10 Newspaper Myths Deconstructed

Wikipedia is not a scientific resource, but its entries are generally more informative and more up to date. Yes, it is inaccurate at times, but we know it - and compared to the Encyclopedia it doesn't have the appeal that it's infallible, which, by the way is more concerning than the fact that you could write an entry on me making up all kinds of nonsense. As, if you try doing that on a relevant person or topic, you wouldn't get very far. Relevant wikipedia entries are being read and controlled by thousands of eyes. That is a very big advantage. The only way the encyclopedia can compete is by opening up as well. I'd suggest though that they go the citizendium way, that is allowing only entries by clearly identified people. This is, if you ask me, the main problem that wikipedia faces: Anonymity. If you had to identify yourself you wouldn't even think about writing all kinds of nonsense...

 

News stories editable by readers? Stupid.

A wiki covering community events, unimportant little league and high school sports and other local stuff that's in every paper? Not as stupid. Give readers a chance to actually fix all the stuff they call and complain about and you might have a bunch of happy readers. Saves the real journalists from taking swim meet times when Johhny Swimmer's mom can just enter them herself.

 

Exactly. Also smart: Allow transparent version control. Let users write articles. Interlink articles. Very stupid: Let users write anonymously into the editorial like the LA Times.

BTW, here is another interesting better written 10 point-list on the same subject:
http://www.ryansholin.com/2007/06/02/10-obvious-things-about-the-future-of-newspapers-you-need-to-get-through-your-head

 

Fix in as make right or fix as in to make sure Lil' Johnny finished first?
I've told this story before, but I had a friend who used to call in fake hole-in-ones all the time and would laugh and laugh everytime they got published.
If a reader doesn't like a story, they can get a correction, write a letter to the editor or submit an article for publication. What's wrong with that model?

 

The notion of the newspaper wiki kills me.

Both of my local newspapers now allow for reader comments posted directly under their articles online, a trend that's increasingly widespread. Read some of those comments and then ask yourself if you're comfortable with those same people editing the article. Honestly, I'm not comfortable with most of those people breathing.

There are a few guys who go through the crime stories every day and post messages about why the "f*%#ing Mexicans" should be shot or sent home. That'll look nice in the article.

For what it's worth, I agree with much of the rest of the list -- particularly about maintaining a single identity and not allowing crap online you wouldn't allow in the paper. My local paper's website is evenly split between local crimes and headlines about actresses who may pose nude. It's hard to believe an adult editor ever glances at it.

 

Couldn't agree more. You misunderstand 2 points. In the model I suggest

1. Readers cannot edit journalist's articles.
2. Every contributor has to be identified with his real name.

The newspaper wiki allows readers to write own articles though.

 

Cool. I think I'll start contributing under the name Oliver Reichenstein. You see what I'm driving at?

 

Of course I do. But identity theft is not such a problem if the registration process is strict enough:

http://www.citizendium.org/cfa.html

In our project we have similar restrictions for user accounts. It's a lot of work in the beginning, but it saves a lot of nerves later on. Comments have been really sophisticated. Maybe even too sophisticated, as people seem to be too scared to comment.

 

Just to be up front I am a high school sports writer, but are you seriously comparing high school sports to little league and community events? And the comment "all the other local stuff that's in every paper" is ridiculous. The whole point of local papers is their local stuff isn't in other newspapers. It's why papers under 50k circulation exist and will continue to exist.
I love the hatred for high school sports on this board. Most of the people on here got their starts covering it and I would say the high school sports is read much more than generic AP copy on national sporting events that the reader could have read about the night before if they really cared.

 

Screw it, let's just make everything wiki. After all, there are a lot of smart people out there that know how the war in Iraq should be run, right? So let's set up a site where people can command troops in the field. And how about we have a wikiMD, where we all get together and diagnose patients? Oliver clearly has a very low opinion of journalists. There's a reason we get paid to do what we do: it's because we're experts at it. You drag the masses into it, and ultimately there's no more news, just opinion, disguised as it may be. And I would love - LOVE - to see a wiki article on a preps football game, because let me tell you, Oliver, that's not anything that would even remotely approach a realistic account of what happened.

 

I start repeating myself: I have the highest esteem for any professional that is doing his job well. And I also stated before that I would NOT allow the masses to edit a Journalist's work. I wouldn't allow a hairdresser to fly a plane either. And I said it before as well: I absolutely mean point 1-9, while, of course, I am aware that point 10 is one massive provocation. Nevertheless we did a magazine as a wiki and it has been a huge succes so far. We'll see where it moves, once readers are allowed to write articles.

 

I'll trust an encyclopedia any damn day, week, month, minute, hour or second over wikipedia. Are you freaking kidding me? General morons who make contributions aren't in any way reliable for information or "discussion" of a productive nature. I don't want to read a freaking discussion of news either. I want the facts whether it be from an online newspaper or a printed version.

The wiki development of newspapers is about the most retarded idea I have heard of to date as to where newspapers are headed. It goes against everything a newspaper's editorial content is based on. If I need facts, I go to sources that provide them as does any person seriously researching a subject. Wikipedia cannot be trusted and never will be.