Will Wikileaks Revolutionize Journalism?

As popular a reference tool as Wikipedia has become, our newsroom policy doesn't allow for our reporters to use it as an official source for any story.

I admit it's bad, but then again, in the wake of the war in Iraq and the reporting that got us into it, can we consider newsrooms a worthy source either?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

... what the public needs is a public sattelite publically funded which we can point and track people in power to force their transparency, in an ideal world the public would pay a bunch of scientists to build (or buy) a bunch of spy sattelites and integrate it with something like google maps. After all the bullshit throughout history it's time leaders of the world don't get any privacy, if you make over a certain amount of money, or own key corporations, you must be forced to give up any privacy at all so we can stop crime in it's tracks, going through the governmenet and protests don't work. The only way to get things done is to do it ourselves and go around these institutions, it's a sad fact of life though that most human beings suck.

The fact is if we were really serious about changing the world we would quite our jobs, shut down the fucking economy and kick these people out of office. Are we not "The people" or are we just some free market plebes of our corporate-government overlords?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is the coolest thing I've heard about in months.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

right. More power to all whistle blowers. I once tried it in my youth and all I ever got was knots and bruises.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

seems the site is shut down ...

this story is kinda late ...


linked text

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sorry slightly off topic re- the overall piece-

But with regards to the first few paragraphs-

Readers Digest did a survey taking 100 wikipedia entries at random and comparing to the same 100 Encyclopedia Brittanica entries- to find that far more wikipedia entries were in fact accurate..

The reason being that entries were continuously amended until a balanced view, generally free of speculation and subjectivity remained- unlike traditional encyclopedia entries written with an agenda and bias

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]