The issue of reforming the American health care system has been the central issue in American politics in recent weeks, and many media critics have observed that the mainstream media have done a poor job informing the public about the nature of the reform proposals that the U.S. Congress is considering. In particular, critics allege that the media have emphasized conflict over fact and allowed public debate to be derailed by distorted ideas (such as the concept of "death panels"). But Megan Garber of the Columbia Journalism Review sees a bright spot in public health care reform discourse: Wikipedia.
In "Health Care and Wikipedia", Garber identifies the article Health care reform in the United States as the antidote to the false balance of recent news coverage. According to Garber, "Wikipedia provides, essentially, what traditional news outlets, both in print and online, have been trying—with varying degrees of success—to create: a thorough, comprehensive, and vitriol-free examination of the health care conversation." In addition to the main health care reform article, she notes the extensive range of related articles that neatly summarize the key political debates and the relevant background information (many of which are collected in the {{Health care reform in the United States}} template).
Explaining why Wikipedia has outperformed the mainstream media on the health care reform issue, Garber writes that:
because Wikipedia is crowdsourced, it has no implicit mandate, ethical or economical, toward ‘balance’ and ‘objectivity.’ It thus has no vested interest in the kind of he said/she said approach that has, to this point, so sorely compromised the mainstream media’s health care narrative.
The creation of English Wikipedia's three millionth article, on Norwegian actress Beate Eriksen, prompted worldwide coverage.[itn 1][itn 2] The Telegraph took the opportunity to list the top 50 articles by web traffic of 2008 and 2009.[itn 3]
The Guardian coverage included repeating the findings of the PARC study that "it is harder for new users to make inroads with the site's powerful group of administrators."[itn 4] The Christian Science Monitor blog repeats an older Guardian assertion that the decline in the rate of article creation is the result of a deletionist-inclusionist battle calling Wikipedia "the upstart social experiment that trusts the online mob to steward world knowledge."[itn 5] Tech sites Softpedia and ReadWriteWeb are less doomsday in their coverage, with ReadWriteWeb noting, "the fact that the number of new articles added is declining may not have to do with the site losing its appeal but with the fact that there is simply less to write about." Softpedia declares, "The studies by PARC are some of the best scientific analysis of Wikipedia's community ever done, but it has led to some rather sensationalist conclusions by media outlets," under a section header entitled "Get it Straight: Wikipedia isn't Dying."[itn 6][itn 7]
The Hindu covered a Wiki-Academy held at St. Aloysius College in Mangalore, India, describing it as a "one-day workshop [that] will focus on the use of Indian languages in Wikipedia, editing and its application in academics."[itn 8] A question at the Wiki-Academy about Mangalore, Victoria in Australia, led to reporting on disambiguation on Wikipedia. The Hindu reported that the organizers of the meeting, N. S. Prashanth (User:Prashanthns) and Hariprasad Nadig (User:HPN) stated that "The profit one gets by being content editor on Wikipedia ... is 'satisfaction.'"[itn 9]
The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan is investigating ER physician James Heilman (User:Jmh649) after complaints from two psychologists about his adding images of the inkblots used in the Rorschach test. One complaint states that Heilman's actions "shows disrespect to his professional colleagues in psychology and disparages them in the eyes of the public." Heilman said he had no intention of backing down, saying of his critics, "They are trying to close the doors to scientific discourse. They don’t want anybody other than themselves involved in a discussion about what they do."[itn 10]
Discuss this story
The quote about the health care reform article seems to say we do well for the same reason as The Economist, for example, by being frank and avoiding a neutral point of view.--chaser (talk) 14:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vandal edits = pretty unusual? LOL!
Thus spake the quote in the newspaper story about the town of Sherman's article.
Typically quickly reverted, yes. Pretty unusual? LOL! Cheers, — ¾-10 03:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]