Pathetic

UPDATE: It appears that this story may be part of a "this day in tech" series. On that basis I suppose more leeway should be given than would be acceptable in a normal "news story" assumed to be of contemporary interest. It really should be labeled as such on the article page however, I only discovered this fact by reading the comments which talk about the feature appearing on the main page. I never visit the main page as I access Wired News via RSS.

I just came across an article on Wired News. It was short, but interesting. Then I read the last line and was shocked.

(Source: Wikipedia)

I enjoy using Wikipedia as a casual resource, but I would never use it as more than a jumping off point for a research paper. Any claims or facts I found would be ignored until I could verify them in reliable sources. But this reporter bases his entire story off a Wikipedia article?!?

This is very poor journalism indeed. 'Tis almost as bad as the AP has been in Iraq.

~Matt

PS Check out the article comments. One asks "[w]hat news is contained in [the] story."

powered by performancing firefox