Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
Regarding all the discussion lately about whether
Wikipedia ought to
have coverage of breaking events right as they happen, this sort of
thing is what brings out both the best and the worst of Wikipedia.
...
On the other hand, such breaking events *also* show the
best and the
worst of the mainstream media. Look at tapes of the live TV or radio
coverage of a major past event (the Kennedy assassination, the Reagan
attempted assassination, the 2000 U.S. presidential election, the
9/11 attacks, Hurricane Katrina) and you'll see the same sorts of
missteps and pratfalls you see on Wikipedia (though generally minus
the outright vandalism). Announcers report rumors and then retract
them. Things are reported as fact that turn out to be false. James
Brady is dead... no he isn't! Bush is projected as the winner... no,
Gore is projected as the winner... no, Bush... no, it's too close to
call. The Pope is dead... no he isn't... OK, *now* he is.
Announcers sometimes interrupt one another to bring in new bulletins.
So, everybody has some problems dealing with events that flood in too
rapidly to keep track of. But at least Wikipedia's coverage
eventually settles down to a reasonable article.
To some extent this question devolves into placing the boundary between
Wikipedia and Wikinews. The overnight claim that Osama bin Laden had
died of typhoid is apparently unverifiable and traced through a single
source. See for example
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-09/24/content_5128781.htm This
story is not ready for Wikipedia, but Wikinews probably needs to keep
track of it. Early reports of the 9/11 attacks also suggested attacks
in other places than those that were in fact attacked. The uncertainty
in the 2000 election was always there; at least the newspapers were able
to avoid the embarassment connected with Dewey's win in 1948. On the
other hand, it has been 43 years since the Kennedy assasination, and the
conspiracy theories haven't died down at all.
On the other hand Wikipedia is able to bring verifiable background
information far more effectively than any other medium, even while the
breaking aspects of the story are clouded with uncertainty.
Ec