Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-12-26/In the news
In the news
Jimmy Wales edits own Wikipedia biography
Wikipedia user,
- Wired Magazine, "Wikipedia Founder Edits Own Bio" [1]
- The Times, "Wikipedia founder edits himself" [2]
- The Inquirer, "Wikipedia founder's biography edited" [3]
- New York Times, "Insider Editing at Wikipedia" [4]- also recaps Seigenthaler, Nature and Digital Universe stories
Follow-ups on Seigenthaler and Nature
Multiple mainstream news outlets continued to pickup the story and offered their own editorial comments:
- Financial Times, "Wikipedia to restrict access to encyclopaedia" [5]
- Forbes, "Wikipedia to bar user editing in 'stable' version of online reference - report" [6]
- The Inquirer, "Wikipedia tightens up security" [9]
- The Boston Globe, "The Wiki effect" [10]
- Wall Street Journal, "Wikipedia's Woes" [11]
- PC Magazine, "How Dangerous Is Wikipedia?" [12]offers an opinion on Wikipedia's accuracy: "I spent hours crawling through Wikipedia this week looking for glaring errors. I couldn't find any."
- Canadian Pressstory.
- The News-Sentinel, "Wikipedia: Raising perhaps more questions than answers" [14]
- Village Voice "Factually Speaking" [15] The Voice story on the Nature review picked up on a point that was largely missed elsewhere: "...the focus on relative quality missed the more relevant point of comparison. Of the 42 Wikipedia and Britannica articles Nature sent to outside experts for review, the only ones that could be corrected—immediately—by those same experts were Wikipedia's."
- New York Times "Complex Motives" [16] discusses the supposed preparations for a class action lawsuit against Wikipedia and provides a link [17] to an O'Reilly Radar story that notes the connection between the lawsuit webpage and QuakeAID.
- New York Times "Insider Editing at Wikipedia" [18], noting that the "debate over Wikipedia has hit a fever pitch in recent weeks", the story touches on Jimmy Wales self-edits, the Nature story, and Larry Sanger's startup, Digital Universe, "a Wikipedia for grown-ups"
Many other media simply carried the AP story:
- Houston Chronicle [19]
- Indianapolis Star [20]
Follow-ups on semi-protection policy
Media continue to report on last week's implementation of a
New York Times notes coverage of Transit Strike
- On December 20, the first day of the transit strike, the New York Times ran "New Yorkers cope with transit strike" [22], which noted that "Wikipedia, the free, open-access, online encyclopedia, already has an entry on the 2005 New York City transit strike."
Year-end summaries
Wikipedia was mentioned in the Discover (the year-in-science Special Issue) article "Beyond Google" (p. 16). The article opens with a quick discussion of Wikipedia as one of the most news-making websites of 2005. There are some pros and cons, and then the article moves on to discussing other website models. The opening paragraphs are available in the Emerging Technology section of the Discover website; the full article is available to subscribers.
Wikipedia appeared as both a WINNER ("Heavily linked, authoritative, and constantly updated, the world's largest interactive encyclopedia came into its own this year.") and a LOSER ("Popular, yes. Accurate? Not necessarily.") on
It also appeared twice on Google's year-end summary: at number 4 on the list of "Top Gainers of 2005" on the Google Zeitgeist home page, and then in a section of its own on the "Phenomena" page, as "The Year of the Wiki", with an accompanying chart illustrating the growing popularity of "wikipedia" as a search term.
Digital Universe
Joe Firmage and Wikipedia co-founder
Other coverage of Wikipedia
- Are Wikis worth the time? - Point/Counterpoint debate on the merits of Wikipedia.
- Web site seeking people harmed by false reporting on Wikipedia to take part in a Class Action Lawsuit.
Citations in the news
Wikipedia was cited in the last week in the following publications:
- The
- Podcasting [29]
Discuss this story
I'm just recording media that has a wikipedia article. Media that pick up the Seigenthaler/Nature story but don't have a Wikipedia article aren't notable enough to be mentioned. :-) Samw 02:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]