As of today, the media coverage of the shootings at Virginia Tech have begun to wind down, which I am sure in many ways is a relief to the families and friends of the victims. Out of curiosity, however, I decided to check on Wikipedia and see if maybe something could be found there about Virginia Tech and Cho Seung-hui, the killer. I was surprised to find full articles on both, something that I really did not expect.
It might just be me, but it seems a bit odd that there can already be a Wikipedia page on both the Virginia Tech Massacre and Cho Seunh-hui. I feel like it is too soon for there to be enough concrete evidence and knowledge about what happened and why for an encyclopedia website to create pages on it. I understand that Wikipedia can be constantly updated, but the story of what happened has also been updated with great frequency, and while news stations report the latest, breaking news, even if it turns out later to be false, a website like Wikipedia should not be playing that game too. Or should it? In this case I feel like Wikipedia has stepped into the domain of "reporter" or "news source," updating what it posts when the information changes. Personally, I feel that there are enough news sources out there to satisfy any one's appetite, and for Wikipedia to jump on the bandwagon and start doing what the news stations do only adds to the overabundance of mass media frenzy.
However, I could also see how this sort of posting can be beneficial. Unlike ABC News, CNN, Fox News, or the like, Wikipedia takes information from all over and compiles it into one page on one site. In the article on the Virginia Tech massacre, at the bottom of the page, Wikipedia listed 123 references and 11 external links, providing a wealth of further information. This seems to be incredibly helpful for people who want more information but don't want it to all come from one news station. In this way I could see how having a page with a full description of the event from start to finish can be a good source for someone who wants a summary without having to piece it all together from the bits of information in each online or news article. Wikipedia has therefore provided a competent description of the shootings and numerous links to where people could find more information.
This discovery has really got me thinking about what sort of venues are appropriate to report the news and which ones are not. When a huge event such as this happens, every one decides to report on it, for better or for worse. Do you think Wikipedia is right in creating pages on the "Virginia Tech Massacre" and "Cho Seung-hui," or should it leave the reporting to the news stations and create the pages once the whole story has been unfolded and officials are sure of what happened? This touches upon much of what we have discussed in class, and in my opinion at least, it is a tough question to answer. What are your thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Yeah, well put. It's somewhat exciting, however unfortunate these times are with how much we can access and rely on information. The number of sources we turn to in order to make our own informed decisions is absurd. Virginia Tech's case is not closed yet. So information should remain scarce until then the immediately informed people send a press release.
Good post. Too many people are quick to jump the gun and report information that may be false. Wikipedia is really not a credible source for information anyways, so I feel that it in a way it was alright for the information to be posted. I say this becasue most people understand that the site can be changed by anyone, and the information displayed is usually not fully correct. But it still portrays a sense of the subject at hand. But I guess the public still has to be careful what they read and most importnatly what they believe. People can be swayed very easily these days. People need to realize that not everything published on the internet or TV are not always 100% correct.
Post a Comment