[Date Prev][Date Next][Date Index]

E-M:/ RE: / Re: Great Lakes Wiki Web site

I went to one of the initial meetings when they were formulating this site and brought another Sierran with me who is working on Great Lakes issues as well.  This was my primary concern as well, but Dave

Poulson seemed to thing this was the wave of the future.  I was concerned because what Scientist would want to submit researched material to have it edited by anyone.  I haven’t been on the site to see any of the exchanges yet because I’ve been computer-less over a week (computer was dropped & destroyed), so maybe Dave has this set up a little differently then Wiki since credibility and accuracy certainly are the issue.  I made the recommendation that to encourage scientists to submit items, it might make sense to leave their work intact and people could comment on it below the article, rather than actually editing the submitted piece and maybe it was set up in that fashion.  


Jan O’Connell


From: owner-enviro-mich@great-lakes.net [mailto:owner-enviro-mich@great-lakes.net] On Behalf Of Njb586@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 12:20 AM
To: enviro-mich@great-lakes.net
Subject: E-M:/ Re: Great Lakes Wiki Web site


       I was astonished to read the posting about MSU's new Great Lakes Wiki Web site. I'm mystified at how the MSU School of Journalism can develop and promote a program that, as the article states, "allows contributors to post information and commentary without prior editing with regard to fairness or accuracy." Fairness can be debatable, but accuracy? Accuracy should be the gold standard of any journalism project associated with MSU or any other university.
       Worse yet is the pathetic excuse that this is somehow acceptable because "mainstream media outlets are not immune to mistakes or occasionally allowing bias to creep into news stories." I was not aware that MSU condones shoddy journalism and biased reporting. Are these not things we should be trying to fix rather than pass off as part and parcel of the trade? Do we accept "mistakes" that affect the environment or the potential for "mistakes"? No. We demand perfection. The same should be true for a so-called "information" network supported by a college journalism program.
       I'm all for free speech, information sharing and protecting the environment, but I worry the Journalism College has put its reputation at stake with this site. I urge the college to investigate other forms of reporting that do not go against the basic journalism creed of accuracy.