Starting on Friday, Google News began linking out to Wikipedia, the popular online encyclopedia. Some have called the move a 'recipe for disaster.' Others have called it a 'crucial' move for mainstream media.
(Google News)Photos (1 of 1)
Google News now linking to Wikipedia – a recipe for disaster?
By Matthew Shaer | 06.12.09
As you can see from our elementary attempt at Photoshop artistry, Google News today began linking to Wikipedia – a move search expert Michael Gray has called “incredibly horrible.”
Since its launch in 2002, Google’s news aggregator has maintained high standards for its “feeder” outlets. Most articles on the site come from established papers such as The Christian Science Monitor, wire services such as the Associated Press, or news sites such as Channel Web; there is also room for input from a coterie of blogs and online forums.
The inclusion of Wikipedia seems to indicate that Google tacitly views the encyclopedia as an equally reputable news source. But Wikipedia is an open-source encyclopedia, which means that each article is subject to editing by a community. The process has been the subject of controversy before, and it will probably be the subject of controversy again.
Should Wikipedia be elevated to the same plane, say, as The New York Times?
Some say yes. Writing on the website of the Nieman Journalism Lab, Zachary Seward argues that Google’s move is a “potentially crucial” one for the news business. Consider the Wikipedia entry for Air France Flight 447, for instance. “There is no single page on the Internet with a more thorough, helpful, or informative synopsis of the crash.” He writes:
The discrete news article, it has been said, is a framework that worked well in print but doesn’t make much sense on the web. News sites can offer context in a variety of ways that explode the story model, from visualizations to comment threads to what might be called the Wikipedia model of news….. Google News redesigned its homepage last month and began integrating YouTube clips from news organizations. Its cluster pages for individual news stories also got a makeover that more closely resembles a topic page than the old list of articles.
—
More on this soon. In the mean time, follow us on Twitter.
<< Dell tweets to the tune of $3 million | MainComments
2. NoTrap | 06.12.09
They haven’t exactly “maintained high standards” for their Google News sources. Google News frequently links to China’s state run news agency, which is probably one of the least objective news agencies on the planet.
4. Nihiltres | 06.13.09
I think the move by Google is merely part of a poke aimed at the news industry: Google has earlier endorsed Wikipedia’s format (if, perhaps, not its model) as a sort that would be both more helpful to readers and better with search engines.
@Erdal Atrek: Care to provide some examples? Wikipedia’s policy of neutrality means that those articles should be fixed; I’d like to hear which ones you find biased.
5. NoTrap | 06.13.09
They haven’t exactly “maintained high standards” for their Google News sources. Google News frequently links to China’s state run news agency, which is probably one of the least objective news agencies on the planet.
BTW I love your blog!
6. JWWoida | 06.13.09
If Fox News can be considered objective and evidence of Google’s “high standards,” then Wikipedia can be considered scripture!
7. Media Specialist K-12 | 06.13.09
Wikipedia has its pros and cons as a resource. Unfortunately, most people don’t know what they are. Now that Google News “endorses” Wikipedia as a credible source, the task of teaching information literacy (a 21st Century skill*) is even more uphill. See: Cyber Summit on 21st Century Skills .
8. Susie | 06.13.09
Wikipedia may have a great entry for Air France Flight 447, but for every good entry they have an ill-informed and biased one. There is good reason that professors don’t allow Wikipedia citations in research papers. Using Wikipedia links is a good way to spread misinformation. A disaster indeed.
9. Jack | 06.13.09
Forget it; it’s well-known that many entries are opinions using distorted facts, mainly left-leaning authors who control the content and erase any edit that doesn’t fit their world-view.
10. Pigpen | 06.13.09
Mainstream news sources make mistakes too, so… uh… what’s the problem?
What exactly is a “search expert”?
12. Gordon Hill | 06.14.09
That is what the modern media has become…one sided…but all of the different sides are on the internet…I think!!!
We have to read both sides or even three or four sides and then make up our own minds…there is no such thing as objective media anymore…just special interest groups..
13. Mike Greene | 06.14.09
Thank you, CSM and Matthew Shaer, for bringing this up. With the increasing extremism of MSM outlets, the general public needs to discover more points of view.
As a journalist, I personally visit a bevy of websites daily to get my news. I prefer Al Jazeera over Fox, any day; Reuters over CNN, IHT instead of MSNBC, and the BBC uber alles. (And, obviously, I read CSM daily.)
Wikipedia articles are often biased, but so are the majority of MSM outlets (perhaps more so).
Let’s hope some trusted, objective, thorough news journalists emerge sometime soon. In the meantime, it’s up to the reader to sift wheat from chaff. Google’s new links help us peruse the news more completely.
14. Jay Wigley | 06.14.09
Wikipedia is no more controlled by special interests groups than ANY other media outlet is, which is to say, it has the same struggle as any media source. But at the very least, it benefits from being open source and subject to revision and constant correction, unlike traditional news outlets. The Wiki approach to information is the future. Let the newspapers join or die.
15. Carla | 06.14.09
The apparent premises of this Google-Wikipedia debate are that Google’s stamp of approval means something to news readers and that Google cares about delivering quality news. On the first point, really? Don’t underestimate how the availability of 8,000,000 news options quickly teaches one to take initiative and sort for quality. By now, readers know what Wikipedia is and how the information is compiled. If traditional outlets are worried about competition they should seek to understand why readers go to Wikipedia and mimic the product. But don’t assume that online readers are unthinking sheep who rely on a search engine of all things to define quality news.
On the second point, Google cares about click-through’s. People are going to Wikipedia anyway, why not help them along? — At least, I believe that to be its motivation. The above debate cedes too much power to Google, by attributing it with the critical eye of a news editor. Not only is it false representation, I’m not sure why media outlets would give readers the impression that Google is a legit news operation. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
16. GiveMeABreak | 06.14.09
Anyone who thinks their CNN, NYT, Fox (yuck!)… objective are so brainwashed!
How come it’s such a non-issue when 400 plus kids were killed in the Gaza offensive?! YOU TELL ME!!!!!!!
17. A Balrog of Morgoth | 06.15.09
Erdal Atrek wrote,
“Wikipedia is a disaster where almost every item is literally controlled by special interest groups which do their utmost to reflect one-sided, often distorted or incorrect, views of things, people, and events.”
Uh, no offense, but what source of news is free of those maladies?
Two of the differences between Wikipedia and the NYT are:
A)You can view every single edit going back to the creation of the article.
B)Wikipedia requires citations of sources a little bit more rigorous then the anonymous “critics”, “officials”, or as far as I can tell, voices in the reporter’s head frequently cited by NYT articles. Sure, there are plenty of cases where the anonymity of a source should be reserved but, at least with Wikipedia, one can examine the source material.
I don’t see any problem with Google using Wikipedia. One should treat Wikipedia with the same skepticism (and a pinch of cynicism) one uses with any other provider.
18. Jeff | 06.15.09
First let me say, I love Wikipedia. When I want a quick answer to something that’s not vitally important it almost always satisfies.
I participated in a management exercise once where we were given a scenario and then asked to solve it on our own and then with a group. An example of a scenario would be one where you are stranded in the snow with the several items, and you should use these items to survive. The group almost always came up with a better solution than the individual. However, the groups never came up with the ideal solution, according to the experts who created the scenario.
Sometimes 90% is good enough, but when it really matters I will take a peer reviewed expert opinion any day over the consensus of a group of non-experts.
19. College Prof. | 06.15.09
To a certain degree, the real issue here is media literacy, a term which must include as part of its definition an understanding of how media works–from where information comes from, to editorial decision making and the method of presentation for content. If we accept this definition, then it isn’t too difficult to conclude that a majority of media consumers are illiterate, at least in the sense that they don’t understand the process that creates the information they consume. And therein lies the danger: ignorance discourages skepticism and makes one vulnerable to manipulation. Further, it leads to decision making without rational standards.
For 22 years, I have taught rhetoric and argument to college freshmen, and standards for what we can accept as ‘real evidence’ is an ongoing topic from the first day, because it allows us to draw lines between facts, beliefs, and opinions, and encourages a healthy skepticism which is critical to rational thinking. And herein is the problem with Wikipedia: its process lacks the kind of journalistic standards that traditionally allow us to trust media content, even as its presentation format encourages you to trust it.
Therefore, a line must be drawn between Wikipedia and professional journalism, in a way that is analogous to the line we draw between anecdote and scientific conclusion. Again, process is the key here: professional journalism has rigorous standards and is self-correcting, while Wikipedia’s reliance on non-professionals makes it much more vulnerable to error. As an example, I will note that, after a recent episode of The Office in which a character used Wikipedia, users flocked to edit a particular entry, causing Wikipedia to impose restrictions. Anick Jesdanun of the Associated Press notes that “The site imposed similar restrictions on the entry twice before, only to see vandalism continue after they were lifted” (article: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/internetlife/2007-04-12-office-wikipedia_N.htm).
This example illustrates the danger of conferring equal status on Wikipedia to that of professional journalism: doing so suggests to media consumers that they need not be skeptical of Wikipedia.
I will conclude then, by suggesting a compromise: perhaps Google should provide two categories for its links, one for professional sources, and one clearly labeled ‘non-professional.’
I’ll leave it at that, and thanks for sitting through this longer-than-usual post.
20. JimN | 06.15.09
This irony of this article is simply incredible. Has Matthew Shaer even used Google news? Google news is an automated aggregator that links to just about any place that calls itself a news site. Anybody with two brain cells can quickly ascertain this just by using it. I’ve seen links to local TV news websites where there was misspellings in the headlines! It seems likely the Mr. Shaer knows this and deliberately made this false assertion of Google News’ high standards just to make his point of ragging on Wikipedia.
This irony is that this disgrace of an article is on the CSM website. Yes, I know it’s called a “blog,” but I would expect a newspaper like CSM would like to hold *some* kind of standards on pieces on their own website, much more so than links to other sites that Google News has absolutely no control over.
21. editorial | 06.15.09
Jim – Yes, Google is an “automated aggregator that links to just about any place that calls itself a news site.” But until now, Google has kept separate even those “local TV news websites” and Wikipedia – Google only began including the latter as a feeder outlet a few days ago. Feel free to email directly if you have any questions.
Best,
Matthew
22. B | 06.15.09
I remember a couple of years ago I had a college history class where the instructor told us not to cite Wikipedia because a research study had found it’s entries were only “80-85% accurate”. My response “that’s probably more accurate than the mainstream news!”
I’m a big fan of Wikipedia, but I don’t believe it should be used as a news source. As soon as someone releases an article is being featured on Google News, expect it to be vandalized.
23. dave | 06.15.09
Here are two links for a text book example of wht happens when news isn’t vetted.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0506/1224245992919.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30699302/wid/11915829?GT1=40006
Interesting that Wikipedia quickly caught the error but that the hoax was already in print in many “reputable” news sources and that these news sources failed to correct their error even after it was pointed out as a hoax
24. Another college prof | 06.16.09
@College prof: You have pointed out some of Wikipedia’s structural weaknesses. However, one should also point out some of professional journalism’s weaknesses.
Professional journalists, especially in this era of economic squeeze, are under pressure to churn out as many articles as possible. In case of current events, they are encouraged to publish even though they have no strong facts to base themselves upon.
A compounding factor is that journalists are generally required by their employer to cover a variety of fields outside of their competence. The same person in “technology” may have to cover an airplane accident one day, a computer glitch the next day, biology news another day, and Internet law another day. Apparently, journalism studies teach young people that they can be proficient enough in an area to be able to form a personal judgment after reading a few other press articles and maybe calling a couple of “experts” on the phone.
Ask any college professor in the scientific or legal fields, and they’ll point you how such mode of operation promotes the dissemination of misleading information.
At least Wikipedia requires cited sources. That’s a big difference.
25. Doug Laird | 06.24.09
Since it has been mentioned several times, it should be clarified that Wikipedia doesn’t require the citation of primary sources. In fact, information is accepted from publications with no source citations at all if it is produced, for instance, by an established publishing company. This is one very vague area in which Wikipedia loses a great deal of credibility.
26. Daniel C. | 06.27.09
According to Wikipedia’s own policy, no one can update a current event unless the fact is already in some reputable news source. So Wikipedia, by definition, cannot add any news content that is not already on some other news source.
On the other hand, I wonder if some Wiki-lawyers will reason they can post anything on Wikipedia, now that Wikipedia itself is supposedly a reputable source.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. Erdal Atrek | 06.12.09
Wikipedia is a disaster where almost every item is literally controlled by special interest groups which do their utmost to reflect one-sided, often distorted or incorrect, views of things, people, and events.