On 17/01/07, charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com
<charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
"David Gerard" wrote
> Journalists are a good audience to get this
across to, because they
> looove Wikipedia - it's the universal background resource (an area
> where our breadth is a strength).
> This is also useful for getting across to journalists that saying
> "according to Wikipedia" is as appropriate as it would be using any
> useful but non-canonical source. Attribute your sources!
Unsourced recent reports of deaths on WP are in the
same class as 'unconfirmed reports', i.e. rumours that have got onto the wire
services qua rumours. If the hacks take unsourced stuff from WP without provenance they
are not doing the job they are paid for.
With some prominent recent firings of journalists for plagiarism from
Wikipedia, I think this matter is in their awareness!
I also find it useful telling them the story of the circular reference
that was discussed on this list a short while ago - Wikipedia article
gets reference added, editor tracks down journalist who wrote
reference, journalist says he read it on Wikipedia ... ahem! That's
embarrassing for them too. "Always note 'According to Wikipedia', like
you would quoting a person."
- d.