The Indiepub Blog

Wikipedia: Great for Blogs, Not for Print

June 22, 2006 1:13 PM Posted by junger

Disclaimers out of the way, first: I love Wikipedia. I love how it covers every topic under the sun, mostly with great information and related content (plus the fact that it's a great time-waster). But as a journalist, Wikipedia is almost always hands-off. As a blogger, however, it's completely fair game. Is this fair? Or does it even matter? And why can't the mainstream media figure this out?

It's been said over and over again that Wikipedia is not a 100 percent reliable source of information -- just ask John Seigenthaler Sr or Dan Abrams. Founder Jimmy Wales has even told college students to stop using it as a source. So why do newspapers and magazines?

In days of yore (which I guess I'm too young to have experienced), background information either came from a knowledgeable human source, or from a tried-and-true written source. So, if a journalist had to turn to an encyclopedia to get an "official" take on a particular item -- no big deal. The information could be sourced to Encyclopedia Britannica or the like. But just because Wikipedia ends in "pedia" doesn't mean it has the same credibility as Encyclopedia Britannica.

For example, an article in one of the magazines I work on recently cited Wikipedia when defining a word. The definition was correct, and that was the end of the reference. Big deal? On its face, not really. But the fact that a name-brand print publication cited information from a non-accountable online contributor starts a very slippery slope. There are the idiots who plagiarize Wikipedia. But it's not just journalists who can be blamed for citing Wikipedia. Apparently a judge in a California appellate court did when ruling on a case.

So why does Wikipedia ever gets cited by the MSM? There are two possibilities here. One, either the media has gotten so lazy on original reporting or, two, they don't really know what Wikipedia is. It's easy enough for a journalist typing a story to bring up Wikipedia for a quick fact about something, rather than filter out results from a Google search or -- get ready for this -- stand up and go find a book on the subject. But, in all honesty, I don't think that that is always the case. More likely, it's that they just don't understand the concept of Wikipedia.

This whole Web 2.0 thing relies upon the power of the masses to generate the best product, and for a number of sites it works great. But with wikis, any person at any point in time can contribute. It seems that most of the time the information is good, but all it takes is one prankster to throw in a misleading or untrue line or two and taint the article's credibility.

So if journalists incorrectly assume that the power of the masses is always right, or just don't even realize that it's mostly undocumented users contributing to Wikipedia, then they might get hit hard when using it as a source.

But this situation only affects tangible publications: namely, not blogs. Blogs, by their own making, can't always be considered reliable, even if they are sometimes as influential as MSM sources. So when blogs link to Wikipedia, it's not an issue. But even online versions of print publications shouldn't use Wikipedia as a source. Why? It's a brand name problem. That one time when the entry is wrong, or gets maliciously gets changed after the link is published, affects the entire brand -- not just the Web publication.

It's a catch-22 for MSM publications, and a win-win situation for bloggers. Blogs can link to Wikipedia entries freely, and then criticize print publications the one time they reference malicious information. It's may not be fair, but shouldn't mainstream publications be holding themselves to a higher standard -- namely, the truth? -- Jason Unger

Comments: