I like the topic of discussion this week.I agree with the topic very much,The News Organization Should Ban Reporter Using Certain On line Sites as Source. Information from the online sites will be like “Fast Food” in restaurant or Super Market make reporter will too lazy to go out side in action as a news getter. I my self use the online sites as a hint and develop the information I get in to the local issue.

I was sorry for being loosed last two discussions,( I was far away from home to visited hinterland in Papua Barat Province. I get my serious question to my Govenoor “ why He can not stop clearing of forest 4000 hectare has been clearing up for palm oil tree plantation .How is going on with his commitment to save our forest He told the commitment in Bali in Climate Change Confrence.

Herman Lengam Radio Berita Matoa FM Jl.Tugu Jepang Amban Manokwari 98314 Papua Barat - Indonesia

I agree wholly with Kepher.That is the way to go.Use the web info or info graphics but confirm facts and fihures with experts to be sure your copy is free of guilt. Kudos Kepher, I also sail in your boat

I think we can but we should think that we have to trace and investigate the internet sources. Journalist can inspire from environment but they should trace. Dr.Khin Myint Oo Author&Freelance Journalist droo1950@googlemail.com

Colleagues ,

This is a very tricky and challenging debate but I want to side with The Agence France Presse (AFP) announcement last week to bar their reporters from using Wikipedia and Facebook as sources.

First I admit that indeed the information Wikipidia and Face book have been providing on the web has been resourceful.

But the biggest problem lies with their failure by their web monitors to effectively examine the content published on the net to ensure that facts and figures are not tampered with and that the information here is true to rely on without harbouring fears or doubts.

From an experience point of view the information provided in these sites are prone to serious and massive abuse by internet experts. Sorry but allow me call the "Internet idiots."

They tamper with facts on the web courtesy of their internet prowess simply to confuse users. Journalists could be the target because of our quick way of doing stories worshiping clock on the wall.So we have to be very careful with web informations.

One day I nearly misinformed the public save for my last minute crosschecking of facts with an expert on the subject I was writing about-The Green house gases emissions and the carbon emission trading schemes in the Eu.

After few minutes of internet browsing, the information was changed. Facts and figures altered at will, I was left confused with the staff I had packaged beaming with confidence that the information was absolutely true given that I had little knowledge on Green house issues and I wanted to be sure on writing on politics of Ecology and Economy, only to be proved wrong by an expert.

Journalists work with time bounds. And therefore for a journalist who has no knowledge about a subject he or she is writing about and wishes to quickly source facts and figures to be accurate in his report relying on the information availed in these sites could easily mislead them and hence misinform the readers.

This is the mutiplier effect that I think AFP is trying to smart from if am not wrong.

Even though we have Editors and Sub Editors who cross checks information from writers inline with their diverse house and editorial styles or policies or standards if time is too short and a gate keeper also has little or no knowledge on a story such a copy stand high chances of passing with lots of mistakes unnoticed.

I suppose the best thing to do to be accurate if you are not certain about a concept or fact about a subject instead of simply cutting and pasting information from some websites is to cross check facts and figures with an experts so as to be absolutely certain that you write what make sense to readers. I think this is the way out.

The idea is open to criticisms.

Kepher Otieno Investigative Journalist . kepher43@gmail.com

The question is too broad. Certainly there are some online sites that are consistently unreliable. The same is true, however, of some people a reporter might interview. Is an online site unworthy of being a source BECAUSE it is a website? I think not -- but verifying the information found there may be more difficult. The best idea is probably to take the website as a hint about where good information may be found. Then go directly to the primary source.

As the Chief of organization I hope it's depends on the regulation of the service and not preffer to allow dependency on any other information resouces wihout own base.But also as a freelancer, it 's helpful such sources to make more effective and liable news and features and as evidence.We welcome suggestions, discussions from on this topic from all other media concerned.

MUKTI MAJID The Monthly Muktidooh Dhaka,Bangladesh. majid_404@homail.com

Good for AFP on banning Wikipedia. But that does not mean it can't be a source for finding sources. Wikipedia entries often list their sources, so you can then go to the original one from a reliable source. Once, Wikipedia alerted me to a Washington Post article that was no longer on their archive. With the date of the article, we found a hard copy.

The way this question is posed carries some negative connotations. Banning reporters from anything sounds controversial. Let's just say we have editorial standards when it comes to online sourcing. I use Wiki, MySpace, and FaceBook constantly.... for background information. But I would never quote them authoritatively as a "source." Anything you find while researching on these online resources should be verifiable by more traditional means of news gathering. If it's not verifiable, then it's merely rumor not to be reported as fact.

Online sources that rely on information sent in by third parties to update their records are particularly dangerous to rely on. You can never tell when someone with a score to settle or an agenda to execute will seize such online platforms as an instrument to achieve their aims. Solution? Journalists should take online information as mere leads. They can then go on to establish or discredit them before going to press.

No, Reporter should not be banned, but if the reporter in quoting some content from the online resouces, it has to be cross checked before printing.

In todays time, where online journalism has playing an important role, no one should be banned by using online content or sources. Only thing is that the content or sources must be verified.

newsjockey@rediffmail.com

I think it is wise for AFP to restrict the online sources used in reporting - in two recent incidents, the wiki was used for racist misinformation, in one event the removal of factual material on Aboriginal deaths in custody and the royal commission into it, but there is little that the wiki staff can do because their site is so big.