[WikiEN-l] About our disclaimer and what I wish...

Tue Dec 6 19:02:18 UTC 2005

>
> "Yes, Kyra, and let me read you the disclaimer from _your_ website:
> NEITHER CNN, ITS AFFILIATES NOR ANY OF THEIR RESPECTIVE EMPLOYEES,
> AGENTS, THIRD PARTY CONTENT PROVIDERS OR LICENSORS WARRANT THAT CNN
> INTERACTIVE WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR ERROR FREE; NOR DO THEY MAKE ANY
> WARRANTY AS TO THE RESULTS THAT MAY BE OBTAINED FROM USE OF CNN
> INTERACTIVE, OR AS TO THE ACCURACY, RELIABILITY OR CONTENT OF ANY
> INFORMATION, SERVICE, OR MERCHANDISE PROVIDED THROUGH CNN INTERACTIVE."
>
> But I didn't have that handy.

>Well, it's pretty obvious from the interview that she was out to get
>you.  CNN's coverage evinces clear bias.  We do need to work on your
>preinterview briefings, though....

>It's been interesting to note the errors, minor and major, in the news
>coverage of this incident.  One radio report in Chicagoland reported
>that Seigenthaler was a former Senator.  At least one blog report
>demanded absolute accuracy -- while misspelling Seigenthaler's name
>consistently throughout.  Almost all the print and electronic media
>articles I've seen misreport Wikipedia's URL as www.wikipedia.com
>(instead of .org).  The conclusion I've reached is that the media is
>no more accurate than we are.  I think it would be a really good idea
>to take the media coverage of this incident and identify all the
>errors in their coverage -- some of which reaches the level of libel
>itself (such as the one that says that Jimbo ignored Seigenthaler's
>entreaties for four months before bothering to act).  Their house is
>no cleaner than ours.

>Kelly
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

I don't think it's really their house we should be worried about. Granted
they are no more infallible than we are but it's the message the
audience/public is getting that we care about. They know CNN makes mistakes,
but they consider it generally reliable. They know we make mistakes, the
message we have to get across is that we can be a reliable source of
information as well. The fact that there were non-critical errors in
covering this story doesn't really change their perception.

I guess it's sort of a hearts and minds thing.....