Contents

Wikipedia:Breaking news sources

Essay on editing Wikipedia

This is an essay on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources § Breaking news and Wikipedia:Notability (events) § Breaking news guidelines. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

This page in a nutshell: During "breaking news events", sources generally considered to be reliable sometimes prove not to be, and significant additional care is required before adding material based on those sources.

Wikipedia will be remembered for our mistakes far more than we will be remembered for 60-second delays in repeating breaking news.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, and is not required to rush to publish. As a result, our processes and principles are designed to work well with the usually contemplative process of building an encyclopedia, not sorting out the oft-conflicting and mistaken reporting common during disasters and other breaking news events. Usually-reliable sources become less so in the confusion and haste surrounding breaking news.

Because of insufficient care in assessing breaking news sources, Wikipedia has, in several cases, repeated not only incorrect but damagingly incorrect information (in chronological order):

• In 2006, after a coal mine explosion in Sago, West Virginia, a number of sources including the Associated Press, Reuters, CNN, USA Today, Governor Joe Manchin, and Congresswoman Shelley Moore Capito all reported twelve survivors of the thirteen trapped by the explosion. For about three hours, we also repeated that report, which turned out to be wrong, which caused understandable trauma for the families of the deceased. Criticismofbad reporting during the disaster was widespread.

• In the first hours of the 2011 Tucson shooting, National Public Radio reported Gabrielle Giffords to have perished in the shootings. Several sources that would usually be considered reliable, CNN included, did not confirm this report but repeated this report in their own coverage, using wording such as "NPR reports..." On the basis of this single source, we reported Giffords death as well, and were forced to retract when NPR did. While we were not directly responsible for the television report that falsely informed her husband of her death, there's no doubt that misreports of death can have enormously painful consequences.

• In 2012, CNN, perhaps based on the challenges of trying to too-quickly assimilate 150 pages of dense legal opinion, announced that the Supreme Court had struck down the individual mandate provision of Obamacare, whereas the facts were quite the opposite, leading to considerable consternation inside and outside the network.

The goal in presenting these examples is not to criticize individual editors, it's to highlight that in these cases the mistaken information was both badly sourced (in retrospect) and potentially damaging. While in most circumstances, a single reliable source is enough confirmation for an important fact in an article, in the chaos surrounding breaking news events, significantly greater care is essential.

1. For significant claims about significant news events, wait for two or three independent reliable sources to source the material. If one source says that "the other reports...", the sources are not independent. Wait hours, perhaps even a day, before using a single normally-reliable source to reference what would be a significant event that can't otherwise be verified. There is no deadline, and more importantly, exceptional claims require exceptional sources.
2. If in doubt, leave it out, for the moment. Very important facts about very important news events will be widely confirmed in reliable sources, generally in English, within minutes. If a significant claim can only be found from a single source (or people repeating a single source), consider waiting for another more direct source to confirm.
3. Be particularly careful with claims that are likely based only on eyewitness testimony of a disaster or crime, such testimony can be unreliable.
4. Be particularly careful with claims based in any way upon translation. See WP:NONENG.
5. Be particularly careful with claims whose correct reporting depends on legal, medical, technical or otherwise specialized knowledge. The translation from "nuclear engineering jargon" to "plain English" can be just as problematic as the translation from German to English.
6. Be particularly careful with claims of someone's death. See WP:BLP and WP:BDP.
7. Remember that all breaking news stories are primary sources. They are, by definition, being published very close to the events that the document. Most breaking news stories from reputable news media are independent primary sources. "Independent" does not mean "secondary". Plan to replace all breaking news sources in the future with solid secondary sources.
8. Breathe deeply. Disasters and other breaking events are exciting, and that excitement can easily lead experienced and well-meaning editors astray.

• WP:Notability (events)