On 7/9/06, Anthony <wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote:
Why is it that Wikipedians seem to have so much
trouble accepting
legitimate criticism?
Legitimate criticism should be welcomed, but when the headline says
"Wikipedia" as a whole has "confusion" and was "reeling,"
then that's
sensational.
Academics and reporters who know that I've published about Wikipedia
ask me - "So, how is that crisis on Wikipedia on Ken Lay?" One even
requested to do a TV interview about it.
I've written a response on my blog to these folks, explaining the
lifescycle of a Wikipedia article:
http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2006/07/05/wikipedias-ken-lay-problem/
Wikipedia should be getting its facts *more* correct
than the news
outlets, not less. I remember a similar mess after the death of
[[Jean Charles de Menezes]]. Wikipedia articles repeated
unsubstantiated rumor as though it was fact.
Since Wikipedia depends on the first-hand reporting from news outlets,
it can only be as good as the ability of human editors to converge on
the best version of "the truth" using those sources.
-Andrew