The analysis today by the New York Times of how Wikipedia responded to the Virginia Tech massacre is an important update on the state of 21st century journalism. One can realize from Wikipedia’s work last week that mob journalism is smart and serious. The Times report reads in part:

From the contributions of 2,074 editors, at last count, the site created a polished, detailed article on the massacre, with more than 140 separate footnotes, as well as sidebars that profiled the shooter, Seung-Hui Cho, and gave a timeline of the attacks.

According to the foundation that runs the various Wikipedias around the world, there were more than 750,000 visits to the main article on the shootings in its first two days, an average of four visits a second. Even The Roanoke Times, which is published near Blacksburg, Va., where the university is located, noted on Thursday that Wikipedia ‘has emerged as the clearinghouse for detailed information on the event.’

Recently, Wikipedia had been the object of much controversy over the reliability of the its articles, and the frequent anonymity of its contributors. But during some recent critical events, like the Virginia Tech killings, the Southeast Asian tsunami in 2004, and the London bombings in 2005, the site has been transformed from an ever-growing reference book into a ever-updating news source — albeit one with scant original reporting. (Wikipedia’s policy precludes original research.)

‘Professional news is the place to get the facts on the ground — after all, that’s where Wikipedia contributors are getting their information, too,’ said Michael Snow, a Wikipedia administrator. ‘Wikipedia distinguishes itself by the ability to bring all the facts, and useful background information, together in one place.’