I don't think it's simply a case of "some lazy and irresponsible journalists" - standards generally seem to have slipped. Shane Fitzgerald was intereviewed on the radio here in Ireland earlier today by the former editor of a national Sunday newspaper, a thoughtful and well-read fellow. With his first question, the interviewer invited Mr Fitzgerald to explain how the stunt had highlighted a flaw with Wikipedia.

>There are some lazy and irresponsible journalists out there.

It's just the nature of the beast these days. With the revenue slowly disappearing, journalists have to provide cheaper articles. That's why almost every news article is a recycled press release or, like this case, poorly researched.

It's quite sad IMHO; if news is delivered online, there will be a massive dilution of revenue. There may never again be enough money in journalism to do extensively researched articles. Short of people doing it out of the good of their own hearts. Time will tell I guess.

Yeah, the funny thing is that the quote has been removed from Wikipedia but it will live longer in the print versions of the various newspapers. Wikipedia was what it was supposed to be - imperfect but self-healing. The supposed alternative to Wikipedia, "real scholarship", failed entirely at being better than Wikipedia and indeed was shown to be worse.

Also, a journalist did not have to avoid Wikipedia to do a better job, they just had to use to the history feature and see the pre-death entry.