Twitter comes of age with fast reports from the ground in Mumbai | World news | The Guardian

Guardian is writing about Twitter and the Mumbai tweets during the incident.

1. There are a multitude of sources
2. Twitter is very fast
3. Mobile tools can be used for the reporting
4. Flickr for photo sharing
5. Wikipedia to collect scattered information
   

Twitter comes of age with fast reports from the ground in Mumbai | World news | The Guardian: "From the moment the first shots were fired, the internet provided a kaleidoscopic view of events in Mumbai. Using blogs and file-sharing sites, those caught up in the mayhem rapidly provided accounts from the ground as well as links to the best news reports appearing on the web.

One rich source of information was Twitter, which provides text-message-length updates. Its Mumbai thread provided a stream of snippets, not all accurate, from observers on the ground, with details of casualties, sieges, gunfights, and even the suspected names of terrorists.

Helge: In chaos no media is able to provide all accurate information. The reader has to filter the facts from a trend. There are also "several truths and myths" about a war like situation.

In many cases, Twitter updated developments faster than many TV networks or newspaper websites. The site's contributors also questioned the veracity of some news reports, pointing out contradictions and errors. When Indian reporters announced that the siege at the Taj hotel was over, for example, Twitter contended that gunfights were continuing. 'Locals say gunfire still happening at TAJ,' said one feed, hours after fighting was said to have finished. 'Twitter comes of age - Mumbai coverage way ahead of traditional media,' added another contributor."

Helge: The story continues to explain other Web 2.0 tools in use during the terrorist attack.

Guardian writes.

Vinukumar Ranganathan was one of the first to upload photos to the picture-sharing website Flickr. His and others' blurred images from the bloodied streets of Colaba instantly conveyed the gravity of the attacks. As soon as it emerged that the head of the antiterrorist squad, Hemant Karkare, had been killed, Flickr instantly contained a portfolio of images of the official.

By last night Wikipedia contained more than 4,000 words of detailed - and corrected - information on the attacks.

The Truth According to Wikipedia

The Truth According to Wikipedia: "Dutch filmmaker IJsbrand van Veelen stirred a lot of controversy last week at the Next Web conference when he premiered the documentary above, The Truth About Wikipedia. It has now been posted to YouTube and is worth watching when you have a spare 45 minutes.

Helge: I've no time to listen to the YouTube now, but I will come back.

The film pits Andrew Keen, the disapproving author of The Culture of the Amateur, and Bob McHenry, former editor-in-chief of the Encyclopedia Britannica, against Wikipedia co-founders Larry Sanger, Jimmy Wales, and Web 2.0 guru Tim O’Reilly, among others. The film is masterfully made and shows many points of view, but it ends up being more than anything else a vehicle for Keen to put forth his diatribes against Wikipedia. You definitely get the sense that he wins the argument in the movie.

Helge: Wikipedia is a great show!

And, in fact, when I asked van Veelen afterwards on stage who he personally agreed with the most (I was the conference MC), he admitted it was Keen. This siding with the enemy, as it were, actually makes the documentary more thought-provoking. People in the audience were seething, and one man came prepared with a speech denouncing the filmmaker."

Helge: Hmmm! Jason Calacanis has been critical to Wikipeda...

In the film, Keen actually argues that we need gatekeepers for the truth, and those gatekeepers should be experts. Of course, he misses the point that the relatively small handful of people who do most of the writing and editing on Wikipedia may very well be experts in their topic areas, or become experts by writing and researching Wikipedia articles.

Helge: Gatekeepers of the truth should be experts! What is the value of Wikipedia? Is the truth coming in the hands of people?