Title: "Why Wikipedia Should Be Trusted As A Breaking News Source"
Begins with: ************************************ "Most any journalism professor, upon mention of Wikipedia, will immediately launch into a rant about how the massively collaborative online encyclopedia can't be trusted. It can, you see, be edited and altered by absolutely anyone at any moment." But how much less trustworthy is the site for breaking news than the plethora of blogs and other online news sources?" ... ************************************ http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/why_wikipedia_should_be_trusted_or_how_to_consume.php http://tinyurl.com/ybq3xbv The commentary concerning how the Mumbai Terror Attacks was interesting: ********************************************** "...by the end of the first day of the Wikipedia article's life, it had been edited more than 360 times, by 70 different editors referring to 28 separate sources from news outlets around the web. While this could seem like a situation rife for misdirection and misinformation, the constant discussion swirling around the creation of an article, Pantages explained, is "really similar to what you would think should be in a newsroom." Nonetheless, we still disparage Wikipedia as an untrusted source of news." ********************************************** I get the feeling the same mechanisms didn't work as well in regards to the WIKI Cold Fusion article. Apples versus oranges? ...Or are they really the same thing??? But if both really are apples, why did it not work for CF but apparently did work for reporting on the Mumbai Terror Attacks? As always, there is a comments section at the end of the article where you can add your two cents. Mr. Lomax, try to keep your comments down to a page length! ;-) Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
