As far as Mahitgar's
comment is concerned, I am not sure why any of us should lose any sleep
over the practices or standards of newspapers :-)
::Can some one ask this question to Amol Palekar ji ? This was a bit funny but a true
story remained un/under-reported from Pune Wikimedian community. Amol Palekar was annoyed
with non-factual reporting by media and he wanted to show case it to them. A journalist of
a reknowned national daily called him up, Amol Palekarji gave knowingly gave him incorrect
information and those newspaper guys realy printed the news story without
cross-confirmation.Probably Amol Palekarji also forgot about the instance. That news story
got reffered on en wikipedia as it is. In simmiller way Shruti Sadolikarji complained
people started reffering Amol Palekarji with wrong information , He enquired where the
information is coming from ? and was answered the info is coming from wikipedia. Without
reffering to all thsese rather than critcising wikipedia he praised wikipedia in a fuction
.Marathi News papers picked up that line and reported.Pune marathi wikipedians
happily aproached him with an invitation for an inaugaral function .He accepted the
invitation but made his dipleasure known about incorrect info on wikipedia. We
corrected some of the facts on his insistance before the fuction.As you rightly said I
left one edit to be edited for furter confirmation from him during the meet. Incidently
the main audiance of wiki meet was all pune journalists and journalism students and
Journalism Dept HODs from University of Pune and all.During the speech when he comlained
about mis-information I corrected info in a live demo at the same time brought to notice
that info is coming from a national credible daily news paper.And then he lectured the
audiance for their lapses and importance of cross confirmation of the facts. That is
not all ask media seniors themselves how good the situation on the count we are
discussing. What happens to India does it affect to wikipedia ? specially to Indian
wikipedians ?
What percentage of resources we reffer from online news papers and what percentage from
the books ? For Indic wikipedians who are working to build wikipedia with a cause,
without their fault a wrong information getting displayed on wikipedia , How much a
sincere wikipedian would love that? All the Indians do not get opportunity to explain a
journnalist importance of factual reporting after due cross-confirmation. If a wikipedian
explains them that this affects credibility of the knowledge base a journalist may take
it seriously , but if we dont ? Our own hardwork suffers !
On Wednesday, 8 January 2014 12:49 PM, Vickram Crishna <vvcrishna(a)radiophony.com>
wrote:
The Tribune link
(
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2000/20001107/cth2.htm|accessdate=5%20April%202…) was
wrong, it needs the extension deleted. I note that there is another unreachable or
unlisted reference - [7] - which needs updating.
On 8 Jan 2014 11:03, "Mahitgar from Marathi Wikipedia"
<mahitgar(a)yahoo.co.in> wrote:
The problem is with Indian Media and newspaper industry.Earlier times Cheif editors and
Subeditors used to insist and guide for crossconfirmation of the information being
collected and that is part and parcle of journalists primary responsibility.
As far as Mahitgar's comment is concerned, I am not sure why any of us should lose any
sleep over the practices or standards of newspapers :-)
No doubt even wiki editors can make mistakes but atleast on wiki one can make
corrections.How one will make corrections in newspaper report ? If journalist of a news
paper has made a mistake,people need to ask the media editors first.Wikipedia is just a
seondary source of info.As much a journalist has made a mistake , it is equally mistaken
to blame internet and wikipedia blindly.I suppose.
Why are we discussing this 'in the air'? It should just have been corrected right
away. If the opportunity (ie Internet access) was available, it could have been corrected
right in front of her. What better way to demonstrate the participatory power of the
world's best and most accessible source of information to a sceptic? I think that this
lady, or some of her students, might have become Wikipedians themselves!
Once I read the original Tribune report, the reason for the error became obvious. The
original English is poor usage and could be misinterpreted, which is clearly what happened
in this case: [She belongs to the well-known family of Kolhapur, which apart from its
sugar mills, is also famous for its sweet music.] actually means that Kolhapur is famous
for sugar mills and sweet music). Please let us assign blame where blame lies, or else
hold our peace (always the better option).
On Wednesday, 8 January 2014 6:06 AM, jayant kirtane <j_kirtane(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
Yesterday I met Smt Shruti Sadolikar, musician, in the Music Department of Mumbai
University located in the rear of Churchgate station. In a discussion with PhD students,
a question was raised regarding the reliability of citing internet references. Some of us
gave examples about how Wikipedia was used all over the world for all kinds of reasons.
Smt Sadolikar, who was present, gave an instance of wrong information in Wikipedia:
"Sadolikar was born 1951 into a family from Kolhapur which was known for its musical
tradition and owning sugar mills.[3][4] "
in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shruti_Sadolikar. She said that "a hundred
people" had mentioned the bit about owning sugar mills. This was factually
incorrect, and gave the wrong impression that she came from an affluent family.
Now [4] is a newspaper article: Tandon, Aditi, "Three days of rich musical
treat", The Tribune, 6 November 2000. I looked up the source, and sure enough, it
mentions the sugar mills. So it seems that whoever wrote the article merely repeated a
factual error in the source (which has been properly cited as [4] ).
Smt Sadolikar's father and guru was a musician, Marathi stage artist, music director,
etc. His Wikipedia entry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wamanrao_Sadolikar makes no
mention of sugar mills.
Smt Sadolikar had a point to make: if Wikipedia is to put information about her in the
public domain, is it not their responsibility to inform her about it and confirm that the
information is factual? Some of us had said that Wikipedia was not organized along the
principles of, say, a newspaper, but if a factual error was brought to its notice, it
would be corrected. In that spirit I am sending this mail to your mailing list.
Like the rest of the world I am a grateful user and great fan of Wikipedia.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-in-mum mailing list
Wikimedia-in-mum(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-in-mum
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-in-mum mailing list
Wikimedia-in-mum(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-in-mum
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-in-mum mailing list
Wikimedia-in-mum(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-in-mum