[WikiEN-l] Re: WP Credibility watch

Thu Sep 22 12:18:19 UTC 2005

>From: Andrew Lih <andrew.lih at gmail.com>

>- Wikipedia pounds other 'pedias when it comes to current events coverage

One of the things Wikipedia does best, IMHO, is to cover "history in the 
making" by synthesizing and integrating news stories.

There are large numbers of Wikipedians with interest in the news, and large 
numbers of detailed news articles available. It's much easier to research the 
story of pre-Katrina hurricane preparation in New Orleans than it is to 
research what happened to Liberal Arts Inc. in Pittsfield, MA in 1947. You 
actually do have collaboration between many editors and the stories end up 
well-written, well-balanced, with concise summaries of developing events and 
facts supporting the main points of view. 

I used to find that the weekly newsmagazines did a more consistent job of 
following and following UP stories than the daily newspapers. Wikipedia does 
a better job than the newsmagazines. Three months after an event, when the 
news stories are no longer available in Google News, Wikipedia has good, 
detailed yet selective summaries of what the news was.

Of course, it's a little scary if Wikipedia is relying on the press as its 
source while the press is relying on Wikipedia! 