For one of my sessions in New Zealand, I will be teaching students about researching on the internet.
As I type, I have piles of Wikipedia entries about various topics as I am revising for an exam. Controversial, but as a starting point for revision and research, Wikipedia cannot be beat.
I’d like to start an open debate to give me an idea of opinion on Wikipedia’s worth to journalists:
Is it OK to endorse Wikipedia for journalism research?
I’d say not if they are after relevant accurate details on a given topic as there have been too many high profile cases of where the information was wrong. Nor would I recommend googling as the be-all and end-all. I don’t link to wikipedia in anything I do online.
Yes and it shouldn’t be ousted from academia instead.
Any journalist who just uses wikipedia is writing crap stories. Any student who only cites wikipedia is:
a.getting a low mark
b. taught by someone who doesn’t know how to type a sentence in to google to catch them using single sources.
Both of which say more about them than the source.
Like any other research tool it should be just one part of the process. It is no more or less useful because it’s all about how it is used.
I agree, it’s a good starting point and gives good direction for where to research first. But Andy’s right, it’s just one piece of the research jigsaw.
NO! Wickipedia is not a reliable source of information.
As a starting point for what kinds of questions to ask– maybe.
BUT only if it is clearly understood that it is not a reliable authority on any topic…nor is it a original source.
Include in curriculum as something to know about, understand it’s limitations, etc etc… but as a source of reliable info? It’s as reliable a source of info as interviewing the “man on the street” because–hey–it might have been written on the man on the street.
And that guy may or may not know what he’s talking about.
Hi Dave
RadioNZ (our mini-BBC) has banned it’s journalists from using Wikipedia. You might want to ask them why, but I understand there was concern about accuracy and who was doing updates (it was found the most prolific updater in NZ was a computer somewhere in Parliament here).
Have a safe trip next week. Looking forward to showing you some downunder hospitality.
Yes, definitely OK.
No Wikipedia’s never going to be the be-all and end-all, but as the other posters say, it’s a promising start. And using it will teach journalism students to be wary of all sources, no matter how ‘official’.
DAVE LEE… I am very shocked that you have decided to use Wikipedia as a source!!! I have I taught you nothing during your time here at UNI!!!!!!!!
Yes use it to g et basic facts but then chase them up with a more ligimate source……!!!!! As a journalist you should always double and triple check some facts… that is what we are all about.. reporting the facts accuratly and responsibly……
I think the key here is not to say using Wikipedia as a source is a good idea, but rather that it should be used to gain a good snapshot of an event or person.
Foremost, let me commend your uncloudedness on this subject. I am not an expert on this matter, but after reading your article, my understanding has developed substantially. Please allow me to snap up your rss feed to remain in touch with any potential updates. Authentic job and will extend it on to supporters and my fans.