If you add an article, please cite both the title and the source. Note that if you're listing an article from a traditional press wire service that ran in your local newspaper, it may not have the same title everywhere; be cautious about duplicates.
Articles that reference Wikipedia content but which do not discuss the project itself should be recorded at Wikipedia:Wikipedia as a press source. Great quotes from articles should be included in our Trophy box.
Web-only sources do qualify to be included in this section.
Klemm, Aaron E. "Motivation and value of free resources: Wikipedia and PlanetMath show the way". Free Software Magazine. January 1, 2005[1]
"Wikipedia is blurring the lines of production with astounding success."
Krowne, Aaron. "The FUD-based Encyclopedia: Dismantling fear, uncertainty, and doubt, aimed at Wikipedia and other free knowledge resources." Free Software Magazine. January 3, 2005. [2]
"I have never used an encyclopedia as much as Wikipedia and I thank the Wikipedia community for what they have created. Countless others share these sentiments. Wikipedia has enhanced my life and brought considerable progress to society."
Rupley, Sebastian. "Wikis at Work." PC Magazine. January 3, 2005. [3]
"One of the more robust wikis is at www.wikipedia.com, which bills itself as "the free encyclopedia." It is a multilingual, open-content encyclopedia that anyone can edit."
Till, Francis. "Tsunami blogging: The curl in the wave, first hand." National Business Review. January 4, 2005. [4]
"You can get a really good consensus picture of what's going on that's stronger than any one news organization could offer," Jimmy Wales, founder of the online encyclopedia Wikipedia, told Silicon Valley. "So many people are on the ground in different places. And people pick up very quickly which are the bloggers to read, and they bring that information to the forefront and amplify it."
Tanner, Alex. "Design fair restructures in light of disaster." Netimperative (UK). [5]
"Alex Steffen from worldchanging.com and Jimmy Wales of wikipedia have been drafted into the programme [the Doors of Perception design symposium] to assist."
Gapper, John. "A new entrant to the knowledge market." Financial Times. January 5, 2005. [6] (available free).
"The only instant reference work is Wikipedia, a free online encyclopedia written by anybody who wants to contribute. If you look now (www.wikipedia.org), there is a first draft of history, with a simulation of how the tidal wave spread across the ocean, a table of estimated deaths in different countries and links to entries on related subjects." (entire article about Wikipedia)
Johnson, Bobbie. "Emergency services." The Guardian. January 6, 2005. [7]
"Within a few hours of the quake, users were logging on to communal online encyclopedia Wikipedia and compiling a breakdown of what had occurred, including scientific analysis, links to news articles and ways to give aid."
Author unknown. "Love at first site as Wikipedia keeps growing." Jewish Chronicle. January 7, 2005.
"Wikipedia recently celebrated its one millionth entry which, I am delighted to reveal, was a Hebrew article on the Kazakhstan flag - well, someone's going to be interested".
A quote from The Guardian on vandalism and reversions follows.
Mustard, Laurie. "Strollin' through Wikipedia . . ." Winnipeg Sun. January 8, 2005. [8]
"I have found the most fascinating website titled Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, and you're going to love it." (entire column about Wikipedia)
Naughton, John. "Why encyclopaedic row speaks volumes about the old guard." The Observer. January 9, 2005. [9]
Writing about the current debate about Wikipedia Naughton opines: "five years from now, when the Wikipedia is essential infrastructure, we'll hardly remember what the fuss was about."
On the tension between academic credibility and collaboration, and concludes with, "The question, then, is what people should expect of Wikipedia. As it grows and becomes a repository of 2 million entries from more and more contributors, more of whom are experts in their fields, it probably will be seen as on par with the Britannicas of the world. But first it must convince those experts to become involved, and that will likely mean finding a way to make them feel welcome.."
Corkery, Paul. "Wikipedia reinvents information searching." The Triangle. January 14, 2005.[11]
Regardless of its risk of inaccuracy, Wikipedia exists as a noteworthy experiment relating to the idea of Internet users to come together in the spirit of knowledge and learning. What had the potential to become a public toilet of misinformation exists instead as one of the most successful examples of a human oriented, self policing collaborative education effort.
I cannot, because of the reasons pointed out by various resources, plug Wikipedia as the be-all-end-all research tool. However, Wikipedia itself represents a noteworthy use of the Internet and its growing pool of users. Coordinated development projects, as well as national and international Internet based communities and the technologies used in their operation, offer a fascinating look into the lesser known value of how the world's premier communication tool deals with information.
Wikipedia, despite its potential flaws, builds upon the noble foundation upon which the Internet was formed - A digital world in which the free exchange of information and knowledge brings the world together through the sharing of ideas and concepts.
Burt, Steve. "A Wiki-margin for the Internet". eSchool News. January 12, 2005. [12]
Well ... perhaps wikis won’t quite take off this year to the degree that weblogs did in 2004, but there is not doubt in my mind that you will be hearing much more about wikis in the months to come. If you are not familiar with wikis, they are open-editable web pages. That is, pages which you can edit the content by simply clicking on one button (usually an ‘edit’ tab) from within your browser. Take a look at Wikipedia to find out a bit more.
If you want to begin experimenting with Wikis right away and you have Firefox installed on your machine, then I’d urge you to visit Wikalong.org and download the wikalong extension. This extension embeds a wiki in the sidebar of your browser, indexed off the url of the current page you are visiting. That is, wikalong builds a ‘parallel’ wiki for any page you visit. Thus, you can comment, discuss and wax philosophical about any issue on a page you are visiting.
In terms of how you and your students could use wikalong, on the simplest level it can be used as a running commentary or parallel blog to whatever page you are looking at. Of course, you can embed links to point to other interesting pages. Simple note-taking or really anything else that you might use a blog, wiki or discussion board for. In addition to the panoply of possible uses, the other strength of wikalong is that you-as-the-user don’t have to install anything on a server or rely on any IT support beyond having Firefox and knowing how to surf the Web.
Tim Lauer originally pointed me towards this tool so as you get it installed you’ll see a bit of commentary between he and I on some of these pages. You’ll notice that Wikalong has a log-in feature which allows posters to connect with each other.
"It must be where Tony Blair learned all about spin and inflation. The prime minister’s biography in Wikipedia, the internet encyclopaedia that its users write, claims that between the ages of 13 and 15 'he worked during school holidays as a bicycle repairer in the local hardware store'. A prankster’s work, sadly."
Hsueh, Hungfu. "Taiwan Encyclopedia opens site to users". Taiwan News. January 19, 2005. [14]
"Chiang Shao-ting, Senior Adviser of the encyclopedia project, highlighted the fact that the Taiwan Encyclopedia will allowing users to edit or add new key words. 'Like the free online encyclopedia Wikipedia which is highly popular among users, the Taiwan Encyclopedia will also be a open platform that allows user to contribute to its content.'"
Penenberg, Adam L.. "Like it or not, Blogs Have legs". Wired News. January 20, 2005. [15]
In the world of words, the closest analogy would be Wikipedia, the web citizen's encyclopedia that is compiled exclusively by volunteers. The problem is, since anyone can write anything about anybody or anything without any oversight, the quality is often uneven. For example, I plugged myself (a subject I am somewhat familiar with) into its search engine and found a glaring error and a typo in the short, 95-word passage. Like consensus, Wikipedia is wonderful for getting people active in the process, but perhaps not as good for editorial accuracy. (Then again, have you seen The New York Times' correction box?)
"For example, Wikis are singled out as a bad technology, yet a Wiki is just a minimalist shared white board, a technology that lets a group of people share the maintenance of Web-based content. The most popular is probably Wikipedia, which is a fabulous resource, but even Net-savvy publisher O'Reilly has a Wiki that they use to manage the interaction between the company, their authors, and user groups.
"The argument of the article author, though, is that Wikis are dangerous because anyone can -- theoretically -- add content and therefore add bogus links back to a third-party site. Are Wikis therefore bad because people can "spam" them? Of course not.
"Just like comments on a weblog or entries in a guestbook, pages on a Wiki should be monitored to ensure that the information thereon is relevant."
Unsigned article. "Written by whoever wants to". Revista VEJA. January 23, 2005.
VEJA magazine, a brazilian weekly publication, published an article on Wikipedia stating its contents aren't reliable since anyone online can edit them. To prove their point, VEJA spread misinformation on wikipedia about brazilian president Lula, which is stated in their January 23 article. "Deliberate misinformation on Lula's article spread by VEJA stayed untouched for 48 hours"
Société de transport de Montréal. "Les meilleurs sites Internet: Le métro de Montréal sur le web." Info STM. Métro (Montreal), 26 January 2005, p. 21. [17] (.pdf format)
"Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia on the Web, containing hundreds of thousands of articles in more than fifty languages. Unlike other encyclopedias, the text is written by the users themselves. In the case of the Montreal metro, there can be no doubt about the quality of its information, as the page was written with the collaboration of none other than [Montréalais]!"
note: This is an information page prepared by the STM, printed in the Métro free newspaper as a condition of its distribution in metro stations. The article, on websites about the metro, had previously referred to my website on the metro. -- Montréalais 19:21, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Rubel, Steve. "Wikis Pose A Threat To Costly Media Directories." WebProNews. January 27, 2005. [18]
"In the future, PR professionals - and even consumers - will create their own media directories. For a glimpse of this today, check out this page on Wikipedia. They are starting to index journalists, including Jennifer 8. Lee of the New York Times. The paid services better evolve fast. Because in the near future as wikis become more popular and easier to set up, we may end up forming our own tool that enables us to share our knowledge. "
Mossberg, Walter S. "Unlike Search Engines, Answers.Com Responds With Data, Not Links". Wall Street Journal. January 27, 2005. [19]
"There are some downsides to Answers.com. It has answers for only about a million available topics so far. And it relies heavily on Wikipedia, which has been criticized because it isn't written or edited by experts. But unlike some recognized sources like the online Encyclopedia Britannica, Answers.com is free and instantly searches multiple reference works from multiple publishers."
"Wikipedia Battle over Controversial Web Site Entry Ended". ChatMag. January 29, 2005. [20]
Cone, Edward. "Making inside of newsroom as big as outside". Greensboro News & Record. January 30, 2005. [21]
"Then there was Jimmy Wales, founder of the Wikipedia, a collaborative online encyclopedia written and edited on the Web by thousands of people around the world (wikis are software that allow groups to work together online). The free encyclopedia is trustworthy, huge, multilingual and growing, and is produced for only a fraction of what gets spent by traditional competitors."
Hunt, Kurt. "Four hours to a smarter you". Eastern Echo (Eastern Michigan University). January 31, 2005. [22]
"Truly informed people know more than what CNN feeds them—they take the time to look into the background of topics, to learn about how things come about, and how they interrelate. Which is why you are now heading to wikipedia.org, an Internet-compiled, completely free, community-written encyclopedia."
Hall, Mark. "Open-Source Gnaws Its Way Into..." Computerworld. January 31, 2005. [23]
"In addition, Clusty includes thumbnail images from www.wikipedia.com with selected results, which breaks up pages and makes them easier to read."
McHugh, Josh. "The Firefox Explosion." Wired Magazine. February 2005, p.97. [24]
"Firefox's assault on Internet Explorer isn't the only attack Bill Gates is facing. A ragtag coalition of open source projects is steadily chipping away at the Microsoft empire. Here's a look at market share on eight different fronts. … "Web encylopedias – Encarta Premium: 68,000 entries; Wikipedia: 431,195 entries" – Illustration, "Storming Redmond" [25]
Waters, Richard. "In search of more: the "friendly" engines that will manage the data of daily life". Financial Times. February 1, 2005.
"Already, internet blogs and communal internet pages known as wikis (from the Hawaiian word for "speedy") are pushing the boundaries of what was known as "user-generated content". Results from Wikipedia, a free encyclopaedia maintained over the internet by volunteers, may not match the standards of publications produced by professional editors, but the service still manages to answer many common questions."
Mahmud, Vishnu K. "Share global information with Wiki encyclopedia". The Jakarta Post. February 1, 2005.
Do you know the history of the airship? Or how to make a magnet?
In the "old days" (circa 1998), you would have had to open up a book or an encyclopedia to find the answers. Nowadays, however, you can simply "google" or web-search the answer with your computer and the Internet.
The World Wide Web is a massive network of virtual pages and hyperlinks, making it an ideal source of information. But its decentralized nature can also make it extremely difficult to find or upload data towards the advancement of knowledge. Is there a centralized website online where wisdom can be stored and shared?
Enter Wikipedia (www.wikipedia.org). Created by the WikiMedia Foundation (www.wikimediafoundation.org), this free online encyclopedia allows everyone to access, edit and share informational content in a variety of languages.
McHenry, Robert. "On Getting It: The Faith-Based Encyclopedia and Me". Tech Central Station. February 1, 2005. [26]
ElAmin, Ahmed. "Tech Tattle: A 'wiki' way of learning all about Bermuda". The Royal Gazette. February 2, 2005. [27]
"One of course should never rely completely on online information and should always check other reference sources for accuracy. However, Wikipedia seems to actually work most of the time because of the amount of users on the lookout for errors."
Dibbel, Julian. "Choose Your Own Encyclopedia". The Village Voice. February 3, 2005. [28]
"Go to any Wikipedia entry you choose—"Hindu philosophy," "drunk driving," "pataphysics"—and click on the Edit This Page tab. Bingo: Whatever you write immediately becomes the last word on the subject. And if this sounds like a recipe for mob rule, that's because it is. But mob rule turns out to be a surprisingly good way to write an encyclopedia."
Cherkoff, James. "What Is Open Source Marketing?" WebProNews. February 4, 2005. [29]
"Wikipedia is an Open Source encyclopaedia (recently recognised by the Press Association) containing 1.3 million articles in eight different languages, all written, developed and maintained by regular people around the world."
Green, Graeme. "Net Result - The best sites for... online encyclopaedias" London Metro. February 9, 2005.
"[Wikipedia logo; www.wikipedia.org; 5-star rating] Not the most visually striking site but very easy to navigate and you'll struggle to find a subject it can't provide information on. Highlighted keywords guide your search to more detailed information, related subjects or interesting tangents. Subjects can be edited and added to by users, which means the site continues to grow and cover increasingly diverse topics." [Review was on page 31 in the MetroLife feature. The 5-star rating was the best rating (5/5) of the three encyclopaedias reviewed. The others were www.probert-encyclopaedia.co.uk (3/5) and www.iep.utm.edu (4/5). This was typed out from the London Metro edition, though other editions of Metro are published in other UK cities.]
Menta, Richard (February 9, 2005). "WikiPod, The iPod Encyclopedia". MP3Newswire.net[30]
Mainly refers to a new site, WikiPod, however refers to Wikipedia:
"I came across this little posting today on PDATrends. A group is looking to start their own encyclopedia specifically for the iPod and they are soliciting articles for it. The site, which they call WikiPod, uses the same look and graphics of Wikipedia. I don't know if there is any direct relation to Wikipedia, which already has its own articles on the iPod and everything related."
Weiss, Aaron (February 10, 2005). "The Unassociated Press" New York Times, Circuits Section, p.E5.
"Wikinews is ... the latest... in a collection of Wikis under the umbrella of Wikimedia ... The largest Wiki project, Wikipedia, has been online for four years and contains more than 450,000 articles, all written and open to revision by its more than 150,000 users. ... Central to Wikinews is its commitment to neutrality, said Jimmy Wales ... president of the nonprofit Wikimedia Foundation. ...
"Above all, the central question about the Wikinews effort is its credibility. "Making a newspaper is hard," said Robert McHenry, former editor in chief of Encyclopaedia Britannica. "Someone who wants to do it but doesn't really know how hasn't solved the problem by gathering a lot of other people who don't know, either.
"Mr. McHenry was skeptical about Wikinews's ability to provide a neutral point of view and its claim to be evenhanded. "The naïveté is stunning," he said."
Regan, Jim (February 11, 2005). "Wacky Wikipedia". The Christian Science Monitor[31]
"HALIFAX, NOVA SCOTIA – If I may take moment to state the patently obvious, there is a great deal of 'unusual' content on the web. From UFOs and Crop Circles to Dancing Hamsters and Headless Chickens, you can find it all online - but for the most part, each site only deals with a single unusual topic, and the sites themselves are spread far and wide. So where can the connoisseur of concentrated eccentricity go for a wide and varied selection of the peculiar in one convenient location? Well, that would be Wikipedia - where a collection of Unusual Articles can take you from Bat bombs to the Year 10,000 problem on a single page."
"A Problem Shared Is a Problem Solved" (no date). Fast Company. [32]
"Recently the idea has been transferred to all manner of projects ranging from an open source encyclopedia called the Wikipedia and collaborative industrial design such as ThinkCycle to open source aeroplane design, cola recipes, film scripts, and beer."
Shliferstein, Jim (February 10, 2005). "Freedom of Excretion". The Cornell Daily Sun Online. [33]
Basically, this guy wrote a piece on Wikipedia about he vandalised to be amusing. He refers to it again in his column Arrr!:
"The ferocity of these W.C. warriors, and the furious indigestive indignation with which they defend their ideas, is absolutely astounding. I've never seen such vitriol in such a trivial context -- except, perhaps, on the Internet, where similarly forgettable forums are littered with self-righteous diatribes and counter-diatribes, each thread taken mortally seriously by all of four people. (If you doubt it, consider that my column poking fun at Wikipedia geeks earned several angry, ten-page rebuttals from Wikipedia faithful -- or, as they are technically known, "Wikipedophiles.")"
"...Microsoft ... loosed its own search engine ... Both Google and Yahoo are streets ahead of MSN launch in terms of both popularity and goodwill. ... Google has offered its support to assist Wikipedia by providing much needed storage and hosting services, says TechWhack, going on, “The deal is still in very early stages. Wikipedia has made it public that Google has not asked for any favors in returns, which includes any ad placement on Wikipedia pages. ... Google with the power and content of Wikipedia might make a lethal combination to empower the extent; knowledge is available to the end user on the Internet. But then considering Wikipedia already is open source, Google would not have needed any tech support from the developers of this online encyclopedia!”"
"Google Plans to add Encyclopedia Results to Searches; Wikipedia" (February 11, 2005). The Cranky Consumer. [35]
"Google.com, not missing a beat, looks like it is making plans to start using the Wiki Media online Encyclopedia project in its search results. Google has agreed to host some of the Company's wesite using Google Servers."
"Google may host encyclopedia project" (February 11, 2005). Cnet News.com[36]
"Wiki Media Foundation, the group behind the Wikipedia online encyclopedia project, said Friday that search giant Google has volunteered to host some of its content on company servers."
"Google Offers to Host Wikipedia" (February 11, 2005). BetaNews[37]
"From Internet domains to Web browsers, Google seems to have its hands all over the Web these days. But the search giant shows no signs of slowing its reach, and has offered to host the Wikipedia online encyclopedia. Wiki Media Foundation, which runs Wikipedia, says Google has volunteered to supply servers and bandwidth to the project."
Krevs, Paul (February 11, 2005). "Google Offers Assistance To Wikipedia". Neowin.net. [38]
"Google has offered to assist online encyclopedia Wikipedia, by providing some much needed storage and hosting services to the giant non-profit site. Although terms of the upcoming arrangement have yet to be finalized, Wikimedia commented that any deal will still see Wikipedia remaining ad-free; meaning that the arrangement will not impose Google "AdSense" technology on the popular site."
"GooglePedia? Google Wants to Help the Wikipedia". Search Engine Watch. [39]
"A post at Dirson kicked off a Slashdot discussion about Google offering to host "some" Wikimedia content. What this precisely means is not spelled out. A post on the Wikimedia wiki says that "terms" of the offer are being discussed and that a private IRC meeting is scheduled for March. It also mentions that Google's offer "does not mean" there will be a requirement to include advertising on Wikimedia sites. Stay tuned."
"Google & Wikimedia Sitting in a Tree..." (February 11, 2005). SearchViews. [40]
"Wikipedia is going to be getting a much-needed shot in the arm, thanks to a donation of bandwidth and servers from Google. The Wikimedia Foundation (the international non-profit that handles the development of the Wiki encyclopedia and other projects) is expected to announce an agreement with Google sometime soon. Until then they're mostly mum, but you can check out a short statement from Wikipedia here."
"Google Offers To Host Wikipedia" (February 11, 2005). TechNewsWorld. [41]
"Google searches already access Wikipedia and other Wikimedia resources through the services that host the organization's content, but some have speculated that Google wants the encyclopedia content to compete with MSN Search's Encarta content and Yahoo, which accesses the Columbia Encyclopedia."
Wikinews, a sub project of the Wikimedia Foundation, held an online conference with several prominent 'bloggers on Saturday, Feb. 5th. The purpose of the conference was to introduce bloggers to the concept of Wikinews, and to explore avenues to integrate blogging into the Wikinews sections.
Shields, Tom, "Sports Diary: Fleeting effect is right on the balls", (Glasgow) Sunday Herald 13 February 2005. [43]
In an article on the bigotry between supporters of Celtic and Rangers football clubs, he spotted the edit war on 11 February afternoon which resulted in both articles being protected.
"A small indication of how deep-seated is the conflict between the orange and the green could be seen this week on an obscure and verging on the academic encyclopedia website called Wikipedia. It is an anorak-inhabited environment where earnest folk are invited to contribute their knowledge of history, culture, life and everything. The opportunity for browsers to call up and edit entries on the Wikipedia proved too tempting for warriors on the Old Firm cyber battlefield."
"The entry for Rangers FC was adjusted to include the information that the club was founded by Adolf Hitler and Pol Pot and that one of their all-time great players was one Alvin Stardust. There was retaliation when Wikipedia readers were informed that Celtic “was founded by Brother Walfrid as a way to raise money for terribly thick Irish bogtrotters, mainly in the East of Glasgow. However, for her supporters, Celtic is much more than a football club, it is a great way to meet young boys and abuse them."
"The Wikipedia people were bewildered by the fact that the Celtic and Rangers entries were being edited almost by the minute to include a vast array of insult and accusation. They called an end to these “edit wars” and peace has broken out. It is unlikely that Cathy Jamieson will have equal success at her summit this week."
Hines, Matt (February 14, 2005). "Google may host encyclopedia project". ZDNet (taken from CNet news.com). [44]
"Wikipedia.org could soon be hosted on Google's servers, as the search giant looks for ways of supporting the Wikimedia Foundation."
"Dvorak on Google and Wikipedia" (February 15, 2005). Slashdot. [45]
"cryptoluddite writes 'PC Magazine has an article by John C. Dvorak expanding on the community discussion of Google's offer for free web hosting of Wikipedia. Those against the deal point out that Google may be planning to co-opt the encyclopedia as Googlepedia (by restricting access to the complete database). In a revealing speech given by the Google founders, Larry Page says he would 'like to see a model where you can buy into the world's content. Let's say you pay $20 per month.' Should public domain information be free?' It's a pretty scary scenario painted, but one can hardly take a speech from 2001 as serious evidence these days." (note that it links the second page of the article).
"Google has been using Wikipedia to deliver appropriate results in a non-natural-language fashion, but would love to get hold of the entire database in-house so it would not have to continually spider the thing with its legions of Web crawlers. So the debate now begins. Should the Wikipedia folks get cozy with Google, a public company? The big fear seems to be the notion of letting the camel's head into the tent. Pretty soon the whole camel will be inside.
...
"Unfortunately, when you consistently look to be too generous, people get suspicious. You have to remember that this offer comes on the heels of the offer made to libraries by Google to digitize and host all the great books and documents in the world. Now this. Is Google trying to corner the all the world's information and then, once they have it all under their control, sell it back to us at a high fee?
"Or, more interestingly, is it possible that the plan is to control all these resources and then stick it to Microsoft when its search-engine Web crawler comes around? ACCESS DENIED! There is no doubt in my mind that this is a distinct possibility. But can it be accomplished without making a mess?
...
"But let's say that Google is as honorable as it claims and has no intention of doing anything more than making life better for everyone. I know most of the principals there, and they are as normal and sincere as can be expected. Nice guys, actually. But Google itself is a public corporation. It's its own animal in that regard, with attorneys and bean-counters making the "nice guys" who run the place beholden to the mythical shareholders, who demand results and accountability. Maybe the nice guys do not want to create a situation that locks out the Microsoft crawlers. The needs of the corporate entity, though, demand it. Maybe the nice guys don't want to take over Wikipedia and clean it up, change the way it works—ruin it—as per the lawyers' demands. The corporation demands it. Those nice guys are not working for themselves any more. We always have to remember that. They are now guests."
Farrel, Nick (15 February 2005). "Wikipedia might move to Google". the Inquirer. [48]
Gline, Matthew A. (15 February 2005). "Citing Riots". The Harvard Crimson. [49]
"The site is an astounding monument to human knowledge. To spend a few moments browsing its enormous tangle of links is to feel an awesome sense of the breadth and depth of what mankind has accomplished, and is also an opportunity to marvel at incredible human altruism: Apparently, millions of knowledgeable internet-goers have spent hours of their time painstakingly updating articles about poisonous toads and obscure biochemical reactions."
...
"Wikipedia also contains lies. I know, because I'm responsible for one of them: As of this writing, the year in which Yale University was founded according to the encyclopedia is not 1701 as it rightfully should be but 1702; I've committed my own personal one-year slight against the prestige of our younger sibling in New Haven."
The vandalism edit mentioned in the article is [50]; it was reverted by the same user [51].
Bujold, Shelley. "Kenora Knowledge Could Be Shared." Daily Miner and News (Kenora, Ontario), February 15, 2005.
"Wikipedia.org, a website dedicated to all things knowledge, doesn't have very much on the City of Kenora." (Talks about Wikipedia and suggests expanding the Kenora article)
Damiani, Jean-Philippe (16 February 2005). "Wikipedia : l'encyclopédie dont vous êtes l'auteur". Métro(Montreal).
"Any web surfer can volunteer to collaborate on Wikipedia from their computer. The articles are works in progress that can be modified and improved by anyone. There are rules, though: the content must be accurate and respect 'neutrality' on controversial subjects. Other participants can always correct errors, and a backup system allows users to return to previous versions if necessary. Still, the reader must be able to tell the wheat from the chaff in this bazaar of knowledge." [52] (enormous .pdf file, page 16)
Note: the article describes a report on Wikipedia on the Quebec TV show La revanche des nerdz, to be aired 17 Feb at 7:00 on Canal Z.
"...as Wikipedia has grown dramatically in popularity, some have begun to question its accuracy.
"IRC and Internet Chat News and Information" (21 February, 2005). Chatmag News. [54]
"Wikipedia, the popular user edited online encyclopedia, has been shut down by a power outage at their colocation facility. Wikipedia has been in the news recently, the latest regarding Wikipedia and Google.com Google has offered to host the site, and a meeting is planned for March between the Wikipedia Foundation and Google."
"Power Outage Knocks Wikipedia Offline" (February 22, 2005). Netcraft. [55]
"The free online encyclopedia Wikipedia has been knocked offline by a power outage in its data center. While the servers hosting the site were down only a short time, much of the site's content remained offline as Wikimedia staff worked on properly restoring data from MySQL databases."
Lemon, Summer (February 22, 2005). "Power outage pulls plug on Wikipedia". The Industry Standard. [56]
"A power outage inside the facility that hosts Wikipedia's servers has forced the free, community-authored encyclopedia offline, according to a message posted on the Wikipedia Web site."
Heaton, Terry L. "The Devaluation of Information". OhmyNews International. February 22, 2005. [57]
"The Britannica has weathered many storms in the last 15 years, as technology has rewritten their business. Even now, the online "Wikipedia" -- which is written and edited by the public -- poses a new threat, but the company has faith in its model."
"wikipedia.org — The free online encylopedia that anyone can edit. This vast resources of rants and scientific data might surprise you by its collective effort. There is a serious debate in the academic community now as whether or not to consider this amalgam of information as a legitimate resource. Look here for contemporary information that the corporate encyclopedias won’t touch."
Quon, Wynn. "The New Know-it-all." National Post, February 26, 2005. [59]
"It's as if a gang of hardy Amish barn-raisers ended up erecting the tallest skyscraper in the world...but Wikipedia is more than just the raising of a new barn, it's the tearing down of the old ones". [How the traditional encyclopedias face big trouble from Wikipedia: the "leaching factor"]
"The best example yet of the capacity of the internet to coalesce into self-regulating networks is Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia written by whoever wants to go and edit it. It is not as authoritative as Britannica, and it gives disproportionate weight to transient phenomena. But it does give a reliable steer on most subjects. It is not anarchic, there is a hierarchy of more trusted writers who have earned their privileges over time. Editorial access to controversial entries - 'George Bush', 'Palestine', for example - is restricted to see off vandals. A South Korean online newspaper Ohmynews is compiled along similar principles. At this point journalists and compilers of encyclopedias roll their eyes. Their reaction is justified in so far as professionals hate to see a job done badly. But fear of competition plays a part."
"And I assume I am hardly alone in the academy. Hundreds, if not thousands of us must be getting papers this year with Wikipedia URLs in the footnotes, and despite the moral panic, the Wikipedia is a fine resource on a large number of subjects, and can and should be cited in those cases. There are articles, as danah has pointed out, where it would be far better to go to the primary sources, but that would be as true were a student to cite any encyclopedia. If someone cited the Wikipedia to discuss [Walter Benjamin’s] work, I’d send them back to the trenches, but I would also do that if they cited Encyclopedia Britannica.
"To borrow some Hemingway, this is how the academy will get used to Wikipedia — slowly, then all at once."
Chin, Brian. "Wikipedia in the footnotes". March 01, 2005. [62]
Danah Boyd, (January 8, 2005 - the dates are getting weird...). "On a Vetted Wikipedia, Reflexivity and Investment in Quality (a.k.a. more responses to Clay Shirky)". Many2Many[63]
"In response to Clay, i definitely do not believe that Wikipedia should be ignored and i definitely do not believe that Britannica is better - just different. When i said that Wikipedia will never be an encyclopedia, i am definitely referencing the current definition (although being flexible on the fact the definition does state book form). Whether the definition will expand, who knows but i don’t think it matters. Both encyclopedias and Wikipedia are knowledge resources and they will always be different. If legitimacy requires a definitional change, i’m worried. Why does it have to be an encyclopedia? Why can’t it simply be Wikipedia?
In this (long) entry, i want to make 3 points:
"1) A vetted Wikipedia can have complementary value;
"2) Reflexivity would be of great value for entries that interpret (not necessarily for entries that are about empirical facts);
"3) Authority has to do with knowledge, investment and risk."
Krowne, Aaron. "The FUD based encyclopedia: Dismantling the Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt aimed at Wikipedia and other free knowledge sources." Free Software. March 1, 2005. [64]
"In this article, I respond to Robert McHenry's anti-Wikipedia piece entitled 'The Faith-Based Encyclopedia.' I argue that McHenry's points are contradictory and incoherent and that his rhetoric is selective, dishonest and misleading. I also consider McHenry&'s points in the context of all Commons-Based Peer Production (CBPP), showing how they are part of a Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) campaign against CBPP. Further, I introduce some principles, which will help to explain why and how CBPP projects can succeed, and I discuss alternative ways they may be organized, which will address certain concerns."
"First Two Laws of Commons-Based Peer Production." Many 2 Many. February 27, 2005. [65] (note that time zone differences account for hat seems to be the posting of the response to the original article before the article itself)
Marson, Ingrid. "Wikipedia needs help to keep growing." ZDNet. March 1, 2005. [66]
"The team running Wikipedia has urged the open source development community to lend their support to help the encyclopaedia project grow and to combat Web bots that are damaging its content.
"In the opening talk at the FOSDEM conference in Brussels on Saturday, Wikipedia Foundation president Jimmy Wales urged the assembled audience of open source developers to get involved with the online encyclopaedia. He said Wikipedia has the physical resources to handle the extra traffic, but needs technical people to manage these servers."
Pink, Daniel. "The Book Stops Here." Wired. March 2, 2005. Pink, Daniel. "The Book Stops Here". Pages: Cover - "Wikipedia: the self-organizing library of the future", 007, 124-129, 136, 139. [67]
Del Arte, Alonso. "Fusion: Although current, Wikipepedia [sic] not always reliable source of information." The South End. March 2, 2005. [68]
Surveys the views of Wikipedia by various professors who lecture at Wayne State University. The same issues as normal are raised: Some think it's OK to use for undergraduates, definitely not for postgraduate work, lack of proper academic peer review mechanisms issues of unbalanced and patchy content, questions the priorities of Wikipedia authors. Quotes from article:
"[History Professor Eric Ash] made up an example of a Web site on Charles Darwin written by Joe Smith.
"'I don't know who Joe Smith is. Joe Smith could be a fundamentalist who sees Charles Darwin as the Antichrist,' Ash speculated. Such points of view do occasionally get into Wikipedia. The history of the article on Charles Darwin shows a serious effort by several Wikipedia users to keep the article neutral in point of view."
"Ash recalled that one time, before giving a lecture on a novel by 19th century author Samuel Smiles, he turned to Wikipedia to see if he could find some supplemental information.
"Ash said, 'Wikipedia had one screen of information. I learned he had written other books' besides the one he was lecturing about."
"Dictionary of National Biography: $15,000, buggy -- better than Wikipedia?". March 6, 2005. BoingBoing. [69]
The latest salvo in the Wikipedia-versus-the-world wars: the new edition of the Oxford University Press Dictionary of National Biography—ringing in at nearly $15,000—is riddled with factual errors. If these errors had appeared in Wikipedia entries, its likely that they would have been fixed in short order -- and once they were discovered by the outraged experts quoted in this Observer article, they certainly would be fixed. ¿Quien es mas macho?
Terdiman, Daniel. "Wiki Becomes a Way of Life". March 8, 2005. Wired News. Article link
Minow, Nell. "Help children learn critical thinking skills". March 9, 2005. Chicago Tribune[71].
"One reason Google is so popular is it uses a formula for ranking search results that is likely -- though not guaranteed -- to put the most reliable ones at the top. Google also gets points for putting its "sponsored links" -- sites that pay to be listed -- off to the side and labeling them clearly so that users can tell they are ads.
"But not all search engines play by those rules, and children need to know that. They also need to understand that no search engine guarantees the information it points to is factual or even unbiased.
"The same applies to some popular online reference sites like the Internet movie database at imdb.com, and http://en.wikipedia.org, an online encyclopedia. The entries in both are written and assembled by amateurs and volunteers -- which doesn't mean the entries are wrong, but it doesn't mean they are right, either.
" A good point of discussion with teens as well as younger children who use the Internet for research is how a Web site establishes credibility. One place to start: Look on a site's main page for a link labeled something like, 'about us.'
"On Wikipedia, the link 'About Wikipedia' is at the bottom of the home page. It takes readers to a detailed, annotated page that explains the Wikipedia project, among other things."
Kinzie, Susan. "Wiping Out the Blackboard". March 11, 2005; Page B01. The Washington Post. [72]
"Early e-mail lists, newsgroups and chat rooms were ephemeral, like a passing conversation, said Steve Jones, a communication professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Now computers and networks are fast enough that many people can share text, videos, sound and art and work on them together, he said, building a body of knowledge over time. Wikis, including interactive encyclopedia Wikipedia, have been around for several years but they're just on the cusp of becoming mainstream; as the technology improves, they're popping up in a few classrooms and offices, and people are finding all sorts of uses for them."
"Remixing the Fourth Estate". March 13, 200. AlterNet. [73]
"[Dan Gillmor] praised technological developments like the Wikipedia -- an online encyclopedia that anyone can change and update. Contrary to early criticism that the Wiki encourages biased speech or off-topic rants, it is actually a self-correcting phenomenon. For every opinion presented, there is a reader with the opposite opinion with the power to change the statement. What results, Gillmor argues, is the least-biased conversation, for the end result must be a mutually agreed-upon truth. Gillmor lauded our move toward a "remix culture," and summed up his point thusly: "eventually, grass roots media will be the norm."
Johnson, Steve. "'Old' media, bloggers square off at conference". March 14, 2005. Chicago Tribune[75]
" Among the more concrete suggestions participants offered traditional journalistic enterprises: make their news archives freely available, which would help their work show up on search engines and get linked to by other sites, instead of only offering them free for a couple of weeks, as is common practice; and consider making their Web sites more interactive, allowing for some form of reader comment and elaboration on the news stories, similar to the model established by Wikipedia, the free, online, openly edited encyclopedia."
Horton, Jane. "Keeping positive in the face of climate change". March 14, 2005. digital divide network[76].
"Since this software doesn’t permit us to collaboratively add to articles (unlike in wikipedia) I suggest that you add what helps you (if you feel so moved) as comments to this article so we can build up a communal resource together to help us from being overwhelmed."
Benfield, Chris. "Phoenix like comeback for crooner Tony". March 15, 2005. Yorkshire Post. [77]
"Christie only drops into Conisbrough nowadays to see his family. But he gets a mention as the town's most famous son in the on-line encylopaedia Wikipedia.
Richardson, Will. "Understanding Wikipedia". March 15, 2005. Ed-Tech Insider. [78]
Thompson, Bill. "Write Your Own Encyclopedia?". March 16, 2005. BBC. [79]
"Wikipedia is great for getting a general overview of a subject and for figuring out where else to look, and often a lot faster than just searching the whole web for the word you're interested in."
Frykholm, Daniel. "Web Design Hampers Mobile Internet, Pioneer Says". March 17, 2005. Reuters. [80]
Berners-Lee's original vision of the Web was as a resource for collaboration. He said that so far it had been "a big disappointment" in this respect, although exceptions such as "wikis" -- essentially interactive online note pads -- showed its potential. "Wikis in general are great examples of how people want to be creative and not just suck in information," he told the seminar, pointing to the online encyclopedia Wikipedia as the most advanced development in this area.
"Wikipedia nears half million article mark". March 17, 2005. The Inquirer[81]
"ONLINE ENCYCLOPAEDIA the Wiki is close to reaching half a million English articles online. The Wiki relies on volunteers and interested parties to add, edit and update articles, and has become a very useful resource since it was launched. According to its English page, here, there are currently 499,690 English articles on the resource. And it also has a news section which people can edit and add to as well. Lots of people would like to edit INQ articles for lots of different reasons. But you can't. OK?"
"Reference revolution" . March 18, 2005. News@nature.com[82]
Roxanne Khamsi interviews Wikipedia Jimmy Wales.
"Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales offers a whole new species of information online." Relationship of Wikispecies to Wikipedia discussed.
Stice, Carolyn. "A Man with a Wiki: An interview with Jimmy Wales." March 18, 2005. The Ester Republic. [83]
The founder of Wikipedia, Wiktionary, and other free-content online resources talks about the goals of the Wikimedia Foundation, and explains what the heck a wiki is.
"Move over, Google". March 20, 2005. pg. 14 Sunday Life (inset of the Australian Sunday Telegraph).
"The latest online phenomenon is the free encyclopedia Wikipedia (www.wikipedia.org), which boasts more than 1.1 million entries and is growing by 7 per cent per month. Wikipedia is fast (splutter) and easy to use nd if you spot something you don't like, you can change it. That's because all entries are written and edited by members of the online community, creating a constantly evolving site. The democratic concept isn't exactly watertight, with debates raging over accuracy and some subjects being shut down but mostly it's a solid source of info on just about anything."
McHenry, Robert. "Knowledge in U.S.: I know I'm right and you're wrong". March 21, 2005. Chicago Tribune. [84]
A similar hyperbole surrounds such projects as the Wikipedia, a free online encyclopedia open to all. The Wikipedia's apologists emphasize the great number of volunteers who have taken part in the project and the number of entries they have contributed. They emphasize also the communal nature of the undertaking, in which anyone with a better understanding of a subject, or a bigger ax to grind, can edit what someone else has created. Their prime article of faith is that this openness will inevitably lead to a high level of accuracy and quality.
Price, Gary. "Wikipedia Plus Dynamic Search Term Suggestions = WikiWax". March 21, 2005. Search Engine Watch. [85]
Surfwax has just launched its LookAhead search term suggestion technology combined with Wikipedia into a new site calledWikiWax. Over 600,000 Wikipedia index terms are listed with more than 2,000,000 LookAhead rotations available. Remember, you'll see LookAhead offering suggested entries prior to clicking the search button.
Bates, Mary Ellen. "Just the Facts, Please". March 22, 2005. Search Engine Watch. [86]>
Article that talks about answers.com and Wikipedia. Refers to Wikipedia as a source of information.
Matei, Sorin Adam. "The Internet, the water spring and Adrian Paunescu". March 22, 2005. Evenimentul Zilei online. [87]
Article originally in Romanian starts with a description of the The New Yorker's "On the Internet no-one knows you're a dog" cartoon, describes Wikipedia and mentions the accuracy problem. It then describes in detail a disputed article on Romanian poet Adrian Paunescu (ro:Adrian Păunescu):
"A user for the first time interested in this issue creates a biography and includes in it what he knows: Adrian Paunescu is a famous Romanian poet. Another elderly user would probably add that Paunescu was a poet close to the communist power. A fan of Flacara literary circle might erase this information, saying that Adrian Paunescu was a patriotic poet who contributed to the relaunching of "Horea's spear" song. Later on, a critic added the fact that Adrian Paunescu was a political chameleon after 1989. This contribution can also be erased, let's say, by a member of the former ruling Social Democrat Party (PSD), who includes the poet, again, among the brilliant minds of the nation. This wikipedia page isn't a joke, it really exists (http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_P%C4%83unescu). From it, the nationalist poet, deeply involved in the games of the communist power in the 1980s, appears as a disinterested patriot. He is presented as being persecuted by the communist-era political police Securitate and as a "supporter of the naturist medicine in the era of the advancement of chemistry". The secret of this positive biography? The last contributor of the biography of the bard from Birca was...the son of the poet, Andrei Paunescu." ...
"The wiki system perfectly embodies the drama of searching for information through the Internet. Although plenty and necessary, information isn't better or worse than it was its last user/creator. Internet is like a water spring. It is a quick way to quench your thirst. The problem is that you never know who was the last one who drank from it: a man or a dog."
Note: Since the publication of this article, the Adrian Paunescu article appears to have been extensively truncated and vandalised.
Burnett, Thane. "Sounds of life, death." Toronto Sun. 1 April 2005. [88]
"Schiavo's end resonated quickly around the world. Within moments -- even as leaders walked to microphones -- the online encyclopedia Wikipedia was updated to reflect her final breath."
Sternstein, Aliya. "Wiki means fast". FCW.com. April 4, 2005. [89]
"The Wikipedia is a classic example. It is an online, self-correcting, self-evolving encyclopedia updated by a community of users, trusting the good intentions of the posters."
Brøndmo, Hans-Peter. "How Will Tags Color the Web?" ClickZ Network. April 4, 2005. [90]
"Wikipedia, likewise, has a core group of about 500 users worldwide who constitute a highly active community. They monitor content changes and submissions for accuracy and adherence to the Wikipedia terms. They edit submissions, categorize content, and generally constitute Wikipedia's "editorial staff"."
Morgan, Fiona, and others. "Our Favorite Geeks." Independent Weekly. April 6, 2005.[91]
Profile of Seth Ilys based on his Wikipedia contributions.
Jeffery, Simon. "Wikipedia - first with the news". The Guardian. April 12, 2005. [93]
Reports that Wikipedia's article on Andrea Dworkin correctly noted her death over 24 hours before the mainstream media, " ... Wikipedia the sole supporting published source, breaking the news in its own quiet and understated manner. ..."
The Associated Press. "Encarta encyclopedia tests edit system". Business Week. April 13, 2005.[94]
"This is in contrast to the online encyclopedia Wikipedia, which lets anyone instantaneously make changes, even delete entries, regardless of whether that person has any expertise in the subject. [...] 'The truth of the matter is, we have 42,000 articles in Encarta and somewhere around 60 million words, so even if I had a staff of 1,000 editors we wouldn't be able to look at all of the content all the time,' Alt said."
Mackintosh, Hamish. "Talk Time". The Guardian. April 14, 2005. [95]
Interview with Jimmy Wales. "Once, everyone was excited about the new medium of the net. People talked about free knowledge and the ability to share ideas but then it seemed to be all about pop-up ads and porn spam. We came on to the scene when people were getting disillusioned. Hopefully they thought it was an attempt to create something positive."
BBC News Online. "Hitchhiker's Guide in your pocket". April 15, 2005. [96]
"In some respects the way that the H2G2 website was put together pre-figures the idea of the wikipedia [sic], an online encyclopedia, that is also written, edited and checked by ordinary web users."
Hoffman, Allan. "Note to Web monks: Try surfing for a wiki." The Star-Ledger. April 17, 2005. [97]
"To get a sense of what a wiki really is, you will need to visit one. Start at Wikipedia (www.wikipedia.org), a popular, freely available encyclopedia. Wikipedia might look like any other Web-based resource, with brief items brimming with links to other references. Wikipedia has more than 525,000 entries in English on just about any topic imaginable. The entry on wiki provides the source of the quirky name — a Hawaiian term meaning quick. But look under the covers of Wikipedia, and you will discover how easy it is to edit the articles..." (text continues at article)
Cara, Anna. "If 'Wikipedians' don't like this article, they'll change it" Atlanta Journal-Constitution. April 17, 2005.
"In an interview with Wikipedia's latest newsletter, Stanford University professor Lawrence Lessig simply says, 'Wikipedia is jazz.'"
"Web quickly spreads word of new pope". Reuters. April 19, 2005. [98]
"The election spurred the posting of special alert banners on major news network sites including ABC, CBS, CNN, FOX and NBC. The entry for Ratzinger on Wikipedia had already been updated to reflect his new title. The community-based Web encyclopedia also was quick to post word of the death of Terri Schiavo in March." Links are as shown in quotation.
Silverman, Dwight. "Sudden info on the pope". Houston Chronicle. April 20, 2005. [99]
"For those who don't know, the Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that is developed by the online community. Anyone is free to submit or revise an article.
"You'd think it would be chaotic, but it actually works well — and quickly..."
Article continues; see full text for more. Links are as shown in article.
"The future of journalism: Yesterday's papers". The Economist. April 21, 2005. [100]
"Wikis are collaborative web pages that allow readers to edit and contribute. This, to digital immigrants, may sound like a recipe for anarchic chaos, until they visit, for instance, wikipedia.org, an online encyclopaedia that is growing dramatically richer by the day through exactly this spontaneous (and surprisingly orderly) collaboration among strangers." Links to Wikipedia as shown.
Rhymer, Rigby. "The advent of the online whiteboard: COLLABORATIVE SOFTWARE: Companies around the world are waking up to the considerable attractions of interactive wiki pages". Financial Times (London). April 22, 2005.
"Wikipedia, the web's largest encyclopaedia and the best known example of a wiki"
"BBC Launches Real-Life 'Hitchhiker's Guide'" Adam Pasick for Reuters. [101]
"Wikipedia allows anyone to make changes to entries but relies on a final review by a core team of about 1,000 users. Similarly, the BBC has the final say over what appears on H2G2, according to Ashley Highfield, Director of BBC New Media & Technology."
Mitra, Kushan. "Just how did a website with a quaint sounding prefix (it's Hawaiian, duh!) establish the concept of an online democracy? And why did a multi-millionaire one-time derivatives trader become its benevolent dictator?". Business Today (India). April 24, 2005.
"Wikipedia is nothing short of a revolution."
Foremski, Tom. "Notes from Software 2005: Lunch with the Swami of the enterprise software sector...". SiliconValleyWatcher. April 26, 2005. [102]
"I sat with MR at lunch, (he is a big SiliconValleyWatcher fan BTW). Here are some notes from my chat with the 'swami of the software sector'. (MR, I hope it’s not offensive to call you swami; I did wikipedia it…!)" (This marks the first time this user at least has seen "Wikipedia" used as a verb.)
Hoffman, Allan. "Just Browsing'. New Orleans Times-Picayune. April 27, 2005.
"Wikipedia is an astonishing resource"
Williams, Derek. "Wikipedia". Newsletter of American Mensa COM SIG. April 27, 2005.
Discusses the idea behind Wikipedia, it's growth, and mentions and replies to common criticisms.
Jdd, Damon D. "Geocollaboration using Peer-Peer GIS". Directions Magazine. April 28, 2005. [103]
"The web site, Wikipedia, is an encyclopedia written collaboratively by many of its readers. It illustrates an interesting level of collaboration at the less interactive, open community side of the spectrum. Wikipedia defines collaboration as follows." Article then quotes first paragraph of Collaboration. Article links to main page and article as shown.
"The Saj of Tao | Denouement". The Tufts Daily. April 28, 2005. [104].
"Wikipedia.org, my dearest friend. Not a credible source to cite on research papers, I discovered, but if I'm in a bind and need to know who made the steam engine efficient enough to jumpstart the creation of an effective steam-powered cargo-carrying industry (James Watt) for the sole purpose of setting up a joke a few lines later about a fat stupid President opening up ANWR to oil-drilling at the turn of the last century, I know where to go."
Dubey, Chris. "Online Encyclopedia Offers Free Help". The University of Hartford Informer. April 28, 2005. [105]
"Where on the Internet can you find optimized information on such diverse topics as hyperbolic Ann Coulter quotes, the history of auto racing and the Usenet flame war called the Meow Wars? No, it isn't Google I'm talking about. It's Wikipedia, a Web-based, free-content encyclopedia, written collaboratively by volunteers..." Remainder of article is about Wikipedia.
Cody, Nabours. "Life, the universe and everything". The UCSD Guardian. April 29, 2005. [106].
"Much of the book’s best humor remains in the movie, from the doomed-but-philosophizing sperm whale (perhaps the book’s finest moment) to the excerpts from the Guide itself (sort of the Wikipedia of the universe)."
"China's old foes seek an end to conflict". The Economist. April 29, 2005. [107]
Hoff, Rob. "REALLY Local Content". Business Week. April 29, 2005. [108]
"Of course, this kind of thing would depend on lots of people contributing voluntarily, but Craigslist, Wikipedia, and other volunteer sites prove that's not an insurmountable barrier." Links to Wikipedia as shown.
Rowse, Darren. "A Blogging Perspective OS X Tiger". WebProNews. April 30, 2005. [109].
"Dashboard - one of the main things that Apple have been selling this upgrade with is the new Dashboard feature which allows users to download desktop widgets. At the click of a button these widgets appear on your screen giving you up to date information on a variety of topics - ranging from stock prices, weather, world time, dictionary, calculator, wikipedia look up, mini rss reader."
Boutin, Paul. "Galaxy Quest: Wikipedia is a real-life Hitchhiker's Guide: huge, nerdy, and imprecise." Slate. May 3, 2005. [110].
"But don't people use encyclopedias to look up stuff they don't know anything about? Even if a reference tool is 98 percent right, it's not useful if you don't know which 2 percent is wrong."
Boutin notes that Encarta recently hired 6 people to handle the anticipated editorial work due to readers posting improvements to the articles.
Sartwell, Crispin. "Wikipedia: See 'Information,' 'Amazing,' 'Anarchy'". Los Angeles Times. May 4, 2005. [111]
"Encyclopedias — whether paper (Britannica, for example) or software (Encarta) — are intended to be representations of the scope of human knowledge at the moment of their publication. This idea, of course, has a long history. But the most interesting thing about it may be its future, as represented by the magnificent, nonprofit Wikipedia...What is perhaps most fascinating about Wikipedia is its demonstration in practical anarchy. It is an ever-shifting, voluntary, collaborative enterprise. If it is in the long run successful, it would show that people can make amazing things together without being commanded, constrained, taxed, bribed or punished...if Wikipedia grows into the greatest reference work ever made, it will suggest that great things are possible when you merely let people go and see what happens."
"Wikipedia: It's this totally cool online encyclopedia that lets users update and edit its information. It's the greatest thing. Watch. Pretend you want to know about warthogs." "Is that a picture of our sister?"
Clemens, Walter C., Jr. "Without Books on Paper, So Much Is Lost" (letter to the editor). New York Times. May 17, 2005. [113]
"Last but not least, there is the problem of evaluating sources. Many seem to regard the Wikipedia online encyclopedia as no worse than a standard, hard-copy encyclopedia. One of my students thought he had discovered the truth about Russia from a Trotskyite newspaper he found on the Web. Who was Trotsky? He did not know or care."
"Stat of the week - Wiki wonder". The Guardian (online section) [114]
"Open source encyclopedia Wikipedia is now the second most popular reference source on the web, according to new statistics."
"Pilot #3: The Wikipedia", pilot of show "Open Source", hosted by Christopher Lydon. May 19, 2005. [115]
MacMillan, Robert. Encyclopedia Immediata, in the Washington Post's "Random Access" column. 1 June 2005. [116]
Wikipedia's many volunteer editors weren't napping on the job as the W. Mark Felt story broke on Tuesday. A new entry (created yesterday, in fact) on the former associate FBI director and bona fide Deep Throat went up with great dispatch. A glance at the entry shows a clean, dry biography on Felt along with the circumstances of his involvement with Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein on the Watergate series. It is not the first time that Wikipedia has tried to function as a sage tome of encyclopedic knowledge on breaking events, but it almost certainly is one of the most prominent, at least on its English-language site.
And here's a little something you won't find in editions of the Encyclopaedia Britannica (or on the Britannica Online site which has not updated its Watergate references): A note at the top of the Wikipedia page says: "This article or section contains information about a current or ongoing event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses." The entry on " Deep Throat" also was updated a few hours after the news broke.
Legat, Michael. Writers' Rostrum, in Writing Magazine. July 2005 edition.
"One of the most extraordinary websites on the Internet is that of Wikipedia, an encyclopedia to which anyone can contribute... Since the contributors don't have to prove their competence, the Wikipedia may not be as authoritative as the established encyclopaedias, but you will probably find in it all sorts of interesting things that won't be in the others. As with Creative Commons you don't get any payment, but it sounds much more fun." (Sadly Legat also encouraged writers to add vanity articles about themselves :(
Gentile, Gary. "LA Times suspends 'wikitorials'" AP Business Wire, Mon 20 June 2005.
"I applaud them for trying a bold experiment," said Steve Outing, senior editor with the journalism think tank Poynter Institute. "That being said, I'm not at all surprised (by the problems). Wikis are pretty new, and we don't entirely understand them and know how they are going to work out yet."
He said Wikis "are most suited for factual information where the content can become accurate because of the power of the intelligence of the group."
"Trying to do that with an opinion piece doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense," Outing said. "People with competing views would just try to get their particular viewpoint published and someone would go in and change it."
In fact, it's one of the chief challenges facing the best-known Wiki, Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia where any visitor can add, change and erase someone else's entry.
Some contributors have attempted to impose their personal viewpoints - for instance, by replacing an article on abortion with the word "murder" written 143 times.
"Leaders and readers". 23 June 2005. Khaleej Times Online.
Editorial about the LA Times pulling Wikitutorials from their website:
"This does not mean that the pioneering idea conceived by the newspaper was a failure. If the LA Times initiative was not taken in its right spirit, it’s not the newspaper’s loss. Rather, it’s a loss for its readers who could not benefit from a path-breaking experiment because of some nuts loose out there in cyberspace. Of course, everyone is welcome to his or her views and has every right to share them with others. But any forum to air one’s views is governed by certain ground rules and those interested in making use of such a platform should play by the rules. A similar interactive experiment, Wikipedia has been remarkably successful because visitors to the site play by the rules. An online encyclopaedia, Wikipedia allows anyone interested to contribute his/her entries and edit those contributed by others, if necessary. The LA Times experiment failed because it might have come before its time."
Article describing the 54,000 figure commonly stated about Americans who died in the Korean War (no longer in the article).
"But the higher number lives on today. Olympia J. Snowe, a Republican senator from Maine, said in a press release last month, "Let there be no doubt -- the 54,000 Americans who perished on the Korean peninsula and in the neighboring seas are to be honored and exalted in our time -- and for all time." (A spokesman for Sen. Snowe declined to comment when I contacted her office.) After spotting the news coverage about the numerical error, Encyclopedia Britannica corrected its online entry a few years ago and in print in 2003, senior editor Robert Curley told me. World Book also uses the lower figure, a spokeswoman told me. But Wikipedia, a popular user-edited online encyclopedia, carried the 54,000 figure as of Wednesday in its entry on the war. Most newspaper articles mentioning the Korean War's death toll now cite the lower figure or qualify the higher one.
"the value of the evolving online encyclopedia is obvious when it is providing facts".
Rae, Fiona. New Zealand Listener, June 25-July 1, 2005, page 67. "website we love: www.wikipedia.org".
"The online encyclopedia that is a gorgeous, freelove kind of hippie vision of the Internet, where volunteers write the entries and over 200 languages are catered for. Sure, it's been criticised for bias, lack of accountability and deficiencies, but have you tried searching for New Zealand Idol? Like, wow."
Positive mentioning of Wikipedia on a national radio program (~8 million listeners).
"Once in a while we'll use Wikipedia, which is an online encyclopedia. We'll use it for different facts. We just used it there for Scientology..."
"Looking on this online encyclopedia, you can look up just about anything. Stu just ran a search on me. It's the most accurate. Bizarrely so. I mean it almost gives the dimensions of my house. I mean it's weird. Most accurate bio of me. I think it's more accurate than the bio that is on my own website...[It definitely has additional] brand new facts."
"On-line version of civilization chronology published". China View & People's Daily Online. June 23, 2005. [118][119]
"A massive on-line chronology of Chinese civilization was initiated here Thursday to allow the public to input and edit all the historical documents dating from ancient times through 1911 when the Republic of China was founded.
"'The operation will be similar to the Wikipedia,' a popular Web-based free content encyclopedia written by volunteers, said organizer Lu Jun, president of the China Culture Research Society."
Bonnie O'Neil. "Launching a Corporate Glossary". Business Intelligence Network. June 23, 2005. [120]
"Wikipedia is an open source encyclopedia on the internet. What’s cool about it is it’s the 'People’s encyclopedia.' anyone can update an existing entry or add a new one. In this way, everyone can participate in it and in a real sense 'own' it. On the downside, it can be very chaotic, because it lacks governance. We are trying to strike a balance and enable everyone to feel like they can contribute, and therefore only applying minimal governance. Where it gets interesting is when someone wants to update an existing entry; especially someone else’s entry. This is when governance is really needed."
Sven Krohlas. "KDE and Wikipedia Announce Cooperation". KDE.news. June 23, 2005. [121]
"Today Jimmy Wales, chairman of the Wikimedia Foundation, announced the beginning of a cooperation between Wikimedia and the KDE project at LinuxTag in Karlsruhe, Germany. As the first applications, like the media player Amarok, start to integrate Wikipedia content the idea is to create a webservice API to access the information from Wikimedia projects such as Wikipedia or Wiktionary. There are also plans for a KDE API.
"The API would allow KDE applications to easily embed Wikimedia content, data could even be fetched from a local database depending on your online/offline status. First progress can be seen in Knowledge, a Qt 4 based offline reader for Wikipedia.
"Jimmy was also searching for people who want to help with the design of this API, so if you want a good API for your application join the efforts!"
Roy Rosenzweig, 'Digital archives are a gift of wisdom to be used wisely', in the Information Technology supplement of The Chronicle of Higher Education, 24 June 2005, [122] [PDF doc]
"The same collaborative mechanism of review -- applied more systematically -- have made the collectively produced and open-source encyclopadia Wikipedia a surprisingly credible resource for historial facts."
"This week, the Los Angeles Times attempted to allow readers to rewrite its editorial over the internet. The notion comes from the online encyclopedia Wikipedia, which can be written by whoever wishes to contribute articles or amendments [this is more like it].
"But the paper's courageous idea was fundamentally flawed, not because democratic debate can never produce universal consensus [this is good stuff], but because the hell-born Prince Charles who murder Lady Di for oil will face Lucifer as Prophets foretold when flood and fire consume Zionist assassins of Bhopal (Isaiah 12, 4) for USA death-heads knew but kill when Bush father CIA tell them for their blood-dollars."
Edward Cone. "Wikipedia Founder Pitches Openness to Content Managers". June 24, 2005. eWeek. [124]
Inverview of Jimmy Wales, "Allowing employees to work on sensitive documents without a series of strict controls isn't as dangerous as corporate knowledge managers think, according to Jimmy Wales."
Joe Light. "Spreadin' the news, 1 volunteer at a time". June 24, 2005. The Boston Globe. [125]
Article about Wikinews. Profiles Brandon Stafford, wiki-newsreporter.
Gopilal Acharya. "Here comes the Wikipedia". June 27, 2005. Kuensel Online. [126]
File:Kuenseonline-ss-05june27wiki.jpg Ever heard of Wikipedia? Presumably most Bhutanese would say, No. Log on to www.wikipedia.org and you are entering into the Internet’s largest encyclopedia that Time recently described as the web encyclopedia “by the people, for the people.”
So what?
This again, presumably, could be the second remark one might make on hearing about this weird-sounding Wikipedia thing. But listen to what Wikipedians have to say: It is pretty helpful, especially if you want information urgently. Wikipedia is a free open-source encyclopedia, which basically means that anyone can log on and add to or edit it, says Time’s Chris Taylor. Started by Alabama-born Jimmy Wales some four years ago Wikipedia today has 1.5 million entries in 76 languages and is increasing by the day. Wales, whose long-time obsession was to create an online encyclopedia, stumbled on wiki after Nupedia (his first trail on online encyclopedia) failed.
"250,000 German articles in Wikipedia". 28 June, 2005. Heise online. [127]
The German-language version of the free online encyclopedia Wikipedia is booming: with the entry about Mönchgut, a 29.44 km² long peninsula southeast of Rügen, the milestone of the 250,000th article in German has been added to the Wikipedia. The number of German articles has thus doubled in less than one year, with more than 400 articles being added every day.
The German version is thus the second largest in the encyclopedia project after the English edition, which has more than 611,000 articles. Overall, there are some 2 million Wikipedia articles in 200 languages. The threshold of one million was only recently crossed in September 2004.
Lennon, Sheila. "Personal Technology." 30 June 2005. Providence (R.I.) Journal.[128]
Wickerpedia: The parody. Wikipedia is the collaboratively created Web encyclopedia, using software that permits many editors, i.e., a wiki.
Wickerpedia is not. It's a parody of wikipedia.org, only with more of an emphasis on wicker (which is terribly represented by wikipedia). The site features a more wickercentric view of history, the news, and common wisdom, as well as a much improved searching engine.
Katherine Q. Seelye. "Hands-On Readers: Why Newspapers are Betting on Audience Participation". 4 July, 2005. New York Times. pp C1, C4.
"...Recently, The Los Angeles Times briefly opened its editorial page so readers could go online and insert their own thoughts in editorials. The approach was patterned after Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia made up of contributions from anyone with something to say. ..."
Don Marti, "Editors' Choice Awards 2005: Nontechnical or Community Web Site: Wikimedia Foundation, Wikipedia", Linux Journal, August 2005, pp. 86f.
"Robert calls Wikipedia, 'probably the single greatest thing on earth.' It's hard to comprehend an encyclopedia with 1.5 million articles and editions in 195 languages, so just visit the site and click 'random page.'"
Dvorak, John C. "The Wikification of Knowledge" PC Magazine, July 2005.
"The absolute deterioration of the wiki concept is just a matter of time. Once spam mechanisms are developed to eat into these systems, the caretakers will be too busy to stop the public-driven deterioration."
Andy Carvin ,"Turning Wikipedia into an Asset for Schools " Digital Divide Network talks about using Wikipedia as a basis for a school project to validate the facts in an article. This could be a way of developing childrens research skills as well as improving Wikipedia. July 11th, 2005 @ 10:14PM
"Get enough classrooms doing this, you kill several birds with one stone: Wikipedia's information gets better, students help give back to the Net by improving the accuracy of an important online resource, and teachers have a way to make lemons into lemonade, turning Wikipedia from a questionable information source to a powerful tool for information literacy. "
Read, Brock. "Romantic Poetry Meets 21st-Century Technology". The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A35. July 15, 2005. [129]
"Wikipedia has become especially popular as a research tool for college students—much to the chagrin of some professors, who consider the site's often-unsourced content to be dubious at best. Others, like Mr. Morgan, argue that wiki readers can find plenty of worthwhile content, as long as they scrutinize it as carefully as they would material on regular web sites."
Brown, Russell, New Zealand Listener, July 23-29 2005, pp 52-53, We Are All Reporters.
"One of the more notable responses [to the 7 July London bombings] was that of the free online encyclopedia Wikipedia, which had a work-in-progress page up as soon as the news broke, and, through the contributions of many volunteers, quickly established a resource that was better than most news sources. Think of that: an encyclopedia as breaking news."
"Some people are afraid of products which are free, but you would be making a big mistake if you avoided the Wikipedia, one of the most remarkable creations on the Internet. A wiki is a web site users can both contribute to and edit. "Wiki wiki" means "quick" in Hawaiian. The Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with more than 1.6 million articles under active development in over 120 languages. The site gets more than 60 million hits per day. The Wikipedia`s article about itself admits that since anyone can edit the content, inaccuracy and vandalism is a problem. But the community of users polices that sort of activity so the content tends to be self-repairing. Volunteer editors strive to make sure the articles are objective. In addition to the usual encyclopedia topics, the Wikipedia contains a wide array of social and cultural entries. The Wikipedia is not a refereed academic publication, but it is a fascinating example of collaborative development and social interaction growing live, virtually before your eyes on the Internet. Scott Gurvey, NIGHTLY BUSINESS REPORT, New York."
Wikipedia is 'Site of the Fortnight' in Computer Active, Britain's top computer mag, , No 194, 31 July-3 August 2005, p 82.
...The work of a dedicated team of editors means that 1.6 million articles - 600,000 in English and the others in 194 other language editions - are largely accurate and clear, and those that are not are clearly indicated as such.
Heffernan, Virginia. "The Podcast as a New Podium". New York Times, July 22, 2005, p. E1. [130]
"Admit it. You don't know what podcasts are. Your plan is to do that thing of half-reading tech articles and waiting in denial until it's scarily mandatory that you really understand it -for instance, you have to create your own podcast for some random reason in one hour - and then desperately turning to Wikipedia or a teenage relative for a last-minute explanation."
Seebach, Linda. "How to get some help with math- wiki-wiki". Rocky Mountain News, July 23, 2005. [131]
"For a test, I decided to look up Nicolas Bourbaki, whose mathematical works we studied in grad school. He seemed especially suitable because he's not a single authority but a collective pseudonym for a group of highly influential French mathematicians. A standard encyclopedia had a couple of hundred words - though it did deliciously describe him as "a nonexistent but very clever polycephalic French mathematician. Wikipedia's article was nearly 2,000 words, thorough and well-informed, with rich links to original sources.
"Whoever wrote it, t(he)y knew what they were talking about. "
Boxer, Sarah. "Internet's Best Friend (Let Me Count the Ways)". New York Times, July 30, 2005. A brief mention in an article about cats' and dogs' movements on the net.
"On Wikipedia there's already a dog poop girl entry logged, and a movement to delete it."
Spiegel Surfs the Web, "Wikimania Sweeps Frankfurt", August 4, 2005. [132]
"Wikimania, a four-day gathering of those behind the successful on-line encyclopedia, Wikipedia, has taken over Frankfurt. The main topic of the meeting: Where will Wiki go from here?"
Fun quote: "It's telling that Wikimania is taking place in Germany. Wales recently wrote in his blog "Like the great artist ... David Hasselhoff, I'm only appreciated overseas."
In a leader article on "the 10th birthday of the Internet as a mass phenomenon" The Guardian says:
"Although, contrary to the instincts of its early protagonists, the web has long since been colonised by commerce, it still nurtures its founding community spirit. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the startling success of the open source movement which enables enthusiasts and professionals all over the world to work together from remote locations to produce services that are freely available for anyone with a computer linked to the internet. The thousands of products so far released include the Linux operating system (a free alternative to Microsoft's pervasive Windows), OpenOffice (an alternative to Microsoft's Word and Excel) and Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, with well over a million entries written entirely by its readers." [133]
The Citizen runs a profile on Wikipedia's most prolific user, SimonP. Discusses user's interest in and use of the project: "I think writing in a vacuum would be somewhat boring," but knowing his work is so widely read makes up for the lack of a paycheque — sort of. "What I'd really like is for someone to pay me to write encyclopedia articles, but I think that might be somewhat unrealistic," he said.
In an article entirely about Wikimedia: "At Wikimania, Jimmy Wales, the movement's founder, identified the next pieces of the jigsaw likely to fall into place. In his keynote address, Wales named a list of things "that should be free". While not quite commandments, they amount to 10 ideas about how the "Free Culture Movement", as he termed it, could extend the wiki ethic beyond the pages of its ever-growing encyclopedia."
Wikipedia used as prime example of one of Berners-Lee's ideas. "One of his earliest ideas was the "read/write web", where users could change websites as well as observe them. The proliferation of weblogs, and particularly the success of the user-edited encyclopedia Wikipedia, prove that democratising the online space can have wide-ranging and legitimate uses."
Manes, Stephen. "Google Isn't Everything". Forbes, August 15, 2005, p. 56. [136]
"I happened to wonder about the first recorded term of the term 'personal computer,' so I Googled around and ended up at Wikipedia, the hit-or-miss user-developed encyclopedia, whose 'personal computer' entry declared authoritatively that 'The earliest known use of the term was in New Scientist magazine in 1964, in a series of articles called 'The World in 1984'.' I still don't know the answer to my question, but I do know —no thanks to Google—that Wikipedia got it wrong."
After this slam, the author went on to laud the online use of local public libraries. He did not choose to improve our civilization by correcting the Wikipedia article; User:Lllll took care of this for him, replacing the above with information that Manes alleges is correct. - Tempshill 03:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Uses Wikimania as a jumping off point to examine Wikipedia specifically. He then refers to several blog comments about Wikipedia, and finally discusses how wikis and open human knowledge is likely to proceed.
"But one event this week has received scant mainstream coverage, even though it has enormous implications for tech-heads and global village idiots alike."
Reports on the controversy over the creation of the Wikipedia article on Jamie Kane, a fictional singer who is the centrepiece of a BBC online game. The initial writing of the article by an IP which traced to the BBC and which did not make clear the subject was fictional led to a fierce debate on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jamie Kane.
"A Wikipedia article, posted from within the BBC, appeared about a British pop singer, Jamie Kane, which contained all you could possibly want to know about him except for the fact that he didn't exist."
Wikipedia, the user-generated net encyclopaedia, provided video coverage of the hurricane and regularly updated reports on the storms history and effects.
Marti, Don. "Editors' Choice Awards 2005". Linux Journal, Issue #136, August 2005. [140][141]
Wikipedia wins the Linux Journal Editors' Choice Award for the best Nontechnical or Community Website. While the article itself is dated June 30, it appeared in the August 2005 edition of Linux Journal.
Robert Love calls Wikipedia, "probably the single greatest thing on Earth."
"You will not only find scholarly reports like those in a fact-checked encyclopedia, but entries on nearly anything in mainstream popular culture, from politicians to famous buildings to weather terminology."
Auchard, Eric News junkies find Wikipedia more than encyclopedia.ReutersSeptember 6, 2005. [143] "The Wikipedia, which has surged this year to become the most popular reference site on the Web, is fast overtaking several major news sites as the place where people swarm for context on breaking events. ..."
"Wikipedia is fast becoming the number-one online resource for web surfers hungry for context about breaking news, in what must be a sad comment on the ability for traditional news media to keep its audiences well-informed."
"...at the time of writing, nearly two weeks after the event, the online Britannica has failed to register David Lange's passing – whereas the Wikipedia page for Lange was updated within a couple of hours of his death and has blossomed since..."
"The remarkable thing about Wikipedia is that it is written not by academic mandarins in ivory towers but by you and me. ... In general, it works well enough for the site to be a great first port of call for general knowledge.
"King downloaded the entire English-language version of co-operatively produced online encyclopedia Wikipedia to a readable DVD-ROM to allow it to be accessed from a computer without an internet connection. He will soon post the project online and invite others to help him develop the concept."
"In small rooms beyond a corridor busy with a bathroom queue, dorm bunks and backpacks, the Wikipedians are plotting the new world order. Mild-mannered men hatch wild schemes of omniscience with dreams of bringing true democracy to Iran and education to Indonesia, and enabling the next Einstein to come from Africa."
Craccum, Auckland University Students' Association magazine. Issue 19, 2005 displayed the Wikipedia page Contents as its table of contents. That article has since been moved to User:Ghostclub/Craccum.
"An Australian Jewish group has been angered by the use of an online encyclopedia to attack the memory of Nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal, who died yesterday.
The Wikipedia website, a collection of articles that can be freely edited by users, displayed false information about Mr Wiesenthal, claiming he partook in various sex acts in Austria with other men. [...] The Council of Australian Jewry was angered at the posting on the Wikipedia website, which gets about 60 million hits a day, and said it was a blatant attempt to denigrate the memory of Mr Wiesenthal. "I suppose if you are a former Nazi or sympathiser then it makes sense to try and denigrate the person who is bringing you down," said executive officer with the group, Josh Landis. This is abhorrent and shows a lack of respect to his memory." Mr Landis said he would informally speak with other members of the council to see what action could be taken against he website."
This appears to refer to an anon edit to Simon Wiesenthal by 66.99.233.35 at 2315 UTC on 20 September. It was reverted by another anon editor at 2318 UTC, and was deleted from the edit history by administrator Mindspillage at 0320 UTC. An email sent to "The Age"s 'React to this story' address explaining this was deleted unread.
In the text of a report, English or Italian? Football's yawning ticket prices gap, and in an accompanying panel, we referred to "a panini". You can have any number of panini except one. Then it is a panino. A grudging nod to Wikipedia, which says: "A panino (plural panini, although panini is often used in a singular sense outside Italy) ... "
Naughton,Philippe. Wikipedia mentioned in headline of The Times29 September2005. Hero's return (and Wikipedia entry) for OAP heckler[150]
In reporting the elderly heckler forcibly ejected from the Labour Party conference The Times mentions that his moment of fame has earned him a Wikipedia Entry.
In his column The Geek Arthur says " Overall Wikipedia is becoming the online resource to resolve disputes; if another site is more authoritative on a subject then Wikipedia links to that. Gradually though , one can see the temptation for a cadre of full time staff to begin searching for ways to improve the content."
Lohr, Steve. "Working Together, Wherever They Are", The New York Times Wednesday, October 5, 2005. Circuits, Networking Issue pp E1,E9.
"...Companies are drawing on collaborative models ... from online games ... to the so-called wiki encyclopedias and blogs to speed up innovation. ... Projects range from Wikipedia, an open-source encyclopedia, to ... an open-source initiative in biotechnology. Corporations are rapidly adopting software tools intended to nurture collaborative work, including wikis, blogs, instant messaging, Web-based conferencing and peer-to-peer programs. ..."
Boldemann, Marcus. "Uppslagsverket för alla vill bli störst i världen" (The encyclopedia for all aims to be the world's biggest) Dagens NyheterOctober 7, 2005[152]
"DN took a few random samples from Wikipedia and looked up the director Alf Sjöberg (concise biography, mostly concerned with his movies, but not with his principal accomplishments in theater), the opera singer Kerstin Thorborg (more elaborate) and Jules Sylvain (completely overlooks the golden age with "Säg det i toner"). More problematic was the entry "Tango". After a historically dubious introduction follows a strangely balanced longer article which fails to characterize the music. That which is written is however correct. Another article, "Tango music, has only three lines."
The artice lists Wikipedia.org as one of the three "can't-do-without search engines", the others being Dictionary.com and TheFreeDictionary.com(a Wikipedia mirror). It describes Wikipedia.org as "a multi-lingual encyclopaedia launched in 2001". "The entries...are written, updated and maintained by volunteers enthusiastic about any particular subject". Furthermore, it says that Wikipedia is useful for "information-hungry Netizens who revel" in its "free-for-all system". "That approach has attracted criticism for arbitrary standards of accuracy, but Wikipedia articles are now frequently cited in the media and in academic circles". Finally, it gives a verdict that "the idea of creating an encyclopaedia written wholly by non-expert enthusiasts is cool enough for us to give this website the thumbs-up".
"Yes it's garbage, but it's delivered so much faster! -- Encouraging signs from the Wikipedia project, where co-founder and überpedian Jimmy Wales has acknowledged there are real quality problems with the online work." [154]
"American Airlines and Southwest Airlines have used advertising campaigns, catchy slogans and dueling consultant studies to settle a dispute over air service in North Texas, and now their eye-gouging fight has spilled over to an online encyclopedia."
"An increase in students using the on-line encyclopaedia Wikipedia in essays and research papers is causing concern among academics… [Victoria University law lecturer Dean] Knight is concerned that Wikipedia "should not be used as a shortcut for actual research," but recognises that it may be appropriate to cite Wikipedia "where qualifications as to its integrity are less important.""
"The founder of the online encyclopedia written and edited by its users has admitted some of its entries are 'a horrific embarrassment'. What did our panel of experts think of the entries for their fields?"
Despite what you might think from the title and the low scores, most of the criticism is for literary merit or incompleteness, not for factual inaccuracy.
"Entries from Wikipedia, the popular free online encyclopedia written and edited by Internet users, may soon be available in print for readers in the developing world, founder Jimmy Wales said on Monday."
"Wales also described as incorrect reports, one of them from Reuters, that certain pages of the Wikipedia could be subject to tightened controls or 'frozen' for good to prevent vandals and pranksters from tampering with them."
On the 10th anniversary of the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, Haaretz notes the boom in conspiracy theories and notes those on the English and Hebrew Wikipedias that claim Shimon Peres was behind it.
Similar to the Guardian's exercise (see 24 October) the Mail & Guardian Online asked local experts to use a scale of 1 to 10 to rate Wikipedia articles on South African subjects: Sangomas 6/10 - "It needs to be placed within a bigger conceptual framework of traditional healers and the current roles need to described"; Media in South Africa 2/10 "disappointing"; South Africa national rugby league team and South Africa national rugby union team 10/10 "If I were to be hyper-critical, I might say that they are a little too up to date and don't care enough for history"; African National Congress 7/10 "the entry was surprisingly accurate (perhaps I have low expectations): one clear factual error only is less than I would have expected"; Braai 8/10 "could be a more in-depth description incorporating favourite dishes from various areas" and boerewors 6/10 "not invented by the boers"; South African National Defence Force 7/10 "very useful and, surprisingly, factually very correct. There is also an absence of emotional opinions in the presentation of the [historical] facts -- something that you don't always find in South Africa these days"; Economy of South Africa 6/10 "a lot of information about the current state of the South African economy and economic policy, but provides little context and is poorly organised"; Telkom refused to comment on the article about themselves.
"The Professional Contractors Group (PCG), an organisation for freelance and temporary contract workers in the UK, has joined the authoring ranks of Wikipedia, the open source encyclopaedia" (they are editing IR35 and S660A).
"3,290,000 Number of unique visitors for Wikipedia September 2004"
"12,800,000 Number of unique visitors for Wikipedia September 2005"
"By several measures, the user-written online encyclopedia Wikipedia (www.wikipedia.com (sic)) has exploded in popularity over the last year. The Internet traffic-measurement firm Nielsen//NetRatings found that Wikipedia had more than tripled its monthly readership in September from the same month in 2004. September may have been a month of especially heavy usage for Wikipedia: the site does better during major new events, and September saw both the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and the confirmation of John Roberts Jr. as chief justice of the United States Supreme Court."
"But Wikipedia's popularity is not limited to periods of big news. Intelliseek, a marketing-research firm that measures online buzz, has found that the term Wikipedia is consistently used by bloggers -- about twice as often as the term 'encyclopedia' --and showed up in roughly one out of every 600 blog posts last month; it was one of every 3,300 posts in October 2004."
"'For bloggers, it's almost like a badge of credibility to embed Wikipedia in their blog references', said Pete Blackshaw, chief marketing officer for Intelliseek. 'There's something about Wikipedia that confers a degree of respectability, because multiple Web users have converged on it.' "
"The magic with this online encyclopedia – in case you didn’t know – is that with one click of a button, you can make your own contribution, or edit an existing article. Just choose your subject, and have your say. The surprise factor is that the information on the website is coherent and intelligent. It hasn’t been vandalised beyond recognition."
"As a means of sharing information, establishing internal networks, and managing projects, as well as being a way of engaging the public in consultations and other collaborative initiatives, the potential for implementing wikis as a core tool for local government is clear. And as far as Jimbo’s good vibes are concerned, well, we could all do with a little of that couldn’t we?"
Komarova, Anastasia. "Зрители снимаются с мест" - Novaya Gazeta, November 21, 2005, page 21. The article tells that nowadays people abandon TV because they want to control the information they receive. The examples include TiVo and LiveJournal as well as Wikipedia as "the most popular free-of-charge online encyclopedia, one of the 50 most visited websites in the world" (source).
John Seigenthaler Sr.. A false Wikipedia 'biography'USA TodayNovember 29, 2005. An opinion piece written to document how an anonymous Wikipedia contributor accused Seigenthaler of possibly killing John and/or Robert F. Kennedy, a claim which remained on Seigenthaler's Wikipedia biography for three months. Seigenthaler complains that no one is held accountable for libel on the internet in general by the law or U.S. Congress.
Eric Oatman, "Make Way for Wikis", School Library Journal, November 2005, discusses the use of wikis in school curriculum and discusses Wikipedia as a source, with quotes from Jimmy Wales.
A full-page discussion which acknowledges the article count of 750,000 articles in Wikipedia. The page notes the differences of opinion over some articles which are recorded to have undergone notorious edit wars. The displutes include George W. Bush, the efforts to document J. Lo's age, and the inclusion of some titles in the Star Wars literature under an equal billing with the Star Wars movies.
"Complaints Over Wikipedia Accountability With Bios" December, 2005 - Daniel Brandt has been complaining over the accuracy and presence of a page about him at Wikipedia. On the other hand, John Seigenthaler Sr., the former assistant to US Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, is complaining over his Wikipedia biography. Searchenginewatch.com
Cooper, Charles. "Wikipedia and the nature of truth", news.com, December 2, 2005. An opinion piece debating Wikipedia's level of truth following John Seigenthaler Sr.'s criticism of his own Wikipedia entry.
Kirkpatrick, David "Fed Up With E-Mail? Try a Wiki", fortune.com, December 2, 2005. "If you aren’t acquainted with it, go right now to Wikipedia.org, look up anything you care about, and prepare to be amazed. 'Why will we ever again need any other form of reference?' you may wonder...."
Rehashes John Seigenthaler Sr. and Daniel Brandt complaints about the innacuracy of their bios. Although he isn't threatening to sue, Brandt is quoted with questions on who would be liable in a case of libel. The article also includes quotes from Jimbo Wales defending monitoring of articles by editors.
"Wikipedia's Jimbo is the Linus of encyclopedias", Helsingin sanomat December 3, 2005, page B 9.
Summary: Jimmy "Jimbo" Wales, 39, is a nerd guru with a great mission. He wishes to bring a free encyclopedia to all people of the world. Only five years ago, such an idea would have been considered stupid. According to Wales, Wikipedia now has 2.5 million articles in almost 200 languages and gets more traffic than the webpages of several American newspapers put together. The quality of Wikipedia is a constant problem and thus the scientific community has doubts about Wikipedia. Wales is interested in Nicholas Negroponte's "hundred dollar laptop" to bring Wikipedia to the world's poor.
Comment article: Testing Wikipedia against a Finnish paper encyclopedia. Wikipedia has less information about traditional topics such as the province of Häme, but more information about current topics such as parkour. The English Wikipedia is larger, more detailed and better developed than the Finnish one. The Encyclopedia Britannica has more coverage on traditional topics such as the Nile than Wikipedia but less coverage about current topics such as podcasting or phishing.
Daniel Terdiman: "Growing Pains for Wikipedia", CNET News.com, December 5, 2005. Discusses Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales' decision to require users to login to create new articles.
wiki-whatdia?, Poynteronline, December 7, 2005. Posting of a memo from New York Times business editor Larry Ingrassia. "We shouldn't be using [Wikipedia] to check any information that goes into the newspaper." [157]
"In praise of ... the Wikipedia", "Wikipedia bans anonymous contributors to prevent libel". Leader and associated story in The Guardian. December 8, 2005. [158][159]
"The Wikipedia is one of the wonders of the internet ... Those who think its entries should be taken with a pinch of salt should never forget that there is still plenty of gold dust there."
"I Am Not a Thief" [Jimbo Wales], Newsweek International Special Edition: Issues 2006, p 83., December 8, 2005
Summary: Wikipedia shows: information wants to be free, and the current copyright laws have bad intents. Shows good examples where the law slows or halts advancement, education or creativity.
"Copyright reform is not about kids' stealing music. It is about recognising the astounding possibilities inherent in the honest and intelligent use of new technologies."
Sunday, December 11, 2005, page 33. Account of the exposure of the author of the Siegenthaler libel on Wikipedia:
Brian Chase of Nashville, Tennessee admitted that he falsified information in a Wikipedia entry about John Seigenthaler Sr., a former editor of The Tennessean in Nashville. Until December 9, Chase was an operations manager at a small delivery company in Nashville. Chase told Seigenthaler on December 9 that he had written the material "suggesting that Seigenthaler had been involved in the assassinations of John and Robert F. Kennedy. Wikipedia, a nonprofit venture that is the world's biggest encyclopedia, is written and edited by thousands of volunteers, and mistakes are expected to be caught by users."
(Chase was under the impression he was hitting a shock site with his gag, but did not realize Wikipedia had world-wide exposure. Chase resigned from his job to avoid repercussions with the use of his company's PC for the prank.)
"...[Brandt] traced the computer used to make the Wikipedia entry to the delivery company in Nashville ... [and]... called the company. [He] told employees there about the Wikipedia problem but was not able to learn anything definitive."
"...[Brandt] then sent an e-mail message to the company, asking for information about its courier services. A response bore the same Internet Protocol address that was left by the creator of the Wikipedia entry, offering further evidence of a connection."
"...A call by a New York Times reporter to the delivery company on [December 8] made employees nervous, Mr. Chase later told Mr. Seigenthaler. On [December 9], Mr. Chase hand-delivered a letter to Mr. Seigenthaler's office, confessing what he had done, and later they talked at length."
Brandt's site did not currently contain this information as of 01:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC).
[160], AUDIO: Wales interviewed about Seigenthaler incident The Media Giraffe Project at the University of Massachusetts Amherst (USA) posts MP3 audio clips of an hour interview conducted Dec. 12, 2005 with WikiMedia Foundation president Jimmy Wales regarding the John Seigenthaler bio controversy and other topics.
Kenneth Neil Cukier, 'In defence of creativity', RSA Journal (the journal of the Royal Society of Arts), December 2005, page 5 states "Wikipedia, for example, is a top-quality online encyclopedia , which is created by users."
The Nature article is at [162] and an editorial in the same issue says "Researchers should read Wikipedia cautiously and amend it enthusiastically" [163].-gadfium 23:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dan Goodin, "Science Journal: Wikipedia Pretty Accurate", Asscioated Press, December 14, 2005
Reporting on the Nature investigation. "The free online resource Wikipedia is about as accurate on science as the Encyclopedia Britannica, a study shows."
Article praised Wikipedia as being "[h]eavily linked, authoritative, and constantly updated," and that "[y]ou can't do a Web search on any major topic without this wiki popping up near the top..." It, however, questioned the accuracy of Wikipedia, citing the Swiftboat controversy and Seigenthaler Incident.
"It’s a Wiki world out there", MercatorNet17 December,2005. Attempts to categorize disputes between fans of Wikipedia and Britannica as post-modernism vs modernism and shows that surprises lurk beneath the apparently objective authorship of Britannica's entries. MercatorNet
Michael Earl, "Wikipedia's struggle to govern a knowledge democracy", Financial Times, December 19, 2005
Lead sentence: "The news that Wikipedia, the online encyclopaedia, is tightening its rules has lessons for policymakers, information providers and information users in the digital age."
Chris Nuttall, "Wikipedia plans site shake-up to counter 'abuse'", Financial Times, December 19, 2005
Lead sentence: "Wikipedia, the online user-written encyclopaedia that has come under fire for inaccuracies, is to introduce a more traditional fixed version of its contents in an effort to increase its reliability."
"Wikipedia alternative aims to be 'PBS of the Web'" 20 December, 2005 at Cnet An alternative encyclopedia: the Digital Universe short story (maybe: intro) C|net
Fry, Jason. "Wikipedia's Woes: Tumultuous Weeks for Internet Encyclopedia Bring Furor Over Anonymity, Accountability," Wall Street JournalDecember 19, 2005. Summarizes the heightened interest in Wikipedia that resulted from the Seigenthaler controversy. Includes a poll -- vote for the encyclopedia you use first.
"If you're looking for information, you'll probably find it on Wikipedia. But will it be correct? Now, there's a more reliable source on the Web. Meet The Digital Universe."
Cartoon of Jimbo deleting Larry's name from Jimbo Wale's bio page. Incorrectly depicts Jimbo as having spiky hair and a sparse beard. Reviews "fever pitch" debate, mentioning Jimbo's edits, Larry's rejoinders, the Siegenthaler article, and the Nature article which concluded that Wikipedia's science entries were only slightly less accurate than Brittannica's.
"...Still, Wikipedia, which dwarfs traditional encyclopedias in scope, faces the potential for inaccuracy or abuse. ... But Wikipedia's weakness is also its greatest strength. ... With thousands of editors, ... errors and vandalism are usually cleaned up quickly. And entries are living organisms, constantly updated. ..."
"This has all become much more relevant with the explosion in our midst of blogging, and also the increasing profile of Wikipedia. We no longer have to know how to set up a website to get our opinions out there – blogs are easy to set up on a standard template, while Wikipedia (www.wikipedia.org) lets us contribute to or edit any encyclopedia entry we want – there are 850,000 so far, and the only editing we might get comes from other users. Is this freedom, or madness?
"With blogs and Wikipedia, there is no editing or fact-checking in the traditional sense. When I was a journalist, an editor would read my piece, ask me to change or check things, then pass it to a sub-editor, who would carry out a double-check and query anything he or she was unhappy with. It wasn’t perfect, but it made it hard for me to write complete rubbish (usually). Bloggers and Wiki contributors can write nonsense – the good news is that their peers can come and point that out, but what if the first guy was right all along? And how are we, the outsiders to know? Recently, someone adjusted the biography of a journalist in Wikipedia to suggest he was linked to the Kennedy assassination. He did it as a joke, but how were we to know that?"
Four paragraphs recounting how, after Mitt Romney announced that he wouldn't run for re-election as Governor of Massachusetts, there was increased scrutiny and NPOV editing of the article about the newly prominent Lieutenant Governor, Kerry Healey. The online version links to http://wikipedia.org/ (not to the English-language Main Page).
"Resolved for 2006: a few good ideas" Toronto Star editorial: "Wikipedia users: Resolve to remember that in the information business you get what you pay for."[166], Dec 30, 2005.
Feature: Identity Question for world's encyclopaedia, by Rhys Blakely, The Times, London 30 Dec, 2005, p 45. Longer version at [167]
'It's not just this crazy place on the internet where people post nonsense'.
![[161]](http://www.people.virginia.edu/~jls6c/strips/enlightenmentCOL.gif){kind=link}