Unlike, say, the Encyclopedia Britannica, Wikipedia has no formal peer review for its articles. They may be written by experts or insane crazy people. Or worse, insane crazy people with an agenda. And Internet access.More:
Lay's death on Wednesday illustrates the problem, as chronicled by the Reuters news service, which watched the Wikipedia article on Lay evolve with alarming speed and wildly inaccurate reporting.
[H]ere's the dread fear with Wikipedia: It combines the global reach and authoritative bearing of an Internet encyclopedia with the worst elements of radicalized bloggers. You step into a blog, you know what you're getting. But if you search an encyclopedia, it's fair to expect something else. Actual facts, say. At its worst, Wikipedia is an active deception, a powerful piece of agitprop, not information.That seems a touch over-the-top for such a short-lived incident and Lost Remote's Steve Safran offers this take on Ahrens' wiki criticism:
Some Wikipedia articles contain warnings that concerns have been raised over accuracy. But that's not the same as offering fact-checked data.
I'm a fan of Wikipedia and Wiki notions, such as "citizen journalism." I just want them to be better.
We get it. Traditional media is wary of Wikipedia. Look - it's simple: Wikipedia is like the rest of the web. It's a source. It's open. It can be messy, it can be elegant. It's a great place to start research, and it's not the final place.