Wikipedia for Journalists & Bloggers

WIKIPEDIA FOR JOURNALISTS & BLOGGERS A guide to the world’s largest encyclopedia.

HOW TO USE WIKIPEDIA One notion: Wikipedia should be the ﬁrst place you look, but never the last. As a collaboratively-written secondary source that cites the work of journalists (among other things), it’s risky and often inappropriate to cite Wikipedia as source.

APPEAL TO AUTHORITY “Wikipedia will give you the questions you should ask, not the answers.”

THE TRUTHINESS FACTOR Should you be using it at all?

REACTION ...or overreaction “We have a written rule inside the company that forbids any journalist using Wikipedia.” Pierre Lesourd, London Bureau Chief of the AFP

REALITY • Journalists and bloggers use Wikipedia every day. • Hundreds of articles every year cite it as a source, including those from 50 of the top 100 newspapers in America ([[Wikipedia:Wikipedia as a press source]]).

THE PROBLEM Journalists and bloggers regularly use a resource that is uneven in quality, but one that they are not fully equipped to assess. • Danger to readers in inaccurate information. • Danger to news organizations in lost credibility. • Danger to content producers in professional repercussions.

THE SOLUTION Provide journalists and bloggers with the tools to more easily evaluate the contents of Wikipedia, just as they would any traditional source.

FINDING WHAT YOU WANT ...out of 2.8 million articles.

SEARCHING

BROWSING

MORE THAN JUST ARTICLES • Overviews of Wikipedia • Featured content • Portals • Spoken articles • Lists • Timelines • Glossaries • Alphabetical indices • Categorical indices

SPECIFIC QUESTIONS Manned 24/7 by Wikipedians Shortcut [[WP:RD]]

EVALUATING CONTENT

EVALUATING CONTENT Understand the structure

EVALUATING CONTENT Understand the structure Determine stability

EVALUATING CONTENT Understand the structure Determine stability Gauge quality

EVALUATING CONTENT Understand the structure Determine stability Gauge quality Find additional resources

EVALUATING CONTENT Understand the structure Determine stability Gauge quality Find additional resources Acquire context from the community

1. UNDERSTAND THE STRUCTURE An honest analysis of Wikipedia cannot divorce the content from the software and the community.

THE FIVE PILLARS [[Wikipedia:Five pillars]]

THE FIVE PILLARS [[Wikipedia:Five pillars]] Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.

THE FIVE PILLARS [[Wikipedia:Five pillars]] Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia must have a neutral point of view.

THE FIVE PILLARS [[Wikipedia:Five pillars]] Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia must have a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is free content.

THE FIVE PILLARS [[Wikipedia:Five pillars]] Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia must have a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is free content. Wikipedia has a code of conduct.

THE FIVE PILLARS [[Wikipedia:Five pillars]] Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia must have a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is free content. Wikipedia has a code of conduct. Wikipedia does not have ﬁrm rules.

NAMESPACES About a dozen in total, but four are crucial to a qualitative analysis of Wikipedia’s content.

NAMESPACES About a dozen in total, but four are crucial to a qualitative analysis of Wikipedia’s content. • Main (articles)

NAMESPACES About a dozen in total, but four are crucial to a qualitative analysis of Wikipedia’s content. • Main (articles) • Wikipedia (project)

NAMESPACES About a dozen in total, but four are crucial to a qualitative analysis of Wikipedia’s content. • Main (articles) • Wikipedia (project) • User

NAMESPACES About a dozen in total, but four are crucial to a qualitative analysis of Wikipedia’s content. • Main (articles) • Wikipedia (project) • User • Talk (discussion)

2. DETERMINE STABILITY Before you dive in, ﬁnd out what level of ﬂux the content is currently in. Articles should always be checked for vandalism, and those enduring edit wars should be treated with even greater skepticism.

HISTORY • Nota namespace, but a tool accompanying every page • Often overwhelming to look at, but critical for evaluation of articles

FILTERING

3. GAUGE QUALITY

3. GAUGE QUALITY • Bad news: Wikipedia is wildly irregular.

3. GAUGE QUALITY • Bad news: Wikipedia is wildly irregular. • Good news: Wikipedia “seems to hold more consistent and constant standards across the board”

DETAILED STANDARDS

HALLMARKS OF QUALITY

RED FLAGS

4. FIND ADDITIONAL RESOURCES • Wiki links • References/Footnotes/Sources • External links • See also • Interwiki links

5. ACQUIRE CONTEXT “Like journalism, Wikipedia offers a ﬁrst draft of history, but unlike journalism’s draft, that history is subject to continuous revision.” (Roy Rosenzweig)

CONTEXTUAL SIGNALS

CONFLICT IS YOUR FRIEND Pay close attention to the man behind the curtain.

THANK YOU

http://stevebuttry.wordpress.com	87
http://www.slideshare.net	47
http://guides.kellogg.edu	39
http://blog.aboutus.org	35
http://googleforyou.wikispaces.com	14
http://andreapaz08.wikispaces.com	8
http://oliversmojo.blogspot.com	7
http://www.richmondwiki.org	3
http://jmichaelrobertson.blogspot.com	3
http://www.ninjacloak.com	2
http://ies1blog0809.wordpress.com	2
https://si0.twimg.com	1
http://a0.twimg.com	1
http://feeds.feedburner.com	1
http://bloggnu1230.blogspot.com	1
http://www.thesecretninjaproxy.info	1

Wikipedia for Journalists & Bloggers

by Steven Walling

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Usage Rights

16 Embeds 252

Statistics

Wikipedia for Journalists & Bloggers Presentation Transcript