FONT SIZE | RSS FEEDS EMAIL THIS PRINT THIS POST A COMMENT EMAIL ALERTS
View all blog entries
February 2008
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
« Jan   Mar »
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
2526272829  
Monthly archives
Unicorns aren’t real, either

Most people think of journalists as cynical, skeptical alcoholics pounding away at a typewriter keyboard while smoking and making light of some tragedy with gallows humor, the kind of thing you might see in old movies. But they’re smart, see? It’s hard to fool a real newspaperman. And while we wish that were the case, the reality is much different.

Take for example this excerpt from a story in American Journalism Review, a magazine that covers the newspaper industry. The story was about newspapers that use information from Wikipedia, the online database that allows anybody to write or edit entries about a vast array of subjects. Sayeth AJR

Hubble Smith, the Review-Journal business reporter who wrote the crane story, says he was simply looking for background on construction cranes for a feature on the Las Vegas building boom when the Wikipedia entry popped up during a search. [It claimed the ancient Greeks invented cranes.] It was among the most interesting information he found, so he used it. But after his story went to the desk, a copy editor flagged it.

"He said, ‘Do you realize that Wikipedia is just made up of people who contribute all of this?’" Smith recalls. "I had never used it before." The reference was checked and allowed to remain in the story.

It’s hard to imagine the worst part of this story: Was it that Smith didn’t know that Wikipedia is written by just about anybody with an Internet connection, and that entries can be edited to include total bullshit? Or was it that he didn’t check information he randomly got off the Internet? Or was it that he’s willing to admit all of this in front of the whole reading audience of one of journalism’s top trade publications?

Seriously, are we going to start seeing stories about a giant monster destroying New York if Smith stumbles onto the website for Cloverfield? He knows there’s no such thing as the Blair Witch Project, right? Seriously, dude, those kids are OK. And somebody better tell him that investing any money at all in Nigeria is a really bad idea. 

On the upside, it’s good to know there are sharp-eyed copy editors at the R-J who are smart enough to raise questions about seemingly improbable claims and call reporters on the carpet when things like this come up. That’s probably why we haven’t seen a story about the footwear industry boom linked to increased production from leprechauns

 

Post a comment!
Terms & Conditions
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. By publishing a comment here you agree to the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the Online staff.
One Response to “Unicorns aren’t real, either”

Isn’t the point of the story that Smith got information from Wikipedia he didn’t find anywhere else - so much so that his copy editors flagged it - and that it turned out to be true?

Seems to me the “danger” our citizenry faces from Wikipedia being created by humans who may not be professional journalists is more than offset by the fact that Wikipedia’s authorities are by and large all referenced. With a click you can read the original source for most Wikipedia statements.

In addition, Wikipedia users can see nearly unlimited history of user edits and discussion on any disputed facts.

Professional journalists vaguely cited by my government schoolteachers had me conned that FDR’s massive expansion of taxing and spending ended, rather than prolonged, the 1929 depression. They wouldn’t have been able to get away with it if they’d cited actual employment data from the 1930s and first half of the 40s.

Written by: Bob Beers on Wednesday, Feb. 13, 2008 at 6:18 PM
CityPics
Community photo sharing
View reader photos and share your own at CityPics