Over on Media Influencer, Adriana has an article called Wikiality, discussing both the rise and rise of Wikipedia and just how badly some commentators misunderstand what Wikipedia is and is not. The issue is not “can bogus content end up on Wikipedia?” (yes, it can) but rather “does it get discovered and corrected?”
Just as bloggers can write any old cobblers they want about some subject, does that mean nothing on blogs can be trusted? No, because not only are blogs generally quite open about where they are coming from (i.e. their ‘biases’), unlike MSM with their untenable claims to be ‘unbiased’, when a blog makes some questionable assertion it is subject to an army of peer reviewers who will pull apart inconsistencies and errors. Moreover the more influential the blog, the quicker and harder errors or fanciful interpretations of events are pounced on in the comments and (more importantly) on other blogs.
The rapid retraction of a photoshopped image of ‘Beirut burning’ being offered for sale by Reuters just a few hours ago indicates that the era of the deference for the purveyors of The News is well and truly over. Peer review, it is not just for blogs and wikis anymore.
Following a precision strike by bloggers from around the world, the mainstream
media’s reputation can be seen going up in photoshopped smoke in Lebanon
The Reuters story is still developing. Charles Johnson of LGF got a death threat from a Reuters IP. Reuters has suspended the employee who sent it but has not released his name. (Link).
The death threat story was published in May. It doesn’t appear to have anything to do with the altered photo.
Oops – you’re right. I didn’t check the date at the bottom of the page. It was linked on Drudge today so I assumed it was current.
Update…
Apparently the photographer was touching up “dust marks” and made mistakes due to “bad lighting conditions”.
Well at least he’s consistent in that his story concocting abilities appear to match his photoshopping skills…
Update on LGF
At least Reuters dumped him, which is the least they could do. But, baby steps.
As to wiki and Adriana’s story, I don’t have so much a problem with the falsehoods that wind up there, so much as the facts that are erased by cliques of active wiki editors that are intent on modifying consensus reality by suppressing truth that conflicts with their agendas.
Most impressively, compare articles on the Arab-Israeli conflict, and other islam-related topics, in the English version of Wikipedia with those in the other-language versions. Unless you speak multiple languages, or don’t mind doing a lot of cutting and pasting on Babelfish, you normally don’t notice it. The editor community passes it off as an “obvious example of white anglo bias”…..