Wikipedia Draws Reuters’ Scrutiny in Wake of Kenneth Lay’s Death

Kenneth Lay, disgraced former CEO of the infamous Enron Corporation (but simply “Kenny Boy” to George W. Bush), apparently died today of a heart attack while vacationing near Aspen, Colorado. We might never know the exact details about how Lay perished, and conspiracy theories are rife as to whether he actually died today or, conversely, whether he was given some assistance in shuffling off this mortal coil. The fact is, we might never know the truth about what happened to Lay, and the official explanation, given his age and the stress he incurred in his recent trial and conviction for various instances of fraud and other fiduciary crimes against shareholders and Enron employees, seems more than plausible.

What I find interesting about Lay’s passing, however, is the reaction of Reuters to the initial reports of Lay’s death on Wikipedia. Evidently, as one might expect given the nature of Wikipedia, the story there changed, minute by minute, as more details surfaced publicly and as Wikipedia contributors raced to post the latest news or their own interpretations of what was transpiring. In the end, however, the self-editing mechanisms of Wikipedia restored factual order, and the official story, insofar as it is complete before an autopsy has been performed on the decedent’s body, is now clearly in evidence at the online encyclopedia.

What Reuters implicitly suggests is Wikipedia’s weakness — it’s dynamic authoring system and the lack of rigid editorial version control — is what I see as a strength. Reuters took issue with Wikipedia’s attempts to keep pace with confusing, sometimes conflicting, details as news broke of Lay’s sudden demise. But there’s nothing wrong with what Wikipedia’s contributors attempted to do. It happens all the time on CNN, and Reuters doesn’t seem to take offense at the factual fluidity inherent in live television news coverage. Breaking news often is a moving target, with important details and facts only coming to light hours, days, or months after a major event has taken place. Wikipedia allows for various perspectives and viewpoints to be presented, sure, sometimes in real time, but that provides more social benefit than harm. Debate and discourse on the forum eventually separate the wheat from the chaff, and matters usually are resolved, accurately and satisfactorily, in due course. It’s not perfect, but it’s not as bad as Reuters would have you believe.