BBC or Wikipedia?
-
Hmm - have just noticed a new development in an article on the BBC news website: in-page links to background material. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7560833.stm[^] Whilst I can see the supposed benefit of such links (they are a prime example of the original intent of hypertext after all), I am slightly disturbed by the sudden incorporation of wikipedia material into what is supposed to be news.
"I know you believe you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize what you heard is not what I meant."
-
Hmm - have just noticed a new development in an article on the BBC news website: in-page links to background material. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7560833.stm[^] Whilst I can see the supposed benefit of such links (they are a prime example of the original intent of hypertext after all), I am slightly disturbed by the sudden incorporation of wikipedia material into what is supposed to be news.
"I know you believe you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize what you heard is not what I meant."
AlphaMatrix wrote:
I am slightly disturbed by the sudden incorporation of wikipedia material into what is supposed to be news.
You cant trust either, so where is the problem? ;P
xacc.ide - now with TabsToSpaces support
IronScheme - 1.0 alpha 4a out now (29 May 2008) -
Hmm - have just noticed a new development in an article on the BBC news website: in-page links to background material. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7560833.stm[^] Whilst I can see the supposed benefit of such links (they are a prime example of the original intent of hypertext after all), I am slightly disturbed by the sudden incorporation of wikipedia material into what is supposed to be news.
"I know you believe you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize what you heard is not what I meant."
-
Hmm - have just noticed a new development in an article on the BBC news website: in-page links to background material. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7560833.stm[^] Whilst I can see the supposed benefit of such links (they are a prime example of the original intent of hypertext after all), I am slightly disturbed by the sudden incorporation of wikipedia material into what is supposed to be news.
"I know you believe you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize what you heard is not what I meant."
AlphaMatrix wrote:
incorporation of wikipedia material into what is supposed to be news
Or indeed fact?
------------------------------------ "I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy" - Bob Monkhouse
-
AlphaMatrix wrote:
I am slightly disturbed by the sudden incorporation of wikipedia material into what is supposed to be news.
What's so disturbing about it?
A lot has been written over the past few years regarding the uncritical use of internet-sourced material by journalists. The BBC is funded by licence fee payments and exists as a public service broadcaster in the UK on the basis of a charter. One of the overriding concerns of the BBC over many decades has been it's requirement to be impartial as laid down in it's charter. This has caused many disputes - particularly from the political margins. The following link details the BBC's editorial guidlines. http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/edguide/impariality/[^] What I find disturbing is the ongoing uncritical & unverified use of internet sourced material by journalists AND the incorporation into BBC provided content of material from an organisation with such a chequered history of non-impartiality, infighting and obfuscation as wikipedia. (and yes - I know that all of those points could be levelled at the bbc itself ;) )
"I know you believe you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize what you heard is not what I meant."
-
A lot has been written over the past few years regarding the uncritical use of internet-sourced material by journalists. The BBC is funded by licence fee payments and exists as a public service broadcaster in the UK on the basis of a charter. One of the overriding concerns of the BBC over many decades has been it's requirement to be impartial as laid down in it's charter. This has caused many disputes - particularly from the political margins. The following link details the BBC's editorial guidlines. http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/edguide/impariality/[^] What I find disturbing is the ongoing uncritical & unverified use of internet sourced material by journalists AND the incorporation into BBC provided content of material from an organisation with such a chequered history of non-impartiality, infighting and obfuscation as wikipedia. (and yes - I know that all of those points could be levelled at the bbc itself ;) )
"I know you believe you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize what you heard is not what I meant."
AlphaMatrix wrote:
regarding the uncritical use of internet-sourced material
..meaning a journalist should not just copy something of a random weblog and call it "news". That's a mile away from linking the definition of a word. Would you be offended if they linked to Encyclopdia Brittanica? Showing the definition (or a translation) is not the same thing as randomly copying some rumour and presenting it as news. Any quote from the BBC-website would qualify as "internet-sourced material". So, they're not allowed to quote themselves, in order to remain impartial? :-\
AlphaMatrix wrote:
One of the overriding concerns of the BBC over many decades has been it's requirement to be impartial as laid down in it's charter.
No comments :wtf:
-
AlphaMatrix wrote:
regarding the uncritical use of internet-sourced material
..meaning a journalist should not just copy something of a random weblog and call it "news". That's a mile away from linking the definition of a word. Would you be offended if they linked to Encyclopdia Brittanica? Showing the definition (or a translation) is not the same thing as randomly copying some rumour and presenting it as news. Any quote from the BBC-website would qualify as "internet-sourced material". So, they're not allowed to quote themselves, in order to remain impartial? :-\
AlphaMatrix wrote:
One of the overriding concerns of the BBC over many decades has been it's requirement to be impartial as laid down in it's charter.
No comments :wtf:
eddyvluggen wrote:
That's a mile away from linking the definition of a word. Would you be offended if they linked to Encyclopdia Brittanica?
More than linking to word definitions - check it out, the linked material is also presented as news content.
eddyvluggen wrote:
No comments
As I said previousy "I know that all of those points could be levelled at the bbc itself" - I am just not convinced that using the content of wikipedia et al is the best way of demonstrating good research and investigative journalism.
"I know you believe you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize what you heard is not what I meant."
-
eddyvluggen wrote:
That's a mile away from linking the definition of a word. Would you be offended if they linked to Encyclopdia Brittanica?
More than linking to word definitions - check it out, the linked material is also presented as news content.
eddyvluggen wrote:
No comments
As I said previousy "I know that all of those points could be levelled at the bbc itself" - I am just not convinced that using the content of wikipedia et al is the best way of demonstrating good research and investigative journalism.
"I know you believe you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize what you heard is not what I meant."
Looks like they already removed it.
AlphaMatrix wrote:
the linked material is also presented as news content.
Here it was presented as a wikipedia-link. A nice image preceding the link showing that it's non-BBC controlled content. It's not like they are taking the text of the wiki and presenting it as if they wrote it, they're showing it in a popup to visually underline that it's not part of the story!
AlphaMatrix wrote:
demonstrating good research
Good research includes references, so one can verify the claims and statements made. This is mostly done in scientific papers, not in something that the general public reads. It's not necessary that they verify whether they're reading the truth. OT; the wikipedia does include references to it's sources.
-
Hmm - have just noticed a new development in an article on the BBC news website: in-page links to background material. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7560833.stm[^] Whilst I can see the supposed benefit of such links (they are a prime example of the original intent of hypertext after all), I am slightly disturbed by the sudden incorporation of wikipedia material into what is supposed to be news.
"I know you believe you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize what you heard is not what I meant."