Sonia's Wiki Wonder

Seconds after the networks say that it's Sotomayor, her Wikipedia entry is updated. My Encyclopedia Britannica can't do that; that's why it's boxed in my closet. The newspapers that hit my driveway a coupla minutes ago can't do that; that's why on-paper distribution is dying. TV can go wall-to-wall with the story in an instant, but I can't post my own reaction on their wall; that's why unsocial media is archaic.

There's plenty to be said on behalf of history's long view, recollection in tranquility, experts, gatekeepers, chinstrokers, thumbsuckers and all the other paraphernalia of old media. But surely it won't be long before news from nowhere -- news in the context of no context, news not part of the system of mass self-communication -- will widely seem to be as flat and pallid and blinkered as history without economics, women and people of color is now almost universally regarded.

UPDATE: Seconds after I make this point on my Facebook wall, a pal comments that the Britannica is online and keeps up to date. I go the EB site to see whether its Sotomayor article has been refreshed. Turns out there's no Sotomayor article there to be updated. Nor does it make a place for this real-time conversation.

Comments

[dsws]

A post on Wikipedia with only two pages of comments? What happened?

[daddysboy]

Obviously there are modes of communication more suited to our current cultural climate. I wish that Americans could slow down enough to still want to read something from yesterday though. I appreciate the fluidity and freshness of the internet, and as you mentioned, there are opportunities for participation that traditional television lacks. I also however, appreciate a more in-depth analysis and opinions from regular staff that work in the news business that aren't just playing records for fun. It's nice to have that online essay , commentary and subsequent conversation be based on something that is in print so that everyone can at least start on the same page. The newspaper industry missed that boat, however, so we'll take the internet as our only consolation prize. Now we just have to keep certain greedy technology companies from trying to control it all while doling it back out in small amounts for an unreasonable price.

[frank1569]

News flash: all major news sites update their pages 24/7. A story breaks, you shoot over to, say, the NYT, WP, LAT, or the Dallas Morning News even - there it is. Faster than Wiki.

And, if you have so chosen, any/all of said news sites will fire the story to your mobile device and/or email the moment it posts.

Within anywhere from a few minutes to a couple of hours, the same sites have more details, some analysis, an opinion or two. The Wiki update, however, hasn't changed. Also, the news sites are still firing off updates to your mobile device/email.

The next day, the Wiki page remains stagnant while the news sites have gone into over-saturation mode. If Wiki does another update, it's taken from info the news sites are now producing in mass quantities - it's not the result of the hard work by the team of investigative reporters at Wiki.

No, Marty, you're wrong - the reason newspapers are dying is because the reader-base is also very computer savvy, and why should anyone pay for a newspaper when the same paper is free online? Free and your fingers don't get all inked up...

[Javarod]

While that is true, i think newspapers are dying more simply as they give you know reason to buy them. My local paper, the Arizona Republic is part of the Gannet family, and much of the articles in there could pass as a synopsis, there's very little in depth reporting. If your product is slower to update, you might want to create a product with a level of permanence, after all, while i like getting my news through my computer, i really prefer to read short articles, basically the same ones my paper is printing. If i want to read something long, i read a book, or a magazine, or heaven forbid should they provide it, a newspaper.

Also would it be too much to ask for things to be more customized? When i buy a Sunday paper, i immediately remove the ads, sports, apartments and classified sections. If it weren't for the occasional interesting article, i'd also get rid of employment, real estate and travel sections. Basically half of that paper is a waste of my money, and a waste of paper.

[Derek Lall]

I read/watch most of my news onlnie, I just like it much better than print or television.

[djwfutbol]

Absolutely. Instant information, no thought, no knowledge, no depth. Should make for a hell of a world. Me, I would rather wait a bit and digest. I would prefer others do the same.

[Bongborg]

How long did you wait before posting this?

[djwfutbol]

My point, exactly. Mine is a half-baked uninformed point of view, expressed in haste, with little substance behind it. There you are.

About all I'm sure of in expressing myself is that the words are spelled correctly. I note that that isn't always a given and with texting or twittering, inaccurate spelling is actually a surety.

So, what have you got in this brave new world - in my opinion, garbage. The next great software innovation will have to be a quality filter for Internet news sources or maybe some sort of Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval rating system for opinion providers.

[LMPE]

Forget about print media. The Internet is practically the future of our economy.

[Shirley Fisk]

5/26/09
12:14pm
Alexandria,VA

Hi,Marty

Don't.know­.about.Wik­ipedia.but­.I.saw.you­r.post.at.­the.same.t­ime.I.foun­d.out.abou­t.the.
USSC.nomination!
You're.fast.

[classismwatch]

But how complete is wikipedia's rush entry? Have they listed, for example, all the foreign clients that Pavia & Harcourt represented during the 7 years that Sotomayor worked as a corporate lawyer for that firm.

The problem with wikipedia is that its gatekeepers too often block readers from posting information which is unflattering to the special corporate interests that are represented on the Sloan Foundation board which funds wikipedia to the tune of $1 milliion. Yet at the same time the staffpeople of U.S. politicians and the public relations people of U.S. corporations who monitor the wikipedia entries of their employers are allowed by the Wikipedia editors to freely post their recycled press releases onto the wikipedia site without the accuracy of their recycled press releases being challenged.

[dsws]

Wikipedia is not for original research. If a secondary source says something anti-corporate, it can go on Wikipedia. If you do your own research against the corporate spin, Wikipedia is not the place to publish it.

[euripedes923]

"Seconds after the networks say that it's Sotomayor, her Wikipedia entry is updated. My Encyclopedia Britannica can't do that; that's why it's boxed in my closet. The newspapers that hit my driveway a coupla minutes ago can't do that; that's why on-paper distribution is dying."

True. But I don't want to grow up in a world that confuses 'instantaneous' with 'factual.' I'll invest a little time every time over knowing something wrong first. And anyone--anyone--who cites or relies on Wikipedia for anything factual doesn't have a clue to begin with.

[gurukalehuru]

Yes, but newspapers are not necessarily factual, either. See New York Times.

[princessofnowt]

but thats the point- you can check everything from multiple sources now and the evidence grows as it passes along, so we all learn while contributing.

Its the end of taking MSM for factual, now we check for ourselves.

[daddysboy]

Wikipedia can be extremely factual and often is; just as every other potential source in the world. What I would agree with is that anyone who doesn't compare information in at least a couple of places before spouting off to the world or forming a personal belief system doesn't deserve to be paid attention to. Sometimes the truth is obvious, quick, and easy - just because it may be any of those things shouldn't make it unbelievable, but it is always a good idea to make sure.

[blindjester]

"And anyone--anyone--who cites or relies on Wikipedia for anything factual doesn't have a clue to begin with."

That's just not true, and hasn't been for years. Here's a study from 2005 showing that even then Wikipedia was as likely to be factually accurate as Britannica:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm

And it's been steadily improving since then.

All websites are typed by humans, and have the possibility of bias or inaccuracy or malicious misinformation. At least wiki tells you when entries need improvement, and keeps a log of the changes. Besides, you can always check the original sources for everything at the bottom of the page.

[Atharv Vaish]

I think all the claims about Wikipedia being mostly untrue is quite an exaggeration. Has anyone ever tried gauging the effects of posting an untruth on a Wikipedia page? Even on a relatively out of the way page - say, a local high school - errors are corrected faster than the page refreshes. On anything that a student would want to write a term paper on, it's probably been checked over more than a million times for any inconsistency - far more than any other encyclopedia.

[dsws]

That's a big of an exaggeration. If it were that well checked, there wouldn't have been as many errors for me to find and fix as there have been -- errors that have been there for a while, too. If something seems as though it might be controversial I tend to look at the page history and not jump into the middle of an edit war. On the other hand, the errors I have found and fixed are, obviously, fixed.

[PiscesPrincess]

I am in total agreement with your take on this. I have become more and more addicted to the social interaction of our posts. and I am 70. Reading the newspaper Does have its place for commentary.
and magazines for the same and retrospectives.

[itsmyparty]

People vote with their money.Corporations "give"money to politicians and policy is made.Bills are signed.The thing being overlooked by all sides is that every single cost is passed on to the consumer.No one is helping the consumer.This house of cards is falling.Our corporations will ultimately fall.All of them are still following yesterdays policy...except for innovation within the explosion of information that is occurring as we speak.Consumers are now,not tomorrow,citizens of the world.We can directly connect with nearly every country.Here is the global village.We already pay for internet.The ads are here--the traditional source of media income is already here.But everyone wants more for less at the top.Corpor­ations,lik­e our newspapers,just don't get the news fast enough.They use up resources.They don't provide a better product.They just think they do.

[SeaBlood]

But what are we going to do about the economics of the thing? How are we going to pay expert journalists to do the job we expect and need them to do? How are we going to get their unbiased cov--uhhh.Never mind!

[jotunloki]

I see that you realized the problem with your reservations, the "expert" journalists don't do the job we expect them to do, they do the bidding of their corporate masters.

[planmeister]

I don't know about "... flat and pallid and blinkered." But I do know that it's an amazing gift to be able to watch the entire announcement of Judge Sotomayor on the flat-screen monitor of my desktop PC-- no sound-biting, no filtering, no telling me what it surely means, no expostulating talking heads who may or may not be smarter and more insightful than me (www.WhiteHouse.gov/live).

In other words, I appreciate the leveling effect of new media. I'll do limited "talk-back," though I know that if I wanted to I can. It's the ability to watch raw content in real time and decide for myself what it "means" that makes this such an exciting time. Kinda reminds me of the hours of Watergate hearings that I listened to on NPR way back when.

Go, "new media"!

[jcko]

Encyclopedia Britannica could start by making the name simpler. Most of us can't spell "Encyclopedia"

[PiscesPrincess]

and what a shame that is.

[newjerseybadger]

Yes, but can you spell "Encyclopaedia"?

[Bongborg]

You could always look it up in your Funk & Wagnall's.