fingered Boy - mesmerizing YA horror novel

Book Review

Black Code: how spies, cops and crims are making cyberspace unfit for human habitation

— FOLLOW US —

Boing Boing is on Twitter and Facebook. Subscribe to our RSS feed or daily email.

 

— POLICIES —

Except where indicated, Boing Boing is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution

 

— FONTS —

Tweet
Kindle
David Weinberger -- author of the magnificent Small Pieces Loosely Joined -- has published a great article anaylzing press-coverage of Wikipedia called "Why the media can't get Wikipedia right."

In the press-storm following on from Seigenthaler's damning of Wikipedia, there has been a stream of unfair criticism of Wikipedia. The press -- both mainstream and tech -- has hunted for ways to damn Wikipedia, nits to pick and indictments to lay, not to mention a healthy dollop of legal hysteria about the possibility that Wikipedia could be sued for libel.

Weinberger expertly dissects the media's claims about Wikipedia (a resource that I consult daily) and makes some shrewd guesses about why the press can't think straight about Wikipedia.

There were lots of little errors of tone. For example, Robert Lever, writing for the Agence France-Presse, said:
In an unusual bit of self-criticism, Wikipedia notes on its site that some complain about "a perceived lack of reliability, comprehensiveness, and authority" in the encyclopaedia.
"Unusual"? Wikipedia has been a continuous state of self-criticism that newspapers would do well to emulate. It has discussion pages for every article. It has handled inaccuracies not defensively but with the humble understanding that of course Wikipedia articles will have mistakes, so let's get on with the unending task of improving them. Wikipedia's ambitions are immodest, but Wikipedia is not.

And Daniel Terdiman wrote for C-NET:

The article stayed on Wikipedia – the free, open-access encyclopedia – for four months before Seigenthaler finally got the service's founder, Jimmy Wales, to agree to take it down.
"Finally"? Sounds like Jimmy Wikipedia Wales was resistant? Nah. I asked Jimmy about this. He was contacted by Seigenthaler once. Jimmy immediately removed the previous versions of the article so people couldn't come upon it by accident. Previous versions are not indexed by the search engines, but, Jimmy said, "We do that fairly often as a courtesy to people, if there's something disparaging to people in the article." Added Jimmy, Seigenthaler "didn't request that it be deleted. He seemed to be surprised that we were willing to do that."
Link

I write books. My latest is a YA science fiction novel called Homeland (it's the sequel to Little Brother). More books: Rapture of the Nerds (a novel, with Charlie Stross); With a Little Help (short stories); and The Great Big Beautiful Tomorrow (novella and nonfic). I speak all over the place and I tweet and tumble, too.

More at Boing Boing

Eurovision 2013: An American in London

The technology that links taxonomy and Star Trek

Comments are closed.