The “Wiki” World- Home of Citizen Journalism!
In this ultra dynamic society, it is not always possible to take the time to stop and read today’s newspaper in order to keep abreast of today’s events. Cue the ‘wiki’ phenomen! From Wiktionary, to Wikipedia to Wikinews, the wiki world has blitzed society with oceans of information, more than any one person could ever trawl through in a lifetime.
It is common knowledge at this stage that the Wiki phenomenon is in fact the work of ordinary folk, ie. citizen journalists. However, it is unfair to discredit this work simply on this basis, without sampling it for yourself.
Wiktionary is the free online dictionary of the wiki world and comes in variety of languages. In order to test the abilities of the work of a citizen journalist, I decided to compare it to a giant in the world of dictionaries; the Oxford English Dictionary. In order to be fair, I chose a word that I was certain would appear in each and then I chose a rather obscure word. The common word that I chose for each dictionary was ‘aardvark’. Wiktionary’s definition was a little disappointing as it failed to mention it’s key feature; it’s tubular snout. Oxford Dictionary’s defintion was far more accurate. The obscure word that I picked was ‘chav’. Unalbe to find the word on Oxford English Dictionary, I consulted Wiktionary, which contained a rather impressive definition. This proves that although Wiktionary may have some vague definitons for common words, it is moving with the times; a concept that some of the well established and professinally compiled dictionaries should consider!
It is also common knowledge that many people turn to Wikipedia to begin researching a particular topic. It is most definitely an okay starting point for research. However, it is true that sometimes, biased posts, slightly inaccurate posts and posts with ulterior commercial motives can find their way onto Wikipedia. What does the public expect? They cannot put their wholehearted faith in a website produced by ordinary people, unskilled in the profession. Generally, it is rather apparent that the minute percentage of dud posts are quite obviously inaccurate. and people are advised to proceed on the website with caution. Their references at the end of each article, on the other hand, are well credited and real, thus proving that whoever wrote the piece researched it thoroughly, and idn’t simply write it off the top of their head.
Finally, Wikinews provides current affairs for people on the go. All the important headlines are featured and the pieces are constructed in an objective way, with no bias present. In relation to the other two members of the Wiki family that I have mentioned above, there is no need for them to be constructed in a journalistic manner. However, on Wikinews, the articles are arranged in a journalistic manner. None of the writer’s bias shines through, thus making it proper journalism in my eyes. However, the burning question still remains, are bloggers proper journalists?
