Wikipedia talk:Press coverage 2009

Wikipedia Project‑class

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Wikipedia.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia articles
Project	This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Cite news template problems[edit]

The cite news template in the form that has been used on this page for a while no longer provides a clickable Url link. Does anyone know why?. The Cite news format provided in the edit box header works Ok. Should we switch to this form? Anyone know whats going on? Lumos3 (talk) 00:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CNN and Color Coded flagged versions[edit]

Has anyone seen the story on CNN about this? I'm looking to see if it's true. One way that WP has changed my life is "I want to see the sources" before I think something is true. I haven't seen anything on WP about color coding individual sentences or parts of them depending on the user or number of edits, etc...Hires an editor (talk) 17:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand Radio Interview[edit]

Don't know if this covers interviews and such, but I participated in an interesting interview. -Reagle (talk) 16:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When do blogs qualify?[edit]

Prominent Blogs are obviously press coverage and should be listed here. However there is the question to which degree we should collect/allow arbitrary websites or blogs/blog entries when they aren't really notable (and possibly without any editorial control). This is in particular important since non-notable blogs can easily used for pure slander and ad hominems and then the wikipedia press coverage can be used to propagate the slander into wikipedia and to a larger audience. From my perspective that is unacceptable. The blog [1] seems to be such an example for now i did not remove the entry itsself, but just replaced the excessive (personal) slander by a much smaller unpersonal quote from the blog. However depending on how other editors view that question I would support to remove non-notable blogs engaging in slander and nonsensical rants from the wikipedia press coverage in general.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I completely support your view on this. Lumos3 (talk) 12:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]