INTRODUCTION
We live in a connected world. Nearly
every second of our day is engaged in the Internet in one form or another. The
advent of new media introduces new challenges regarding deciphering what
content is credible. Some of these challenges stem from the fact that anyone
has the ability to post information on the Internet and claim it as truth. In
this technological age, how do we determine when anonymity works and when it
doesn’t? In order to answer this question, we must first determine the type of
content we are reviewing. Viewing information from a user-generated site, such
as Wikipedia, is different from viewing information from a site like The
Economist.
THE ECONOMIST
Articles posted on The Economist are done so anonymously in order to lend more credence to the actual news rather than who wrote the content. Since the authors are anonymous it is important to understand the steps the website goes through in order to establish credibility with the reader. Articles are peered edited from members of the editorial staff which is comprised of various journalists from three continents who lend their expertise to the development of each published article. Geoffrey Crowther, a former editor of The Economist, believed that anonymity keeps the editor “not the master but the servant of something far greater than himself” (The Economist, About Us). Therefore, in this case, anonymity works since there is sufficient accountability from peers regarding content. The Economist proves anonymity has a place in media, as there are legitimate reasons for using anonymous sources since “most sensitive material comes from sources who must remain anonymous to protect themselves” (Kovach & Rosenstiel, 2010, p. 87).
WIKIPEDIA
Like The
Economist, online encyclopedias sites are also anonymous in their postings.
Wikipedia has administrators for various categories and subject matters who
post content as well as review information from other contributors for
accuracy. It is important to note that these administrators are not experts on
the subject, but considered authorities based on their number of previous
submission and knowledge of the subject matter. However, it is unknown who
determines the accuracy of their knowledge in any given subject. A study
conducted by Kitture, Suh, and Chi revealed there is a widespread distrust of
wiki sites, which could be “reduced by providing users with transparency into
the stability of content and the history of contributors” (2008, p. 477). In addition,
Neil Waters, professor of Japanese Studies at Middlebury College, proposed a
policy banning the use of Wikipedia after several of his students wrote papers
which included erroneous historical information from the site. Furthermore, a
representative of Wikipedia agreed with Waters’ suggestion and pointed out that
Wikipedia states in its guidelines that “contents are not suitable for academic
citation” (Waters, 2007, p. 16). Finally, the below video - a trailer for a documentary about Wikipedia, provides insight into the appropriate use of Wikipedia, which is not as an academic source.Thus, in this case, anonymity does not work. As consumers, we need to have the ability “to distinguish between a justifiable use of anonymous sources and an unnecessary use” (Kovach & Rosenstiel, 2010, p. 88). In the case of Wikipedia, anonymous sources are not justifiable since, aside from an administrator who may or may not know about the subject at hand, there is no accountability.
 |
| Consumers needs to have the ability to determine justifiable use of an anonymous source. |
CONCLUSION
Sources that can be verified and
researched are considered more credible and trustworthy. Therefore, one would
be wise to turn to The Economist for more accurate news reporting than a site
such as Wikipedia. User generated media is widely used and creates a more
interactive and global environment, but may not pass the credibility test. When
deciding when anonymity works, a case can be made for The Economist. Articles
posted on the site are co-wrote and heavily edited. In contrast, Wikipedia
allows content that is potentially biased until administrators are made aware
and it is removed. As mentioned earlier, these administrators may or may not
have the qualifications to determine if the content being posted is credible.
Information that is peer reviewed, submitted by experts, and has reliable links
or reliable authoritative sources that can be verified are considered the best
sources of information.
References
The Economist. 2013.
Kittur, A., Suh, B. & Chi, E. (2008). Can You Ever Trust a Wiki? Impacting Perceived Trustworthiness in Wikipedia. CSCW '08.
Kovach, B. & Rosenstiel, T. (2010). Blur: How to Know What’s True
Kovach, B. & Rosenstiel, T. (2010). Blur: How to Know What’s True
in
the Age of Information Overload. Bloomsbury USA.
Waters, N. (2007). Why You Can't Cite Wikipedia in My Class. Communications of the ACM. Vol. 50, No. 9.
Wikipedia. 2013.
Wikipedia. 2013.
