In reading through the Green Day story, it's clear most of you are very familiar with Wikipedia.
And in many ways, that's a good thing. I check Wikipedia pages all the time, when I'm first checking out a story idea or beginning my research.
Wikipedia has a lot of information on many different subjects. However, because it's entries are created by users -- any of you could get on there right now and add to a topic -- its accuracy has been questioned from time to time.
The former editor of the Nashville Tennessean earlier this year discovered that someone had listed him as a suspect in the murder of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., which wasn't true. Wikipedia itself recently blocked posts from Congressional aides because it turned many of them were either posting flattering stuff about their bosses or negative stuff about their political foes.
On the other hand, a study
study by the respected journal Nature found that Wikipedia articles on average were almost as accurate as similar entries in the Encylopedia Brittanica.
Still, for now, Wikipedia should not be your primary source for background on news stories. Here's what I'd ask you to do:
-- Feel free to use Wikipedia as an initial place to look for info, as sort of a place to check out tips or find leads for your research.
-- But don't use the stuff you find there in your work unless you verify it somewhere else.
-- Instead, look for other sites that are more established or mainstream to verify anything you find there. Such as Nexis or Factiva, which are available through the CSULB library.
-- By avoiding Wikipedia as your sole source of information you'll avoid repeating any errors there, and also be double-checking the material you're using.
-- And, as always, be sure to attribute your background material when appropriate.
No comments:
Post a Comment