Mainstream Media Deep Linking to Wikipedia Articles

Not sure if this is something new or not, but I just saw a CNN Money article which linked at a Wikipedia article about Joe Kraus as background on him. Given how much the search engines already trust the Wikipedia imagine how much exposure it will be getting if the mainstream media regularly cite it and deep link at their biographies!

Just the fact that the mainstream media would link at articles that anyone can edit shows a big shift in power over the last couple years.

Published: December 6, 2006 by Aaron Wall in internet


December 10, 2006 - 7:33am

Linking to Wikipedia is a slippery slope. If someone comes in an edits it to some false claims about the person, who would get sued for libel?

Absence of Malice may be a defense but the start of such lawsuits are coming if this trend continues.

December 6, 2006 - 10:36am

Yes Wikipedia has a big impact in both SE and peoples perceptions. But then again, the latest study shows that the results in Wikipedia is more less the same as in Britanica. So as for now there is no need for worry that the results will be wrong.

December 6, 2006 - 11:48am

The Wikipedia model of user built collaborative, self correcting content is very solid. I predict in the future when Wikipedia entries are compared with other paid encyclopedias you'll find less errors, not more. There is an article in nature that already shows evidence that Wikipedia contains about the same number of errors as the Encyclopedia Britannica. Now imagine when the user base doubles again.

December 6, 2006 - 1:23pm

I've no real worry with Wikipedia - for every idiot who wants to deface it, there's at least one sensible person (often more) who will go in and sort out problems. As long as there are perfectionists (who know their stuff) roaming it, it'll be kept ok.

My worry is what'd happen if a load of people grouped together with the sole purpose of doing damage to it. But then there's easier ways than defacing pages to accomplish that.

Error free? No. Of course not. But an acceptable source? Yeh, most of the time I'd have to say it is.

December 6, 2006 - 1:34pm

Hi Peter
But what is right? There are few universal truths in rapidly changing markets, and in many of them the true topic experts are chased out of editing based on Wikipedians who believe what some of the largest power sources in those market want people to believe.

December 6, 2006 - 2:16pm

Aaron - "chased out" is a bit harsh - just put the controversial or agruable information on the talk pages. It can live there forever.

I always check the talk or dicussion page to view any differing opinions as to what should be there. Wikipedia is great about leaving (even very controversial debates) in the talk pages.

Yes it's difficult to put new information or info that substantially differs from convential advice, but you can still do it by using the talk pages and by choosing the right headers. If you add the sub header controversies to an article and put what other people think (sourced) It usually won't get removed.

Add new comment

(If you're a human, don't change the following field)
Your first name.
(If you're a human, don't change the following field)
Your first name.
(If you're a human, don't change the following field)
Your first name.