The WSJ voices mainstream skepticism of readers editing news
Today's Wall Street Journal (subscription required) posts an article about Digg.com, noting its popularity, but also its inaccuracies. The article would have been more interesting to me if they had also compared Newsvine (invitation required), which I find much more useful and informative than Digg.com.
But as another Newsvine writer notes, readers aren't the only ones that create inaccuracies in reporting. If they were, then the Journal wouldn't need a corrections section in the paper. And given the recent test that found that when comparing random articles from Wikipedia and The Encyclopedia Brittanica, Wikipedia actually had fewer errors, perhaps there is more wisdom in crowds than the traditional print thinks.
But as another Newsvine writer notes, readers aren't the only ones that create inaccuracies in reporting. If they were, then the Journal wouldn't need a corrections section in the paper. And given the recent test that found that when comparing random articles from Wikipedia and The Encyclopedia Brittanica, Wikipedia actually had fewer errors, perhaps there is more wisdom in crowds than the traditional print thinks.
posted by Carl Howe at
10:00 AM
| View blog reactions
| 
