Credi-pedia (Weekly No. 8)

Illustration: Wilcox

After last weeks class discussion on Wikipedia, my position didn't change; I still strongly believe that Wikipedia is credible and should be a trusted site. However, I still believe that people should be choosy with what they believe whether the source is Wikipedia or CNN.

In many respects, Wikipedia serves as a news outlet, receiving news in the same manner traditional news outlets receive news -- as a story unfolds. People take to Wikipedia to update a story the same way news outlets continue to trace back to a story in order to report the latest news and any updates. Traditionally, many news stories aren't given a seal of approval until a credible and reputable news outlets has confirmed the news. For example, I refused to believe TMZ with every blood cell in my body when they were the first to report that Michael Jackson died; I waited until CNN confirmed his death to believe it. In retrospect, TMZ was right, but I am choosy about the things I believe on their site because of their gossip-mill reputation, so I decided to halt my beliefs on anything Michael Jackson related until I heard it from what I believe is a trusted source.

I highly doubt anyone was racing to their computer, or handheld, to read Michael Jackson's Wikipedia page to learn about the state of his health, and ultimately his death last year. There was such a rush of information, that it would be nearly impossible for the site to keep up. Every minute there was something new. Everyone's edits would take over each others and create mass confusion.

Typically, breaking news tends to be negative; so when delivering breaking news, there should be one person/channel who is constantly providing updates. This ensures that the message is concise, but also provides some sense of clarity for the viewer. On Twitter, I follow @CNNBRK, for breaking news, and the breaking news that they provide on a daily basis is enough to take in. Can you imagine tuning into every possible news channel on 9/11? Or following every single new channel on Twitter today? Your brain would be every where!

In my opinion, people like to be addressed directly, especially when it comes to not-so-great news, so I wouldn't recommend Wikipedia for breaking news, because in a sense, it's almost like tuning into all of the news stations like I mentioned before. Talk about headache! Trying to keep up with breaking news is challenging enough, and since our brains are programmed to take things in systematically, I don't find Wikipedia functional with regards to breaking news.

However, I do feel that Wikipedia is a great site for news that has happened. The wealth of information that is provided on Wikipedia's site after news breaks is unparalleled anywhere else on the web. Wikipedia would definitely be my stop on the web, even before CNN, to gather facts after an event takes place; but CNN is who I am tuned into when an event is taking place, whether it's via TV, their website, or their Twitter feed. Wikipedia comes after.