Wikipedia doesn’t always beat AP

There was this big deal about how Wikipedia beat Associated Press on Tim Russert’s death.

Well, I just thought I’d note — it’s been, what, two weeks since the world learned that Rob Curley left the Washington Post and his Wikipedia entry still hasn’t been updated.

Come on, I thought Wikipedia was on top of things.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • Kevin Gamble

    Now, now. Why didn’t you update it if you knew it wasn’t current? Isn’t that our responsibility when we see something that needs attention?

  • Howard Owens

    Too lazy to look up his correct current title. I wouldn’t want to put incorrect information into Wikipedia, of course.

    Besides, it’s much more fun to make meaningless snarky comments.

  • Rottenchester

    Wikipedia might not be as quick as the AP, but at least Wikipedia doesn’t want to charge $12.50 for a 5 word excerpt.

  • Nick

    His entry certainly reads like the press releases it came from.

  • Benz

    “Too lazy.”

    And that’s why I’m still a bit leery of the bluster around Wikipedia and other citizen journalism initiatives. It ignores the fact that real reporting is work. I’m not saying Wikipedia and citizen J don’t have value. And I’m not saying AP is flawless (it’s certainly not worth $2.50 a word). I guess I’m just saying the truth is in the middle, and for every Wikipedia scoop that the blogosphere wants to crow about there are dozens of news stories providing updates and new information that will take days or weeks to hit Wikipedia. If it ever does.