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!

According to Wikipedia

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by SoSueMe, Mar 12, 2007.

  1. SoSueMe

    SoSueMe Active Member

    Does anyone else cringe when they read this in a story?

    As handy as Wikipedia is, I still wouldn't quote it or use it as a source in a story.

    The recent run of errors and deceitful employee(s) the company had working there, I just can't bring myself to use it as a credible source. Not to mention, anyone with a computer can ad anything they like to any category (i.e. The Vince-Carter-sucks-dick-on-his-summers-off entry)
     
  2. ColbertNation

    ColbertNation Member

    According to Wikipedia, Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information. It is more like an un-monitored message board where opinion or conjecture becomes fact.
    I will use it if I need someone's birthday or something like that, but, inevitably, I double-check even that because you can't know where that information came from.
     
  3. Frank_Ridgeway

    Frank_Ridgeway Well-Known Member

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm
     
  4. dawgpounddiehard

    dawgpounddiehard Active Member

    If I would see that in a writer's copy... that shows to me he or she is a lazy journalist.
     
  5. SF_Express

    SF_Express Active Member

    I "trust" it for the most basic things when cross/double-checking facts, and even then, with great care.

    It can be a resource to at least help confirm something that's out there multiple times, or as a quick reminder for something. That's about it.
     
  6. franticscribe

    franticscribe Well-Known Member

    It's showing up now as a source in legal opinions, including at least 13 cases from the circuit courts of appeal just below the Supreme Court, and in law review articles:

    http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/02/when_is_it_appr.html
     
  7. Idaho

    Idaho Active Member

    Why would you use wikipedia as a source when you will undoubtedly find dozens of other sources using a google search?
     
  8. Frank_Ridgeway

    Frank_Ridgeway Well-Known Member

    Yes, if it's a topic that I have some knowledge about and just need a memory kick-start. If it's a topic I know little about, then it's dangerous. It's amazing what I see there when it's an area of my expertise, all kinds of stuff that just isn't true.
     
  9. ondeadline

    ondeadline Active Member

    Wikipedia should only be used to suggest a fact that should be confirmed by an official site or source before using in the paper.
     
  10. I can't believe any legitimate news organization, college journalism professor or reporter would cite Wikipedia as a source!

    It's simply not credible.
     
  11. SoSueMe

    SoSueMe Active Member

    I agree. But in a story today in a (fairly) major paper I read a sentence that started with "According to Wikipedia . . ."
     
  12. expendable

    expendable Well-Known Member

    I wouldn't frown on "according to Wikipedia" in a light column, because it would be followed by "and you can take it for what it's worth," but never in a hard news story.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page