Ken Lay's death prompts confusion on Wikipedia

The anyone-can-contribute encyclopedia jumps all over the place in its Lay bio, after news of the former CEO's death.

The story "Ken Lay's death prompts confusion on Wikipedia" published July 5, 2006 at 2:25 AM is no longer available on CNET News.

Content from Reuters expires after 30 days.

[KsprayDad]

And your point is what?

What exactly is the point of this?
Wiki is in constant flux and Lay's death is an example of self editing WORKING.

Hmmm...I wonder how fast Britannica will have a story?

As of 6pm est NOTHING.

Oh...lets check Encarta...

As of 6pm est NOTHING.

Perhaps CNET should worry about all the mistakes in its OWN pages?

[mcugaedu]

The point is

The point is, "apparent suicide" appeared only in Wikipedia, not in any news media as far as I can determine. If that is the case, somebody was posting fiction in Wikipedia.

[groink_hi]

Sit on the news

This is what happens when Wikipedia is treated like a tabloid by its editors. I've always believed that the media outlets should "sit" on the story and let it marinate for awhile before blurbing anything to the media.

One example of this: Just yesterday, within a 1-hour period of time, CNN reported the missle testing by the North Koreans like this:

Report 1: 2 missles were fired.
Report 2: 3 missles were fired.
Report 3: 5 missles were fired.
Report 4: Count back town to at least three missles were fired.
Report 5: 5 missiles were fired.
Report 6: 6 missles were fired.
FOX News finally chimed in their first report about one hour after CNN: 6 missles were fired. End of story.

So it isn't just Wikipedia that pulls the "I gotta beat everyone else to the punch" stunt. Some of the major TV media outlets does the same thing. While CNN kept playing ping-pong with their missle count, FOX News stuck with their scheduled programming and let the events run itself out before they filed their first report.

[groink_hi]

Sit on the news first!

This is what happens when Wikipedia is treated like a tabloid by its editors. I've always believed that the media outlets should "sit" on the story and let it marinate for awhile before blurbing anything to the media.

One example of this: Just yesterday, within a 1-hour period of time, CNN reported the missle testing by the North Koreans like this:

Report 1: 2 missles were fired.
Report 2: 3 missles were fired.
Report 3: 5 missles were fired.
Report 4: Count back town to at least three missles were fired.
Report 5: 5 missiles were fired.
Report 6: 6 missles were fired.
FOX News finally chimed in their first report about one hour after CNN: 6 missles were fired. End of story.

So it isn't just Wikipedia that pulls the "I gotta beat everyone else to the punch" stunt. Some of the major TV media outlets does the same thing. While CNN kept playing ping-pong with their missle count, FOX News stuck with their scheduled programming and let the events run itself out before they filed their first report.

[KsprayDad]

And your point is what?

What exactly is the point of this?
Wiki is in constant flux and Lay's death is an example of self editing WORKING.

Hmmm...I wonder how fast Britannica will have a story?

As of 6pm est NOTHING.

Oh...lets check Encarta...

As of 6pm est NOTHING.

Perhaps CNET should worry about all the mistakes in its OWN pages?

[mcugaedu]

The point is

The point is, "apparent suicide" appeared only in Wikipedia, not in any news media as far as I can determine. If that is the case, somebody was posting fiction in Wikipedia.

[groink_hi]

Sit on the news

This is what happens when Wikipedia is treated like a tabloid by its editors. I've always believed that the media outlets should "sit" on the story and let it marinate for awhile before blurbing anything to the media.

One example of this: Just yesterday, within a 1-hour period of time, CNN reported the missle testing by the North Koreans like this:

Report 1: 2 missles were fired.
Report 2: 3 missles were fired.
Report 3: 5 missles were fired.
Report 4: Count back town to at least three missles were fired.
Report 5: 5 missiles were fired.
Report 6: 6 missles were fired.
FOX News finally chimed in their first report about one hour after CNN: 6 missles were fired. End of story.

So it isn't just Wikipedia that pulls the "I gotta beat everyone else to the punch" stunt. Some of the major TV media outlets does the same thing. While CNN kept playing ping-pong with their missle count, FOX News stuck with their scheduled programming and let the events run itself out before they filed their first report.

[groink_hi]

Sit on the news first!

This is what happens when Wikipedia is treated like a tabloid by its editors. I've always believed that the media outlets should "sit" on the story and let it marinate for awhile before blurbing anything to the media.

One example of this: Just yesterday, within a 1-hour period of time, CNN reported the missle testing by the North Koreans like this:

Report 1: 2 missles were fired.
Report 2: 3 missles were fired.
Report 3: 5 missles were fired.
Report 4: Count back town to at least three missles were fired.
Report 5: 5 missiles were fired.
Report 6: 6 missles were fired.
FOX News finally chimed in their first report about one hour after CNN: 6 missles were fired. End of story.

So it isn't just Wikipedia that pulls the "I gotta beat everyone else to the punch" stunt. Some of the major TV media outlets does the same thing. While CNN kept playing ping-pong with their missle count, FOX News stuck with their scheduled programming and let the events run itself out before they filed their first report.

[David Gerard]

Yep, that's how Wikipedia works

As a Wikimedia UK press contact, I can only say that if people keep in mind that Wikipedia is a live working draft and realise that this is how current events will go, then good :-) This is what the "Current Event" note at the top of the Ken Lay article warns people of.

[David Gerard]

Yep, that's how Wikipedia works

As a Wikimedia UK press contact, I can only say that if people keep in mind that Wikipedia is a live working draft and realise that this is how current events will go, then good :-) This is what the "Current Event" note at the top of the Ken Lay article warns people of.

[teeter3000]

this is scary stuff

This is precisely why I don't use Wink. as a legit source. Three things are needed: fact checking, fact checking, and more fact checking. Posterity (in any form) deserves better than this. Wink. is a nice experiment, but far from a good resource.

[teeter3000]

this is scary stuff

This is precisely why I don't use Wink. as a legit source. Three things are needed: fact checking, fact checking, and more fact checking. Posterity (in any form) deserves better than this. Wink. is a nice experiment, but far from a good resource.

[teeter3000]

HIdeous Example

This isn't anything near a good example of self-editing working. Rather, this debacle is a great example of why real editing is NEEDED. One shouldn't have to constantly 'refresh' an encyclopedia to see what the latest truths in a story are. There's certainly a difference between 'editing' and 'adding to' a collective of information. Lay's death has (or will soon be) politicized the same way campaign workers used the service to politice their respective campaigns. That, my friends, is taking advantage of not only a sacred trust in information desemination and reliability, but demonstrates a real need to funnel information through a strict and rigid screening process. As for the comparisons to Encarta? That's just idiotic...I would expect a NEWS source to have up-to-the-minute details, but I wouldn't be silly enough to expect that from something that considers itself an encyclopedia for chrissy's sake. This isn't a BLOG...

[teeter3000]

HIdeous Example

This isn't anything near a good example of self-editing working. Rather, this debacle is a great example of why real editing is NEEDED. One shouldn't have to constantly 'refresh' an encyclopedia to see what the latest truths in a story are. There's certainly a difference between 'editing' and 'adding to' a collective of information. Lay's death has (or will soon be) politicized the same way campaign workers used the service to politice their respective campaigns. That, my friends, is taking advantage of not only a sacred trust in information desemination and reliability, but demonstrates a real need to funnel information through a strict and rigid screening process. As for the comparisons to Encarta? That's just idiotic...I would expect a NEWS source to have up-to-the-minute details, but I wouldn't be silly enough to expect that from something that considers itself an encyclopedia for chrissy's sake. This isn't a BLOG...