Don't burn books, burn Wikis! Mwahaha!Photo: Nathan Gill and The Interwebs
Wikipedia is informational schwag. Referenced authorities do not author entries, and thus learned folk do not cite Wikipedia in scholastic bibliographies. Game, set, match.
Wikinews is just as problematic as Wikipedia. When reading this news, you don't know who wrote it and anyone can change any article anytime. Here are some other problems to consider:
1. Credibility: Original user-generated wikinews has unidentifiable authorship. This means that any PR asshat can generate news about his company's new product release, and any average Joe can submit an article without interviewing a soul. Wikinews cannot be trusted.
2. Accuracy: According to this article, one Wikinews reporter wrote that the late Pope John Paul II died after his feeding tube was removed. This never happened, and another wikireporter later corrected the entry. Key word: Later.
3. Content: Most wikinews consists of chopped up Associated Press, BBC and New York Times articles that a user copy/pasted together.
Though I think it's cute that everyone is a reporter and editor now, it's just not going to work. It is citizen journalism at its worst. It's anarchic. To quote The Big Lebowski: "This isn't Vietnam…there are rules!"
And OhmyNews in South Korea has them. The news site employs a small band of professional newsies to edit and direct the site's mostly citizen-generated content. The thousands of average Joe reporters submit their news content and the professional staff roots out evil and posts the goodies. They also write some of their own stuff.
In my estimation, the OhmyNews staff have an army of 415ers at their disposal. An army of minionsâ€â€Brilliant.
And thus, balance was brought into the world.
To learn more about citizen journalism, Wikinews and how corporate news suits are coping with change, please let Poynter explain it to you.
Leave a comment