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.

5 thoughts on “Wikipedia doesn’t always beat AP

  1. 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?

  2. 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.

  3. “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.

Leave a Reply