Wikipedia: the single source

In their obituaries of composer Maurice Jarre, a number of writers included quotes which appeared only on Wikipedia. The Guardian's reader's editor comments in detail.

It turns out the quotes were fake but many serious papers were caught out.

Wikipedia is not the problem: they removed the fake quotes three times. The fake info was only visible for a little over a day. Wikipedia goes to a lot of trouble to reference sources and to draw it to one's attention when there is no verified source. The obit writers seem to have missed that the fake quotes were unverified.

The hoaxer is not the problem: he achieved his aim of highlighting sloppy editorial practices (although there was more wit in the hoax that BBC TV themetune composer Ronnie Hazlehurst had written the S Club 7 hit Reach which also appeared in several newspaper obits via Wikipedia).

My question is this: what is the point of journalism if readers can get the same information direct from Wikipedia?

So, some rules for journalists:

• All facts should be checked with at least two reliable sources
• The origin of facts should be traced to ensure their veracity
• Everything you write should include a high proportion of original material -- otherwise you are just duplicating someone else's effort
• The best way to obtain original and reliable material is to talk to people. Any fool can browse the web
• Good writers have a network of contacts so they have someone to call even when they are up against a deadline