Newsrooms Struggle with Wikipedia Citations

The Editors Weblog reports on the mixed attitudes of newspaper editors citing Wikipedia articles. Some, like the LA Times, are liberal. Others, like the Journal, use it for research. The American Journalism Review goes into more depth. A Google News search shows the practice is rampant.

The big question in my mind is this: when journalists cite Wikipedia articles, what happens when the facts they reference from the wiki entries change (assuming they do)? Do the reporters go back and update their articles? The news reports call more attention to the articles, potentially opening up a can of worms each time they source WIkipedia.

Seems like a big vicious cycle. Perhaps in the future these stories will carry some of the same disclaimers that WIkipedia lists.

Comments

[Mike Keliher]

Should journalists go back and update their articles? Not often, I don't think, and the standards they use now (is the story still big, still unfolding, etc.) should persist.

For example, if Mitt Romney says John McCain is an idiot and the NY Times reports that, it's reported as fact for whatever date. If, a couple of weeks later, Romney endorses McCain, does the reporter need to go back and change that story? No, because on whatever date, that was the case. Similar standards should apply with Wikipedia changes to cited articles.

But more significantly, I think it's tough to justify the use of Wikipedia as a source for true, solid journalism. Wikipedia usually has linked to outside sources for certain facts and figures. Why not take the extra step and use that source - assuming it's vetted and a bit more reliable?

[Don Lafferty]

I completely agree with Mike.

Almost every high school I know and even some grammar schools are instituting limits on students' use of Wikipedia as a cited source.

It's a reasonably good place to look for leads to traditionally acceptable sources.

[Matthew Stibbe]

Back when I was a freelance journalist I wrote for Wired and Popular Science among others. I think I can give my take on your questions based on what I remember about the guidelines my editors gave me.

I can answer the question about what would happen if an online source changed after the event. The guidance was to print out a copy of the web page being used as a source for future reference. That way you could provide evidence of what it said *at the time*. It's the same as keeping notes, interview recordings etc.

However, I was always very wary of using Wikipedia as a source. The guidance I had from my magazine clients tended to require two separate sources from a highly credible source, such as an independent expert, corporate press release or website etc. Wikipedia doesn't really come into this category because anyone can edit it anonymously.

In the most extreme case, one could imagine a future Jayson Blair editing Wikipedia to authenticate his own fictions.

On one occasion I was challenged by a fact checker about a fact I used in an article that was common knowledge in Europe but not well known in the US. I sent the fact checker a link to a Wikipedia page that explained the point. She came back immediately and said that Wikipedia wasn't an acceptable source, even to validate a trivial point.

[bz]

I agree with most universtities and schools that won't allow citing of Wikipedia for submissions.

It's a site that is way too open to manipulation. It is a great place to start your research, get an idea, flush out some theories - but it can't be the only thing you're leaning on.

It can point you in directions, get confirmation from reliable sources and go from there.

Wikipedia though, is the least of our worries. In the past week I have seen both local and national newscasts reading comments from Facebook walls as community reaction to events. THAT is a little more troubling, and lazy.

[Slim Amamou]

FYI, there is a link in every wikipedia page that says "Permanent link" (left panel). this link always references the page you are looking at. journalists should use this link.

[Jeff Gwynne]

This trend, and I've seen it too, of educational institutions banning the use of Wikipedia (or any source, for that matter) is very disturbing to me. Why is Wikipedia necessarily more or less reliable than a traditional encyclopedia, a book, or first hand account (which may not be first hand)? All accounts, written or spoken, are subject to (usually) one author's perspective and opinions. All sources used should be noted and the reader can decide what is credible and what to believe. Banning Wikipedia by education is just arrogant and self-serving.

I'll take the truth from the collective rather than one academic.

[Reginald]

This is a very stimulating thread of discussion, not to mention enlightening as well.

I feel a bit out of sorts for not knowing wikipedia is perceived as an unreliable reference source.

Fortunately, for me, I tend to validate my reference to that of many hours. It helps to identify the fundamental information repeated in each individual source.

[First Aid Kits]

Personally I have somewhat reduced confidence in Wikipedia. It was originally hyped as this shared information source where contributors could also be users. However now that they have stratified the contribution channes (allegedly to reduce spamming/inaccuracies) I no longer really feel part of the whole thing. It has become yet another corporate marketing gimmick.

[Robert]

Personally I have little to no confidence in Wikipedia. This is little more than agreed wives tales. Don't get me wrong, much of what is on there is true, but I couldn't support facts based on a wiki stub.

One really should research info a little deeper, check various sources because sometimes a fact is different depending on who is telling it.

Which brings me to another point... "does something become fact because everyone believes it to be true?"

[Charlie Anzman]

Steve - This has to be one of the most disturbing pieces I've read in a while. I've watched Wikipedia in spaces that I follow completely distort the facts due to one or two editors with a personal agenda. I suppose, in this brave new world, it shouldn't surprise me? Something tells me the word 'journalist' has already be redefined.

[Crowdstorm]

I have to say that my faith in Wikipedia is decreasing. I didn't realise that journalists used it as a source so much - surely this is slightly worrying as I am sure that there are many people out there who try to edit Wikipedia/add indormation with personal motivation.