I agree with #15 Gringo, if the topic isn’t controversial then the Wiki is not a bad source, if the topic is controversial then expect the Wiki to be unstable and subject to vandalism and sychophancy.

#19 RWE, Bill O’Reilly is a twit and it doesn’t surprise me he got caught up in that. My beef against Bill O’Reilly is neatly summarized in his motto “Looking out for the little guy”. The little guy can look out for himself, did not ask for Bill’s help, and it is often the lefty that always portends to look out for the little guy.

Jeffrey: Yes! Good one! And even Bill O’Reily excoriated the U.S. Military on the looting of the museums – and I don’t think he retracted his remarks, either.

I recall talking to a geologist back in the early 80’s about the ominous Palmdale Bulge being reported in the press at the time. Supposedly they had detected a rising of the ground out in the Calif desert that indicated an impending earthquake, or something. The geologist replied that it was all nonsense – the instrumentation they were using did not even have that kind of accuracy. And sure enough, some months later an article in the LA Times offhandedly said that was what “the Bulge” really was – instrumentation error. Of course, even that admission was on Page 23 or some such, not in headlines across the front page.

Journalists on the scene breathlessly announced to the world that the entire museum (100%) had been cleaned out. Reality? 2%.

Iraq Antiquities Revisited.

It took several months before the truth came out, but most media outlets never retracted or corrected their original claims.

I like John Work’s idea of a Wikipedia-type model for internet-based news. Imagine how different this story would have been if that structure had been used.

*

So, how did it move from this source they don’t want you to use into the one they do want you to use?

Could it be that some journalists were researching their story on Wikipedia, the declaimed questionable source, a source they don’t want you to use?

Odd, no?

Wikipedia is often not a good source for controversial topics, as their articles are often biased. While the English language Wikipedia articles on the Salvador Allende era in Chile, have a certain bias, they are MUCH less biased than the Spanish language Wikipedia articles on the Allende era. Wikipedia is a good source for finding basic facts- much easier than the WWW overall. And as all is documented, you can check it out. Just like Ol’ Case said.

The journalist’s not picking up on the mistake, contrasted to Wikipedia’s doing so, is a commentary on the competence of many in the journalism profession.

I recall a story back in the 2004 campaign when President Bush was speaking in Milwaukee and got news on President Clinton’s heart imminent heart surgery. Al-Pazeera (AP) reported when President Bush expressed sincere warm wishes for President Clinton’s full and speedy recovery the crowd booed.

A day or two later in the internet version of that story the report on the boos disappeared, because there were none. There was absolutely no acknowledgment of mistake or explanation of the revision.

With Wiki at least when correcting something there is that history.