1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

A NYT Lede That Duplicates Wikipedia

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by YankeeFan, Jul 30, 2014.

  1. MisterCreosote

    MisterCreosote Well-Known Member

    That's also temporarily ignoring that any self-respecting journalist should never use Wikipedia as a source in the first place.

    Still, when you directly copy and paste things without annotating, you get what you deserve.
     
  2. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    Yeah, there's definitely that.
     
  3. da man

    da man Well-Known Member



    That looks like it came from Pitino. I don't know about the rest of it.


    This has nothing to do with attribution, but if Keltner was playing third, wouldn't he have to dive to his right to go into foul ground?
     
  4. MisterCreosote

    MisterCreosote Well-Known Member

    Perusing that Calipari piece a bit more closely, I really see no major problems regarding attribution.

    Not sure what the beef is with it.
     
  5. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    I have no idea where any of the information came from. I know he asked Rick Pitino about the information. I know he asked Bruiser Flint about the information. I have no idea where the information came from, however.
     
  6. MisterCreosote

    MisterCreosote Well-Known Member

    Well, there seems to be consensus that the story got spread around at the Big East coaches' meeting in 1986, either through Carnesecca or Pitino.

    And, the story has Calipari, Evans, Flint, Pitino and Carnesecca all referencing the incident. Are they not good sources?

    I've gone story-hunting based on much less-substantiated rumors than that.
     
  7. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    Of course they are.

    But the information is not attributed to any of them. I don't know where the information came from.
     
  8. SnarkShark

    SnarkShark Well-Known Member

    Bullshit. If you think this could be an accident, I'm concerned with the methods you might use to write a story.
     
  9. MisterCreosote

    MisterCreosote Well-Known Member

    It really doesn't matter where a rumor comes from once it's substantiated by numerous sources, including the primary people involved.
     
  10. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    No one confirms the details that Price relates. They just respond to some sort of question about the incident. The anecdotes throughout that section are not attributed. Has it been reported previously? Is this new information? Did Price get it from a Lexington paper article? A source? I can't tell. Nothing's attributed.
     
  11. MisterCreosote

    MisterCreosote Well-Known Member

    The relevant details are attributed.

    Other than that, it appears it's more urban legend than anything else, and Price treated it accordingly.
     
  12. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    If you discussed an urban legend in, say, a paper you turned in for a college folklore class, you would have to cite the source of the urban legend, i.e. where you heard it. Price doesn't do that.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page