We live in an age where we expect information to be immediately available, but at the same time, our expectations as to the quality of this information are a whole different question. Less than ten seconds after the earthquake that shook the eastern Ontario region two weeks ago took place, I was on the Internet trying to figure out what just happened. There was nothing. Even five to ten minutes after, my constant refreshing of the Google News page still yielded zero results. About 20 minutes into the quest, I found my first search result—a Wikipedia page confirming the event. Tweets also began popping up from all around the twitterverse, ranging from recapping of personal experiences to witty political commentary (“That wasn’t an earthquake, that was Quebec separating.”). So I didn’t just imagine it—there really was an earthquake.
Having found the information I needed, I was still on the lookout for an actual news article. Eventually I was able to learn more when news stories began appearing on my news feed within the first hour, but even then, I found that many of them referenced Twitter and even Wikipedia to back up their story.
In chapter 11 of his manifesto, Lanier calls out Wikipedia. “There seems to be no limit to Wikipedia adoration,” he writes. “For example, a ghastly news story—such as one covering a terrorist event—might focus on how magically the corresponding Wikipedia entry came together, as if that were the situation’s silver lining” (142).
Of course, the earthquake situation in Ontario was somewhat damaging, but by no means tragic. Yet it’s still interesting to see how preferences in sources are beginning to change, even for reputable news reporters, who may now turn to sources like Twitter, Facebook, and Wikipedia to gather bits of information.
The Vancouver Sun states:
The quake was also immortalized on Wikipedia within half an hour of the tremors. Initially, the “2010 Central Canada earthquake” page contained only the sketchiest details and links to a couple of news articles, but the creator also threw in a few dramatic flourishes: “A Canadian dodo, located in Ontario, texted his friends in case they were worried about him,” the page read. “They were not.” That part of the entry was swiftly deleted.
I’m curious to see how the trend to establish a credibility for Wikipedia, Twitter, and the like will affect the way we gather critical information, particularly when it comes to delivering trustworthy news.
Links:
