The media and Wikipedia have a convoluted relationship: http://xkcd.com/978/
-- http://about.me/rohini On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Vickram Crishna <[email protected]>wrote: > The Tribune link ( > http://www.tribuneindia.com/2000/20001107/cth2.htm|accessdate=5%20April%202009<http://www.tribuneindia.com/2000/20001107/cth2.htm%7Caccessdate=5%20April%202009>) > was wrong, it needs the extension deleted. I note that there is another > unreachable or unlisted reference - [7] - which needs updating. > On 8 Jan 2014 11:03, "Mahitgar from Marathi Wikipedia" < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> The problem is with Indian Media and newspaper industry.Earlier times >> Cheif editors and Subeditors used to insist and guide for crossconfirmation >> of the information being collected and that is part and parcle of >> journalists primary responsibility. >> > > As far as Mahitgar's comment is concerned, I am not sure why any of us > should lose any sleep over the practices or standards of newspapers :-) > >> >> No doubt even wiki editors can make mistakes but atleast on wiki one can >> make corrections.How one will make corrections in newspaper report ? If >> journalist of a news paper has made a mistake,people need to ask the media >> editors first.Wikipedia is just a seondary source of info.As much a >> journalist has made a mistake , it is equally mistaken to blame internet >> and wikipedia blindly.I suppose. >> > > Why are we discussing this 'in the air'? It should just have been > corrected right away. If the opportunity (ie Internet access) was > available, it could have been corrected right in front of her. What better > way to demonstrate the participatory power of the world's best and most > accessible source of information to a sceptic? I think that this lady, or > some of her students, might have become Wikipedians themselves! > > Once I read the original Tribune report, the reason for the error became > obvious. The original English is poor usage and could be misinterpreted, > which is clearly what happened in this case: [She belongs to the > well-known family of Kolhapur, which apart from its sugar mills, is also > famous for its sweet music.] actually means that Kolhapur is famous for > sugar mills and sweet music). Please let us assign blame where blame lies, > or else hold our peace (always the better option). > > >> >> On Wednesday, 8 January 2014 6:06 AM, jayant kirtane < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> Hello, >> >> Yesterday I met Smt Shruti Sadolikar, musician, in the Music Department >> of Mumbai University located in the rear of Churchgate station. In a >> discussion with PhD students, a question was raised regarding the >> reliability of citing internet references. Some of us gave examples about >> how Wikipedia was used all over the world for all kinds of reasons. Smt >> Sadolikar, who was present, gave an instance of wrong information in >> Wikipedia: >> >> "Sadolikar was born 1951 into a family from >> Kolhapur<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolhapur> which >> was known for its musical tradition and owning sugar >> mills<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_refinery> >> .[3] >> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shruti_Sadolikar#cite_note-Rough-3>[4]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shruti_Sadolikar#cite_note-TI-4> >> " in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shruti_Sadolikar. She said that "a >> hundred people" had mentioned the bit about owning sugar mills. This was >> factually incorrect, and gave the wrong impression that she came from an >> affluent family. >> >> Now [4] is a newspaper article: Tandon, Aditi, "Three days of rich >> musical treat", The Tribune, 6 November 2000. I looked up the source, and >> sure enough, it mentions the sugar mills. So it seems that whoever wrote >> the article merely repeated a factual error in the source (which has been >> properly cited as [4] ). >> >> Smt Sadolikar's father and guru was a musician, Marathi stage artist, >> music director, etc. His Wikipedia entry >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wamanrao_Sadolikar makes no mention of >> sugar mills. >> >> Smt Sadolikar had a point to make: if Wikipedia is to put information >> about her in the public domain, is it not their responsibility to inform >> her about it and confirm that the information is factual? Some of us had >> said that Wikipedia was not organized along the principles of, say, a >> newspaper, but if a factual error was brought to its notice, it would be >> corrected. In that spirit I am sending this mail to your mailing list. >> >> Like the rest of the world I am a grateful user and great fan of >> Wikipedia. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-in-mum mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-in-mum >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-in-mum mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-in-mum >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-in-mum mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-in-mum > >
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-in-mum mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-in-mum
