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 :-)
::Can some one ask this question to Amol Palekar ji ? This was a bit funny
but a true story remained un/under-reported from Pune Wikimedian community.
Amol Palekar was annoyed with non-factual reporting by media and he wanted to
show case it to them. A journalist of a reknowned national daily called him up,
Amol Palekarji gave knowingly gave him incorrect information and those
newspaper guys realy printed the news story without cross-confirmation.Probably
Amol Palekarji also forgot about the instance. That news story got reffered on
en wikipedia as it is. In simmiller way Shruti Sadolikarji complained people
started reffering Amol Palekarji with wrong information , He enquired where the
information is coming from ? and was answered the info is coming from
wikipedia. Without reffering to all thsese rather than critcising wikipedia he
praised wikipedia in a fuction .Marathi News papers picked up that line and
reported.Pune marathi wikipedians
happily aproached him with an invitation for an inaugaral function .He
accepted the invitation but made his dipleasure known about incorrect info
on wikipedia. We corrected some of the facts on his insistance before the
fuction.As you rightly said I left one edit to be edited for furter
confirmation from him during the meet. Incidently the main audiance of wiki
meet was all pune journalists and journalism students and Journalism Dept HODs
from University of Pune and all.During the speech when he comlained about
mis-information I corrected info in a live demo at the same time brought to
notice that info is coming from a national credible daily news paper.And then
he lectured the audiance for their lapses and importance of cross
confirmation of the facts. That is not all ask media seniors themselves how
good the situation on the count we are discussing. What happens to India does
it affect to wikipedia ? specially to Indian wikipedians ?
What percentage of resources we reffer from online news papers and what
percentage from the books ? For Indic wikipedians who are working to build
wikipedia with a cause, without their fault a wrong information getting
displayed on wikipedia , How much a sincere wikipedian would love that? All
the Indians do not get opportunity to explain a journnalist importance of
factual reporting after due cross-confirmation. If a wikipedian explains them
that this affects credibility of the knowledge base a journalist may take it
seriously , but if we dont ? Our own hardwork suffers !
On Wednesday, 8 January 2014 12:49 PM, Vickram Crishna
<[email protected]> wrote:
The Tribune link
(http://www.tribuneindia.com/2000/20001107/cth2.htm|accessdate=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 which was known for its
>musical tradition and owning sugar mills.[3][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
