Unjournalism

Quit pickin’ on Wikipedia

Posted on June 19th, 2006 by Mike Keliher

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

The New York Times is joining the relatively reserved but nonetheless bothersome herd of Wikipedia-haters. Apparently these haters don’t understand that no one gives a damn if Wikipedia isn’t 100 percent accurate.

In addition to (repetitively) noting that anyone can edit a large majority of Wikipedia’s content [sarcastic gasp!], the Times also notes that:

Wikipedia is now the Web’s third-most-popular news and information source, beating the sites of CNN and Yahoo News, according to Nielsen NetRatings.

Surely the writer is hinting at some sort of “Can you believe these whippersnappers get their news from the Daily Show?!” phenomenon, which is garbage. Yes, the Times stat says “news and information source,” but those are two completely different leagues. News is one type of…well, information, I guess, and “information” is another. You know what I mean. CNN and an encyclopedia - or a Wikipedia - serve two dramatically different purposes.

Here’s what really matters: I know that Wikipedia might not always be right, but I also know that Wikipedia will (damn near) always have an answer to what I’m looking for. What’s the deal with that prog-rock album “Frances the Mute” by The Mars Volta? No damn news site will tell you that, but Wikipedia told me what was up in about 10 seconds.

Was every fact verified by the band or its label? Shit no. But I don’t care. It’s a story about a band, not a Supreme Court opinion.

Here’s a good one: The Times (and/or those quoted in the article) takes Wikipedia to task for modifying it’s “anyone can edit” policy. (The article says that a couple of hundred articles are tagged as uneditable or require a four-day waiting period before registered Wikipedians can edit them.) Who gives a shit? Did anyone dislike Gandhi because he wore glasses? Ridiculous, right? Because it’s an obscenely small “imperfection” on an otherwise incredibly valuable resource (to use a crude, vague word to describe the old man).

P.S. - Isn’t it ironic, don’t you think, that I link to several Wikipedia articles in a post in defense of Wikipedia? You know why? Because Wikipedia had the information I wanted in the top my search results. Stick it, NY Times.