This is an
essay on the
Wikipedia:Reliable sources § Breaking news and
Wikipedia:Notability (events) § Breaking news guidelines. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
This page in a nutshell: During "breaking news events", sources generally considered to be reliable sometimes prove not to be, and significant additional care is required before adding material based on those sources. |
Wikipedia will be remembered for our mistakes far more than we will be remembered for 60-second delays in repeating breaking news.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, and is not required to rush to publish. As a result, our processes and principles are designed to work well with the usually contemplative process of building an encyclopedia, not sorting out the oft-conflicting and mistaken reporting common during disasters and other breaking news events. Usually- reliable sources become less so in the confusion and haste surrounding breaking news.
Because of insufficient care in assessing breaking news sources, Wikipedia has, in several cases, repeated not only incorrect but damagingly incorrect information (in chronological order):
The goal in presenting these examples is not to criticize individual editors, it's to highlight that in these cases the mistaken information was both badly sourced (in retrospect) and potentially damaging. While in most circumstances, a single reliable source is enough confirmation for an important fact in an article, in the chaos surrounding breaking news events, significantly greater care is essential.
This is an
essay on the
Wikipedia:Reliable sources § Breaking news and
Wikipedia:Notability (events) § Breaking news guidelines. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
This page in a nutshell: During "breaking news events", sources generally considered to be reliable sometimes prove not to be, and significant additional care is required before adding material based on those sources. |
Wikipedia will be remembered for our mistakes far more than we will be remembered for 60-second delays in repeating breaking news.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, and is not required to rush to publish. As a result, our processes and principles are designed to work well with the usually contemplative process of building an encyclopedia, not sorting out the oft-conflicting and mistaken reporting common during disasters and other breaking news events. Usually- reliable sources become less so in the confusion and haste surrounding breaking news.
Because of insufficient care in assessing breaking news sources, Wikipedia has, in several cases, repeated not only incorrect but damagingly incorrect information (in chronological order):
The goal in presenting these examples is not to criticize individual editors, it's to highlight that in these cases the mistaken information was both badly sourced (in retrospect) and potentially damaging. While in most circumstances, a single reliable source is enough confirmation for an important fact in an article, in the chaos surrounding breaking news events, significantly greater care is essential.