In an increasingly web-based culture of knowledge, it’s perhaps no surprise that websites like
Wikipedia.org are now being consulted by credible news sources. Since it’s launch in 2001, Wikipedia has gained notoriety from its entirely user-contributed and edited online encyclopedia.
The Wall Street Journal, for example, has referenced Wikipedia on a piece it featured discussing “turducken” (a bizarre concoction in which a chicken is stuffed into a duck that is stuffed into a turkey). While some critics have judged this sort of Wikipedia usage as un-journalistic, others note, where else would you get information on a turducken? Certainly not from your standard encyclopedia.
However, as a result of its user-generated articles, many news and scholarly organizations immediately write the site off as “false” and “unverifiable.” For example,
Mike Leary, managing editor of the
Philadelphia Inquirer, recently sent an e-mail to staffers forbidding the use of Wikipedia to “verify facts or augment a story.”
Even the French
Agence France Presse banned its reporters from using
Facebook and Wikipedia as sources, reported a
previous Weblog posting.
Wikipedia’s leadership appears more than aware of the site’s strengths and potential shortcomings. The site features numerous disclaimers, one of which reminds users that "anyone with an Internet connection" can alter the content and cautions, "please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information."
Jimmy Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia, suggested that despite these warnings, more journalists are daring to test out the site.
"I think that people are sort of slowly learning how to use Wikipedia, and learning its strengths and its weaknesses," he said. "Of course, any reasonable person has to be up front that there are weaknesses... On the other hand, there are lots of sources that have weaknesses."
Wales thinks the encyclopedia's best journalistic use is for background research rather than as a source to be quoted, the
American Journalism Review reported.
The
Los Angeles Times has adopted a relatively open stance on the usage of Wikipedia sources.
Melissa McCoy, the Times’ deputy managing editor in charge of copy desks, explained that the paper occasionally allows Wikipedia references.
"We're certainly not going to use Wikipedia as a stand-alone news source, but we're not going to exclude it if it takes us somewhere," she said. "If a reporters spots something in there and it makes them do an extra phone call, it's silly not to use it,” McCoy suggested.
With opinions on Wikipedia usage in newsrooms remaining mixed—with most opting to steer clear of the site—papers like
The Wall Street Journal and the
are demonstrating that some journalists are discovering the value of the site as a roadmap for further research.
Source:
ajr.org through
cyberjournalist.net 
