Study finds major U.S. newspapers are warming up to Wikipedia

Apr 12, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Major newspapers in the United States are referencing Wikipedia more often and framing the online encyclopedia more positively in stories, according to a study by a pair of faculty researchers in the Virginia Commonwealth University School of Mass Communications.

In the study, published in the April issue of Journalism Practice, researchers analyzed the framing of and its use as a news source by five U.S. national newspapers over an eight-year period. A content analysis of 1,486 Wikipedia references in The , The , The , USA Today and The Christian Science Monitor found that Wikipedia is predominantly framed neutrally or positively in stories and that it is increasingly used as a news source.

“The main finding of this study is the notion that journalists do not use Wikipedia is debunked,” said Marcus Messner, Ph.D., assistant professor of mass communications. “Wikipedia is used by journalists in news stories on a regular basis and it is not considered a negative.”

The researchers said their study found the journalists’ acceptance and use of Wikipedia developed over time.

“Early stories debunked Wikipedia, throwing cold water on Wikipedia as an accurate source of information. And in 2004 and 2005, a number of media reported on Wikipedia hoaxes,” said Jeff South, associate professor of mass communications. “But over time, negative references faded into the background and the number of references sourcing Wikipedia became more prominent.”

The researchers said by framing Wikipedia as credible and accurate, the newspapers help legitimize the use of the . By allowing Wikipedia to influence their news agendas as a source, the newspapers confirm the growing reliability of Wikipedia.

Explore further: Marcellus drilling boom may have led to too many hotel rooms

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Study suggests doctors could add to Wikipedia

Apr 30, 2009

(AP) -- Researchers are suggesting that doctors could be spending more time writing and editing Wikipedia pages on medical topics, despite questions that have been raised about the collaborative online encyclopedia's ...

Recommended for you

Marcellus drilling boom may have led to too many hotel rooms

Sep 18, 2014

Drilling in Pennsylvania's Marcellus Shale region led to a rapid increase in both the number of hotels and hotel industry jobs, but Penn State researchers report that the faltering occupancy rate may signal that there are ...

Entrepreneurs aren't overconfident gamblers

Sep 17, 2014

Leaving one's job to become an entrepreneur is inarguably risky. But it may not be the fear of risk that makes entrepreneurs more determined to succeed. A new study finds entrepreneurs are also concerned about what they might ...

User comments : 3

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

JamesThomas
not rated yet Apr 12, 2011
Now, if they would just do the same for WikiLeaks.
comendant
1 / 5 (2) Apr 12, 2011
I think wikipedia is great for featured articles ONLY. Anything else is not so great and overall misleading or very confusing.
Doug_Huffman
not rated yet Apr 13, 2011
The Wikipedia is a fine *first* resource for narrowly and barely literate Americans, particularly 'journalists'.