Wikipedia authority

I'm confused about this article in the New York Times.
Keeping News of Kidnapping Off Wikipedia

Did I miss anything? A couple of questions leap to mind:
-Didn't they factor in the possibility they might have known who they were kidnapping in the first place?
-It might be possible they didn't turn to Wikipedia for their information in the first place.
-So you ask fellow newscasters to keep the news of the kidnapping out of their publications. But what about bloggers?
You can place them on the same reliability level as Wikipedia. It is all user-generated content. Bar all the user chats and peer checking going on, it is still some utopian reverie to think everyone who contributes to an article on wiki is truthfull and exact.
But there has been loads of stuff typed up about that already, I'm not going there. Go here for instance.

How come all of a sudden Wikipedia is taken so seriously? Is it because a lot of hacks just look up stuff on it and, frequently to their own embarrasment, copy and print up the exact same faulty details? Maybe they just assume the kidnappers will do the same?

No comments: