On 9/21/06, Andrew Lih <andrew.lih(a)gmail.com> wrote:
At Wikimania 2006, I described this phenomenon - Wikipedia uniquely
fills the gap between "the news" and the history books. It's an
instantaneous cumulative view of the state of the world, given the
best information at that point in time. Rather than shedding this
function, we should be embracing and celebrating it.
An excellent way of viewing it, I agree wholeheartedly. This is an
area, in my view, where the wiki model really shows its strengths
compared with traditional formats. Rolling news coverage from the
large outlets can offer detail and nuance that a Wikipedia article
can't match, but there's really no equivalent to a Wikipedia article
in terms of providing a comprehensive overview of a news story,
including its historical context, as it happens.
Take [[2006 Thailand coup d'état]], already a pretty strong article
with plenty of references. It covers the immediate events, the current
state of affairs politically, and summarises the responses in Thailand
and abroad. It's even beginning to synthesise a little analysis
emerging from the media.
The articles on last year's London bombings are also good examples.
[[2006 transatlantic aircraft plot]], within a few hours after the
story broke, was just about the best source available.
--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain(a)gmail.com