On 9/21/06, Peter Jacobi <peter_jacobi(a)gmx.net>
wrote:
"Stephen Bain"
<stephen.bain(a)gmail.com> wrote:
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.
If a Wikipedia article is "the best source available", it has
become original research.
Note that I'm referring specifically to current events articles. While
online media outlets and the print media do occasionally offer
"in-depth" stories on current events, setting out background
information and historical context, they're rarely (if ever) as
comprehensive or as timely as Wikipedia's articles are.
Also note that I'm talking about sources that Wikipedia would be
competing against. A personal account written by a veteran journo on
the scene may well be the best thing to read about an event, but it's
not something that's comparable to Wikipedia.
In avoiding original research we create a composite. With thousands of
eyes watching the development of a topic from different angles we are in
a better position to represent multiple sources. A for-profit media
outlet can't possibly afford to take into account whether its sources
are independent of each other. In the interest of getting the
information out quickly, or at least more quickly than its competitors
it needs to go with what it considers reliable sources,. like the
wireservices. Once the story is public it can't unprint the
newspapers. The opportunities for broadcast media are a little better.
We (especially in Wikinews) are in a position where we can more easily
adapt our report based on evolving information. Not only that, but our
article histories are able to chronicle how the story developed.
Background information can be tracked down almost on demand.
Ec