There was this big deal about how Wikipedia beat Associated Press on Tim Russert’s death.
Well, I just thought I’d note — it’s been, what, two weeks since the world learned that Rob Curley left the Washington Post and his Wikipedia entry still hasn’t been updated.
Come on, I thought Wikipedia was on top of things.
5 Responses to “Wikipedia doesn’t always beat AP”
Post A Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
June 17th, 2008 at 4:13 am
Now, now. Why didn’t you update it if you knew it wasn’t current? Isn’t that our responsibility when we see something that needs attention?
June 17th, 2008 at 6:09 am
Besides, it’s much more fun to make meaningless snarky comments.
June 17th, 2008 at 6:13 am
Wikipedia might not be as quick as the AP, but at least Wikipedia doesn’t want to charge $12.50 for a 5 word excerpt.
http://whiskeyfire.typepad.com/whiskey_fire/2008/06/she-wants-me-to.html
June 17th, 2008 at 7:41 am
His entry certainly reads like the press releases it came from.
June 17th, 2008 at 8:40 am
“Too lazy.”
And that’s why I’m still a bit leery of the bluster around Wikipedia and other citizen journalism initiatives. It ignores the fact that real reporting is work. I’m not saying Wikipedia and citizen J don’t have value. And I’m not saying AP is flawless (it’s certainly not worth $2.50 a word). I guess I’m just saying the truth is in the middle, and for every Wikipedia scoop that the blogosphere wants to crow about there are dozens of news stories providing updates and new information that will take days or weeks to hit Wikipedia. If it ever does.