It's the cardinal rule of today's research paper: don't cite Wikipedia.
The user-edited encyclopedia is a professor's nightmare. Created, augmented and updated by God-only-knows-who, the site can be as easily tweaked by a neurosurgeon as by the punk kid across the street.
But just because it's citizen-produced doesn't necessarily mean it's inaccurate. A study in the science magazine Nature found that the professionals will get the facts wrong almost as often as the non-commissioned contributors.
The same situation goes for journalism. Just because it's online doesn't mean it's inaccurate or inferior. An established outlet of online journalism can offer the late-breaking news that print sources could only dream of offering -- in that sense, it's superior. Also, errors can be corrected quicker -- in that sense, it's more accurate.
The user-edited encyclopedia is a professor's nightmare. Created, augmented and updated by God-only-knows-who, the site can be as easily tweaked by a neurosurgeon as by the punk kid across the street.
But just because it's citizen-produced doesn't necessarily mean it's inaccurate. A study in the science magazine Nature found that the professionals will get the facts wrong almost as often as the non-commissioned contributors.
The same situation goes for journalism. Just because it's online doesn't mean it's inaccurate or inferior. An established outlet of online journalism can offer the late-breaking news that print sources could only dream of offering -- in that sense, it's superior. Also, errors can be corrected quicker -- in that sense, it's more accurate.
In examining the internet as a whole, I must concede that the internet's accuracy is shoddy. How many bloggers propagate rumors, fail to cite sources, or blatantly lie? The blogosphere is inundated with hundreds of millions of "news sources," and the average of those will lean toward the side of unfounded opinions.
At the same time, this doesn't mean that all internet news outlets ignore ethical standards. It just means that readers need to be more discerning about which sources they trust.
The truth is, more people than ever are using the internet as a news source -- and these statistics aren't changing anytime soon. According to "Online News," a March 2006 report from the Pew Internet & American Life Project, high-speed internet users (like those at Biola) are reading news online frequently.
The results show that:
71% of high-powered users get news online on the average day—three times the
rate of other high-speed users;
59% get news on the average day from local TV;
53% get news on the typical day from radio;
52% get news on the average day from national TV newscasts;
43% get news on the average day from the local paper;
21% get news on the average day from a national newspaper.
71% of high-powered users get news online on the average day—three times the
rate of other high-speed users;
59% get news on the average day from local TV;
53% get news on the typical day from radio;
52% get news on the average day from national TV newscasts;
43% get news on the average day from the local paper;
21% get news on the average day from a national newspaper.
With an ever-growing number of online contributors -- and this burgeoning contingent of online consumers -- we will need to accept the risk of extreme, flagrantly erroneous information on some sites. When it comes to accuracy online, Steve Outing of the Poynter Institute points out society's helplessness: "Control bloggers?" he asks. "Impossible, I say, unless they all get hired by media companies."
But the risk of errors shouldn't keep users or journalists away, Outing said in a November 2004 post on Poynter's website:
"How about accepting that the media world has changed, and that mainstream news
organizations are powerless to control the flow of information (whether it be
leaked exit-poll numbers or graphic videos of beheadings)? All mainstream
editors can do is live by their own standards -- to keep their own houses in
order."
And in the process of building high standards, Kelly McBride of the Poynter Institute says watchdog blogs can only help.
"Blogs have formed to monitor individual newsrooms and even certain
journalists," she wrote. "In response, journalists will get better and tougher."
Outing suggests that "the real story, I think, is that mainstream journalists from here on out have an army of citizen "reporters" and fact-checkers to watch over their work," he said in a September, 2004 Poynter blog post name 'Blog and Media Accuracy.' "I suggest that journalists view this in a positive light: Citizen watchdogging and, yes, assistance can make traditional reporters' work better and more accurate."
The bottom line is, the online conversation -- which encompasses online news -- is taking place whether we like it or not. There will undoubtedly be leaks, opinion dressed as fact and misleading statements involved in this new media wave.
But journalists and citizens need not spurn online media as a result. It is, on average, less factually accurate than an established traditional publication. But it is more accurate because it is including more voices in the Grand Conversation, bringing the underrepresented a medium through which to communicate.
