Wikipedia As News Hound And Weather Forecaster

During Hurricane Gustav I came to realize that Wikipedia has gotten into the "late-breaking news" business. And even into forecasting. And I'm not sure this is a good thing.

My wife is in Louisiana with the Red Cross, so it has been convenient for me to keep up with the hurricane by checking Wikipedia regularly. I always checked both the Current storm information paragraph and the links to the weather service under Forecast, all appearing at the bottom of the article. One visit, though, I noticed that there were a series of reversed edits and I wondered what people were arguing about. So I visited the talk page and found a minor discussion about adding a content disclaimer to the top of the article. In the context of mass evacuations from New Orleans, some Wiki editors wanted to add a box at the top of the page saying that readers shouldn't rely on Wikipedia for evacuation information.

One of the participants in the debate pointed me towards a discussion in the Administrators' noticeboard, where this box argument was going full tilt. Many of the administrators dismissed the idea of adding a warning notice, saying it would lead to specific (and ridiculous) warnings for all sorts of things, like getting a doctor's advice before choosing to get liposuction or to stick beans up your nose. Wikipedia already had a clear risk disclaimer, so what was the point of setting the precedent of adding warning boxes everywhere? The argument was finally resolved by adding a temporary notice that informs readers that they are reading an article about a current tropical cyclone that, while updated frequently, may not include the most current or official information for all areas. The words "may not reflect" are linked to the disclaimer. Once the hurricane is old news, the box will be removed.

While it was nice that they resolved the issue, I wonder if Wiki should be in the business of presenting late-breaking news and weather forecasts to its readership? It is, after all, an encyclopedia, not a newspaper or public bulletin board. If Wikipedia didn't publish "current storm information," maybe there would be no need to worry about readers deciding to stay home and ignore an evacuation order? The details could be added to the article after they occur, like most other articles. One Wiki editor pointed out that a vandal had changed the current strength of the hurricane and this edit somehow remained online for several hours uncorrected, so evacuees could indeed have been misled, he argued. The debate is well reasoned at times and absurd at others, but some of the issues are worth thinking about if you are a Wikipedian.

All in all, I like going to the Wiki home page and finding summaries of current events. But I do wonder what the broader implications are for Wikipedia as the line blurs between the documentation of history and the attempt to purvey news and provide forecasting?