I read it on Wikipedia
Jinfo Blog

19th December 2008

By Tim Buckley Owen

Item

Journalists at the Financial Times are up in arms over cuts to the newspaper’s library research centre, and nearly 200 of them have signed a petition opposing them. The axe has been hanging over the centre for most of the year http://www.vivavip.com/go/e4110 and previous research staff reductions have prompted the FT writers to say http://digbig.com/4yatn that ‘their loss will ensure that many more high paid columnists and writers will be working far less efficiently and incurring higher costs in the process’. It’s the kind of testimonial that any information professional would normally be glad to have – except that on this occasion it’s a bit of a left-handed blessing. FT management seems to be remaining tight-lipped about the situation, but according to a rival newspaper The Guardian, three staff out of the original six have gone already, with two made redundant and the third redeployed. These are certainly tough times for the news industry but the irony is that, with its specialist expertise and clientele, the FT Group is still seeing its revenues rise. In a memo to staff at the start of December (available on the PaidContent website at http://digbig.com/4yatp) chief executive John Ridding acknowledged that the paper continued to perform well against the competition, taking market share in advertising, readership and circulation – but added that, ‘with our customers and advertisers being affected, we need to prepare for difficult times’. The FT journalists’ alarm at the cuts clearly stems from the likely loss of rapid and cost-effective access to quality information. Back in October, The Guardian reported http://digbig.com/4yatq that FT news editor Robert Shrimsley had warned his staff not to rely on Wikipedia as an accepted source of information. ‘“I read it on Wikipedia” will not play well as an excuse when confronted with a demand for a correction,’ he said. Too right – indeed, so important is the issue of maximising the evidential weight of electronic information that the British Standards Institution has recently published a standard (http://digbig.com/4yatr – £100 or £50 to BSI members) setting out requirements for data management in companies to ensure the integrity of their information. ‘The inherent problem with electronic evidence is that it can so easily be changed,’ explains Mark Surguy, a litigator at law firm Pinsent Masons, welcoming the new standard in the firm’s Out-Law newsletter http://www.out-law.com/page-9655. ‘Arguments are often deployed in court to undermine electronic evidence if there is an opportunity for it to have been altered in any way,’ he points out. Constant alteration is, of course, precisely the point of a collaborative publication like Wikipedia. No doubt the journalists at the FT will take to heart not only their own news editor’s strictures but also this timely new standard.

« Blog