On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 9:14 PM, Marc A. Pelletier <m...@uberbox.org> wrote:
> On 03/07/2012 11:09 AM, Delirium wrote: > >> 1) the sources really are *very* good in that case, not merely "ok" >> sources like newspaper articles; >> > > My own (admitedly radical) point of view is that popular media - and that > includes newspapers nowadays - are not reliable sources at all in the first > place. If you use that filter, you suddenly notice most of the more > controversial articles (regarding notability) instantly find themselves > without sources. > > I don't believe that's a coincidence. Even at their best, popular media > has no interest beyond what's hot and topical at the moment, and attracting > eyeballs with sensationalism is paramount -- accuracy be damned if needed. > > -- Coren / Marc I agree with Marc. The other day, someone said here on the list, "It's almost as if what the press say and what the facts are in reality are two different things that have only a very tenuous relationship." This was in reference to reporting on a Wikimedia-related matter. In this field, many Wikimedians recognise readily that media reporting is often inept, and the level of accuracy of the information given to the public is very poor. What people fail to do is to apply this insight to the wider situation. Two of my favourite quotes: ---o0o--- What people outside do not appreciate is that a newspaper is like a soufflé, prepared in a hurry for immediate consumption. This of course is why whenever you read a newspaper account of some event of which you have personal knowledge it is nearly always inadequate or inaccurate. Journalists are as aware as anyone of this defect; it is simply that if the information is to reach as many readers as possible, something less than perfection has often to be accepted. —David E. H. Jones, in New Scientist, Vol. 26 Actually, I'd say newspapers are more like commercial fast-food than soufflé. It isn't just that they are prepared in haste, it is that unwholesome additives and artificial sweeteners are added to true content, in order to make the whole thing more tasty. No one really asks whether the result is edifying or healthy, because it is generally consumed with a pinch of (even more superfluous) salt. —User:Scott MacDonald ---o0o--- What would a Wikipedia look like that did not make use of press sources? It would look a hell of a lot more like an encyclopedia. Thousands of silly arguments would never arise. Thousands of apposite criticisms of Wikipedia would never arise. These are good things. Unfortunately, such a Wikipedia would also have vastly impoverished coverage of popular culture and current affairs. The articles on Lady Gaga and Barack Obama would be years behind events; the articles on the Japan earthquakes, which I believe Wikipedia was widely praised for, would only now begin to be written, articles on many towns and villages would lack colour and detail. If Wikipedia stopped using press sources, you'd have to have a news-based 'pedia somewhere else (and I don't mean Wikinews). _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l