Template:British TV shows project On the Newsnight episode of Thursday, 18th of November 2005, during a discussion of journalism and blogs (in relation to the Iraq war) the presenter Jeremy Paxman made reference to Wikipedia!
Comparing Wikipedia with blogs, he stated something like "...Wikipedia where lots of people contribute to an online encyclopedia which is often better than the published thing". Not totally sure if that is a correct word-for-word quote but it should be close. Still, its good to get a compliment from one of Britain's most respected journalists and someone who is definatly not known for handing out complements too frequently! 80.195.168.97 00:53, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- He complimented Wikipedia on University Challenge a few months back as well. --Bonalaw 09:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Criticism of Newsnight
I have been looking at some entries for a number of so called "alternative media" related topics such as that of the Medialens website, and journalists such as John Pilger, George Monbiot and political commentator and linguist Noam Chomsky. I notice these all have some sort of section, however big or small, broaching the issue of criticism of these sources. I wondered why no one has added anything relating to criticisms of Newsnights reporting of stories, the stories covered, guests chosen etc? I shall be checking entries for other more mainstream news sources and commentators to see if this is also the case. I understand that criticism for criticisms sake cannot be allowed under the neutrality conditions of Wikipedia but it is interesting to see how information is presented to the public. Does anyone else have any views on this?
- I suppose the main criticisms tend to be about the individual presenters' styles. Some people think Paxo is too harsh, some have criticised Wark for having friendships with politicians, personally I think Esler has drifted into an attitude that he must attempt to stir up confrontation even at the expense of sense, I don't think anyone has a bad word to say about Kearney though. --Bonalaw 19:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
"Recent-cruft"
I noticed this edit describing a recent one-off variant on the playout music.
Is this really important in the large scheme of things, or just part of the combined tendency to (a) Add factoid cruft to Wikipedia and (b) Consider anything that happened in the last six months worthy of inclusion? Don't get me wrong; my criticisms aren't solely concerned with this one edit, it just seems to be symptomatic.
I appreciate that any programme article will (and should) have slightly more weight on its recent/current status, but this concentration on recent minor issues seems to be a bit silly. Fourohfour 15:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)