First of all, in order to judge if Wikipedia is credible for journalists, I wanted to have the point of view of the different actors of the domain. That is to say Wikipedia’s team, people from the academic world, journalists and also media enterprises. Another thing that I wanted to find before making a judgement is how accurate is Wikipedia, compared to other encyclopaedia.
This questions guided my research. I’ve used some search engines and – Internet is magical! – I’ve found some websites that have given me responses. Here are my conclusions.
Wikipedia is not a credible source for academic working and journalism. Wikipedia itself on its own website, the Reuters agency in a handbook produce for its journalists and most people in academic or media worlds, as this French academic website proclaimed as a journalism world observatory, arrive to this conclusion. The principal problem is that Wikipedia doesn’t mention enough its sources.
BUT: Wikipedia is as accurate as other encyclopaedia – revues as Nature and Stern have made some studies that prove this point – and in most of the cases faster as its opposites. Moreover, articles are most of the time made by many users and by this way, more true, as an academic study says. Studies (the three already mentioned) prove that most of wiki information is right.
For those reasons, Wikipedia is a good starting point for any research made by journalists. You can use this site but you have to take the information more carefully than normally, sources aren’t all the time clear and sure on a platform as Wikipedia.
My conclusion: Wikipedia is a help during the search process, nothing more.