According to Wikipedia

[TheSportsPredictor]

According to Wikipedia, SportsJournalists.com has been described "a gossip-and-moan outlet for every frustrated sportswriter in America."

 

[Johnny Dangerously]

Anyone who runs that without verification is a ******* idiot moron who probably got the job I applied for!!!

 

[Ellis Redding]

Anyone who runs that without verification is a ******* idiot moron who probably got the job I applied for!!!

Hey, I just did better in the job interview, JD. No need for sour grapes. :D

 

[Boomer7]

According to Wikipedia, SportsJournalists.com has been described "a gossip-and-moan outlet for every frustrated sportswriter in America."

Broken clocks, blind squirrels, etc.

 

[buckweaver]

Seriously, I think Wikipedia is a good first place to go for background. Take the information there under advisement and verify. Not as a source.

Bingo.

Never use it as a source, journalistic or academic. But you're crazy if you ignore it as a resource because of "credibility" issues.

 

[write then drink]

According to Wikipedia, SportsJournalists.com has been described "a gossip-and-moan outlet for every frustrated sportswriter in America."

I guess it is pretty accurate then

 

[Jesus_Muscatel]

We strive at our place to be often accurate.

Actually JD you kinda just trotted out the infamous Lester Hayes quote after the Raidahs kicked the **** out of the Skins in the Super Bowl.

As SB week progressed, the writers in Tampa could clearly sense the Raiders were a confident team, and the Skins had peaked. They killed the Rams in their first playoff game, then squeaked by the 49ers and Montana. Even though the Redskins were favored, most of the writers there were picking the Raiders.

Lester predicted the final score would be 42-10. The Raidahs won 38-9.

Lester the Molester, afterward: "We do strive for accuracy."

 

[Write-brained]

I'll be honest, I didn't know it was based on reader contributions until a year or so ago ... I don't think a lot of our reporters did ... but after a couple of papers got burned using it and the lawsuits started popping up it's been rammed down our throats not to use it ... can't imagine that the message hasn't reached everybody.

Do you have a link Sue?

 

[SoSueMe]

I'll be honest, I didn't know it was based on reader contributions until a year or so ago ... I don't think a lot of our reporters did ... but after a couple of papers got burned using it and the lawsuits started popping up it's been rammed down our throats not to use it ... can't imagine that the message hasn't reached everybody.

Do you have a link Sue?

I just checked. The story is down. New stuff is posted.

Anyway, at our paper, we've had THREE MEMOS in a week reminding us to NOT USE Wikipedia.

 

[Ace]

I'll be honest, I didn't know it was based on reader contributions until a year or so ago ... I don't think a lot of our reporters did ... but after a couple of papers got burned using it and the lawsuits started popping up it's been rammed down our throats not to use it ... can't imagine that the message hasn't reached everybody.

Do you have a link Sue?

I just checked. The story is down. New stuff is posted.

Anyway, at our paper, we've had THREE MEMOS in a week reminding us to NOT USE Wikipedia.

I have a four memo mininum if they really want my attention.