About Me

  • I'm CEO of Newspeg.com, a social news-sharing platform. I've spent 20 years at the intersection of traditional and digital journalism. I've helped to invent ways to read and interact with the news and advertising on computer screens and iPads, and before that, I wrote news stories on typewriters and six-ply paper. I co-founded WashingtonPost.com and hyperlocal pioneers Backfence.com and GrowthSpur; served as editor of Philly.com; taught media entrepreneurship at the University of Maryland; and have done product-development and strategy consulting for all sorts of media and Internet companies. You can read more about me here.

January 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  
Blog powered by Typepad

« On the Whole, I'd Rather be in Philadelphia | Main | Thinking Strategically »

December 03, 2007

Comments

Rocky

Wikipedia is a tremendous resource because it's constantly updated and reviewed by hundreds of people.

It's actually a better resource than archives from newspapers, which most don't bother to update. Even in egregious cases like Jayson Blair and Judith Miller, many of those stories are still out on The New York Times site without disclosure of their problems.

More on that here:
http://blog.agrawals.org/2007/08/30/jayson-blair-judith-miller-and-the-new-york-times-archive/

One quick proxy for judging the accuracy of a Wikipedia article is to click the "history" link. If it's an article that is frequently edited, that's a reasonable indicator. Articles that were put up once and rarely edited I'd take with a bucket of salt.

Especially on a technical subject, say something computer related, I'd trust Wikipedia more than that "expert" you have in your Rolodex.

Howard Owens

Over the years I've read many articles on Wikipedia on topics I know about, and I've yet to be dissatisfied with the accuracy of the entries.

The comments to this entry are closed.