Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-10-02/In the news

I chose not to cover the The End User: A wiki way to profit from the International Herald Tribune as it is mostly about Wikia not Wikipedia. It does however, mention the relative strength of the Polish Wikipedia given its high articles to speakers ratio and also the implementation of the flagging system on the German Wikipedia. --Trödel 22:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to those that proofread and corrected the article!!! --Trödel 15:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Local Media Report About Wikipedia

I was interviewed for the article in our local newspaper, The News, The World According to Wiki that appeared this morning. The article is an example of local press coverage about Wikipedia. It stresses the immediacy of the information. I am not sure if it is useful for ITN and I am also not sure of the process for the production of ITN, so I thought I would mention it here. KenWalker | Talk 20:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Links and info on 'stable versions'

In case anyone is interested in the details of this, as I was... I dusted off my German skills and wandered through their 'Cafe' and 'Community Portal' until I found a link to it at 'looked at versions'. There is apparently a 'two tiered' approach with the higher level being called 'closely examined versions'. From what I gather, a particular edit is classified as a 'looked at' version if any 'trusted user' (which is defined as 30 days + 30 edits on the German page, but 4 days in the news article) created it, updated it from what was previously a 'looked at' version, or specifically clicks a box to mark it as having been looked at... which is supposed to be done any time there is no vandalism in the article. The 'closely examined' version is going to be limited to some more select group and would indicate that all of the facts in the article are properly referenced. Logged in users apparently see the current version and it can be set up so that anons see either the 'looked at' or 'closely examined' version by default (or the current version if none are tagged) with buttons to view the other two types. The 'automatic updating' of the 'looked at' version makes a big difference, but I'd see potential problems with defaulting anons to the 'closely examined' version. Hopefully it will also not be possible to edit the 'tagged' versions to avoid confusion where people add information to the 'closely examined' copy which was already in the current page (and simultaneously remove other improvements) or click to edit the 'looked at' version and are taken to the current and find that the text they were going to change isn't there at all. Presumably in most cases they'd have to view the current version first and make changes to that, but I didn't see anything about it in the text. --CBD 13:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

NYTimes piece about AfD

Giving the Heave-Ho in an Online Who’s Who -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 21:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)