italiano - español

Wikipedia - Press Coverage/2007gen-apr

Da Cantiere.

WikiGuide
WikiGuide

Brainstorming sulla WikiGuida "Wikipedia" · Struttura della WikiGuida "Wikipedia"
Organizzazione: Progetto · Portineria · Gruppo su Facebook
Testi: π-Videoblog · Temi · Fase I: il primo anno
Appunti: Timeline · Foto · Riflessioni · Introduzione a Wikipedia · Possibili Episodi
Fonti: Indice · en.wiki · XY.wiki · Altro · Press_Coverage · The Wikipedia Revolution

[[|]]
Press Coverage
Press Coverage

Unsorted: · 2001-2003 · 2004: gen-apr/mag-ago/set-dic · 2005: gen-apr/mag-ago/set-dic · 2006: gen-apr/mag-ago/set-dic ·
2007: gen-apr/mag-ago/set-dic · 2008: gen-apr/mag-ago/set-dic · 2009 · Scientific articles
Sorted: The Register

[[|]]


Indice

2007 Gennaio

January 2 2007
  • Columnist Jacqueline Gonzalez resigned after an investigation "found information, taken from Wikipedia, a free Internet encyclopedia, was published in the Watchdog column on Page 2B of the Metro section Dec. 25. The information that was not attributed concerned the origin of Dec. 25 as the birth date of Jesus Christ."
January 3 2007
January 4 2007
January 6 2007
  • "Using Wikipedia, Technion researchers have developed a way to give computers knowledge of the world to help them “think smarter,” making common sense and broad-based connections between topics just as the human mind does. The new method will help computers filter e-mail spam, perform Web searches and even conduct intelligence gathering at more sophisticated levels than current programs."
January 7 2007
  • Summarizes some views on Wikipedia by physicists/scientists, including Nobel Laureate Philip Anderson ("I wouldn't dream of reading Wikipedia for physics. Nor would I trust it if I did.") Paper version (Physicsworld, Volume 20, Number 1, page 27) states "75% of respondents use Wikipedia for physics information. However, only 5% regularly contribute to the online encyclopedia." Mike Peel 11:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung, 8 gennaio 2007

"Next Wikipedia, take a right". Wikipedia, Citizendium, and the politics of knowledge: An interview with Larry Sanger (Dossier Open Source). 08. Januar 2007. http://www.bpb.de/themen/KD5Y51,0,0,Next_Wikipedia_take_a_right.html. Retrieved on 2007-03-25. 
Intervista a Sanger su Citizendium. Insiste sul concetto di "esperto". Forse da rileggere per capire il suo punto di vista. --Christian (discussione) 12:49, 12 mar 2009 (CET)
January 10 2007
  • "My Wikipedia article was deleted. I am not delusional. Even though the online reference tool bills itself as "the free encyclopedia anyone can edit," there must be some control over Wikipedia content or some jamoke with nothing better to do in Altoona, Pennsylvania would get his jollies by adding his very own special thoughts to pages referencing orgasm (you know what it is) or cleft of Venus (look it up for yourself)." O'Brien also notes claims in the articles John O'Brien (novelist) and Leaving Las Vegas which she calls false (these statements are also contained in the corresponding IMDb entries) and says "I tried to edit out the erroneous statements on both sites, but some Kiss-the-Hem-of-my-Purple-Robe Wikipedian Lord apparently usurped my efforts." However, the edit histories of both articles show no such edits.
January 11 2007
January 14 2007
January 15 2007
  • "We trace the genesis and progression of this repository of knowledge wealth, popularly known as Wikipedia."
  • Profiles Jimmy Wales and discusses rumors that he may move from Florida to Silicon Valley.
January 21 2007
"... the Wikipedia Issues with SPAM and the discussions about the use of NOFOLLOW for ALL external Links from Wikipedia. It was done, finally. As of now are all outbound links from the english Wikipedia Site using the NOFOLLOW attribute, no exceptions."
January 22 2007
  • Article about students' difficulties in adequately assessing information found on the Internet when doing research mentions, in passing, "the widely publicized errors found on Wikipedia.com." Not only is the wrong domain used, a commenter notes the article itself inaccurately describes a state computer initiative.
  • Reports on Wikipedia's decision to readopt the Google "NoFollow" attribute to deter people from posting spam links on it.
January 24 2007
  • In this widely reprinted Associated Press report, Microsoft is accused of offering payment to blogger and "technical standards aficianado" Rick Jelliffe in order to "correct" Wikipedia entries, revealed in Jelliffe's original blog posting (but not this report) to be ODF and OOXML. "Microsoft acknowledged it had approached the writer and offered to pay him for the time it would take to correct what the company was sure were inaccuracies in Wikipedia articles on an open-source document standard and a rival format put forward by Microsoft." Microsoft and Jelliffe "had not determined a price and no money had changed hands — but they had agreed that the company would not be allowed to review his writing before submission". Jimbo Wales is quoted as being "very disappointed to hear that Microsoft was taking that approach".
January 25 2007
  • This article focuses on the interaction between Wales and Gregory Kohs, founder of MyWikiBiz with emphasis on the Wikipedia:Reward board: "When a blogger revealed this week that Microsoft Corp. wanted to pay him to fix purported inaccuracies in technical articles on Wikipedia, the software company endured online slams and a rebuke from the Web encyclopedia's founder for behaving unethically."
January 26 2007
Intervista a Sanger su Citizendium. Niente di rilevante. --Christian (discussione) 03:14, 23 mar 2009 (CET)
  • Article on restrictions by the Middlebury College history department on students citing Wikipedia. Many comments by educators on the uses and reliability of the site.
  • The 'No Follow' issue and the use of Wikipedia articles as a footnote "to avoid a digression from their discourse" is discussed. Is "Wikipedia now in the same league" as Google as a web source?
  • More detailed account of NIDA edit war.
  • Reports on the dispute over Microsoft's editing, containing some details from the Associated Press and some additional reporting. It is angled as a debate raging on the internet: "Some are calling it "Wikigate 07". Others see it as a storm on a mouse mat." The piece observes "The software giant has been accused of breaching the spirit of Wikipedia" and recants previous examples of deliberate conflict of interest editing.
  • In an annual survey of "3,625 branding professionals and students", brandchannel.com asked "Which brand had the most impact on our lives in 2006?". Wikipedia came fourth, behind Google, Apple and YouTube. Starbucks was fifth.
January 27 2007
  • Discusses efforts by National Institute on Drug Abuse employees to edit the article to make it favorable to the agency and ensuing edit war. Jokingly encourages readers to get back at NIDA by vandalizing and adding made-up negative information about NIDA.
January 28 2007
  • Focuses on the multilingual nature of Wikipedia. Articles "are available in languages from Esperanto to Hawaiian to Navajo, gaining considerable ground on English, German, French, Polish, and Japanese, which remain the most prevalent languages on Wikipedia. 'It started in an organic, ad hoc way,' says Samuel Klein, one of hundreds of administrators who monitor multilingual content for Wiki sites. 'New people who are multilingual see the community exists, they find the existing pages, and they join in,' Klein adds."
January 29 2007
  • "A simple search of published court decisions shows that Wikipedia is frequently cited by judges around the country, involving serious issues and the bizarre". The writer doesn't appear to know that one can create links to specific page versions in the history to make a stable reference.
January 31 2007
  • "comScore Networks, a leader in measuring the digital age, today reported the top worldwide Web properties for December, ranked by unique visitors." Number six on the list with 164,675,000 "unique visitors" is "Wikipedia sites", behind "Microsoft sites", "Google sites", "Yahoo! sites", "Time Warner network" and "eBay". Only "unique visitors" over 15 years of age were counted, and the list "[e]xcludes traffic from public computers such as Internet cafes and access from mobile phones or PDAs". These numbers presumably come from comScore's "massive, global cross-section of more than 2 million consumers who have given comScore permission to confidentially capture their browsing and transaction behaviour". How the "Web properties" were defined (for example, whether YouTube counts as a "Google site") is not explained.

2007 Febbraio

February 1 2007
February 3 2007
  • Marks, Paul (3 February 2007). "Interview:Knowledge to the people" (in English). New Scientist. http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19325896.300. 
    He's inundated with offers, people turn out to see him, and journalists dog his every move: Jimmy "Jimbo" Wales has all the hallmarks of a rock star. Except he isn't one. He's the man who founded Wikipedia, the vast online encyclopedia used by millions every day. Wikipedia employs just five full-timers, yet it already has 1.5 million articles written by users in a growing number of the world's languages. A diehard core of 400 online volunteers help to keep vendettas, vandals and crazies at bay. So what gave Wales his big idea? Can the open Wikipedia ethic survive in a world dominated by corporations? Paul Marks caught up with him recently after he gave a lecture to a packed hall at the London School of Economics.
February 7 2007
February 9 2007
February 11 2007
February 14 2007
February 15 2007
  • Fox, Justin (February 15, 2007). "Getting Rich off Those Who Work for Free". TIME magazine (TIME Inc.). http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1590440,00.html. Retrieved on 2007-02-20. 
    That I even know of Kropotkin comes courtesy of the Wikipedia entry for the "gift economy," the current term of art for this altruistic approach. Wikipedia is, of course, a prime example of the gift economy at work. Argue about its inaccuracies all you want, but the volunteer-authored online encyclopedia is on its way to becoming (if it isn't already) the world's dominant reference resource.
February 16 2007
  • Raivio, Jarmo (16 February 2007). "Wikipedia juhlii" (in Finnish). Suomen Kuvalehti. 
    The Finnish edition of Wikipedia reached one hundred thousand articles on Sunday, 11 February.
February 20 2007
"And SEO's wonder why a lot of wikipedians don't think too nicely of SEO's and are sometimes even hostile. Here is why. Things like this happen every minute at Wikipedia. Whole teams, tools and bots were created to fight it. It's not 100% bulletproof, but the best option there is at the moment. The other option would be to disallow edits by the public, but that is against the basic idea and foundation Wikipedia is build on."
February 21 2007
February 22 2007
February 24 2007
Oberlin College students in Elizabeth Colantoni's class on ancient Rome are not just encouraged, but required, to use the controversial online encyclopedia Wikipedia for their research this semester. That seems contrary to the backlash against the Web site, which uses entries written by users of the site regardless of the writer's expertise on the matter. And that's Colantoni's point.[1]
February 25 2007

Ars Technica, 25 febbraio 2007

Anderson, Nate (February 25, 2007). "Citizendium: building a better Wikipedia". Ars Technica. http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/citizendium.ars. Retrieved on 2007-03-25. 
L'articolo parla di Citizendium.
Qui Sanger dice praticamente che è stata la telefonata di John Seigenthaler che l'ha definitivamente convinto a creare un'evoluzione di WP. --Christian (discussione) 02:55, 23 mar 2009 (CET)
February 26 2007
Why one of the internet's most popular internet encyclopedias is also considered unreliable. We'll talk with NEIL WATERS a professor at Middlebury College, who discovered an obscure but incorrect fact on his students' exams. It turns out they all got it from the same source Wikipedia. Then we'll hear from VIBIANA BOWMAN a librarian at Rutgers University in Camden, New Jersey about how Wikipedia and the internet in general is changing how we get information and we must adopt new standards for vetting it. Bowman is also author of The Plagiarism Plague in which she argues that the internet has made plagiarism an even bigger problem.
First broadcast 26 February 2007 11:00 am UTC-5, Podcast
  • Compares google ranks wor the following websites for each 2008 election candidates: main site, election site, and wikipedia article
February 27 2007
Also Washington Post 2007-02-25 and The China Post,2007-03-04.
  • Timothy Noah makes several criticisms of Wikipedia's Notability policy after his own entry was nominated for deletion. "Wikipedia's stubborn enforcement of its notability standard suggests that Veblen was right. We limit entry to the club not because we need to, but because we want to."
Is Wikipedia's ticket to "notability" the writing of one published article about … Wikipedia?
February 28 2007
Wikipedia is viewed seven billion times a month and could've made a fortune through adverts. But that just wouldn't be right. Wikipedia is built on the hard work of a core of volunteers and contributions from, well, all of us - so the dynamic of the whole thing just wouldn't work if someone was buying Ferraris off the back of that.

2007 March

Essjay controversy
See also Essjay controversy
  • "EDITORS’ NOTE". The New Yorker. nd. http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060731fa_fact#editors%E2%80%99_note. Retrieved on 2007-03-01. 
    "The July 31, 2006, piece on Wikipedia, “Know It All,” by Stacy Schiff, contained an interview with a Wikipedia site administrator and contributor called Essjay [...] He was described in the piece as “a tenured professor of religion at a private university” with “a Ph.D. in theology and a degree in canon law.” [...] Essjay now says that his real name is Ryan Jordan, that he is twenty-four and holds no advanced degrees, and that he has never taught."
February 28 2007
March 1 2007

CNN Money, 1 marzo 2007

McNichol, Tom (March 1, 2007). "Building a Wiki World". Business 2.0 (CNN). http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2007/03/01/8401010/index.htm?postversion=2007022710. Retrieved on 2007-03-25. 
Articolo su Wales e Wikia. Molto approfondito.
Va inoltre aggiunto questo articolo a cura dello stesso autore: "The Wales Rules for Web 2.0. Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales was in the Web 2.0 business before there was such a term. He has five rules for tapping the enthusiasm of users.", Tom McNichol, Business 2.0 Magazine senior writer. Riportato per intero qui: Fonte:The Wales Rules for Web 2.0
È interessante il caso di Wikia, perché come con Citizendium, dal confronto con WP si possono capire meglio quali siano le profonde ragioni del successo e le caratteristiche di WP rispetto ad altri progetti.
Ci sono anche delle foto molto carine, sebbene a bassa definizione. --Christian (discussione) 02:35, 23 mar 2009 (CET)
(Testo originale) (Traduzione)
«Jimmy Wales may have created the world's largest encyclopedia, but he can't keep his inbox in order. In the back of a black London cab, careening from one high-powered meeting to the next, Wales sits hunched over his Sidekick.

If his e-mail were run like Wikipedia, Wales's pride and joy, he'd have thousands of strangers reading and editing it for him. Instead, he's struggling to find messages from such Wikipedia fans as Peter Gabriel and Richard Branson.

Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales is on the road, hunting for riches with a new for-profit company built on the same wild and wiki idea.

"Bono was complaining that I wasn't returning his e-mails," Wales says, not looking up from the tiny screen. "It turns out, they were in my spam folder."»
«[1]»
(--Christian (discussione) 02:35, 23 mar 2009 (CET))
(Testo originale) (Traduzione)
«Then there's the nascent Wikia search engine. Larry Sanger, who helped create Wikipedia before leaving the project in 2002, says this isn't the first time Wales has considered such an idea. "Jimmy has been trying to organize people to fill up a search database since before Wikipedia started," Sanger says. "He's tried a few different ways, and no way that he's tried so far has worked. There's a pretty good chance this won't either."»
«[1]»
(--Christian (discussione) 02:35, 23 mar 2009 (CET))
Un simpaticone 'sto Sanger... --Christian (discussione) 02:35, 23 mar 2009 (CET)
(Testo originale) (Traduzione)
«"I'm sort of like a British monarch," Wales says, smiling. "I have steadily declining powers over time." British royals also make a lot of public appearances, then sit back and rake in money from their large land holdings.»
«[1]»
(--Christian (discussione) 02:35, 23 mar 2009 (CET))
March 2 2007
March 5 2007
March 6 2007
March 7 2007
March 9 2007
March 12 2007
Other March news
"In effect, the Wiki community has mutated since 2001 from an oligarchy to a democracy. The percentage of edits made by the Wikipedia 'élite' of administrators increased steadily up to 2004, when it reached around 50%. But since then it has steadily declined, and is now just 10% (and falling)."
March 2 2007
The Kleeman article is followed by a note entitled "The fact it, it's rubbish" signed by Richard Dixon, "Chief Revise Editor" of The Times. It includes these thoughts: "My default position is that every article on Wikipedia is rubbish. When, for example, I need medical information, I go to a reputable medical site, such as the British Medical Journal or The New England Journal of Medicine."
March 5 2007
March 6 2007
March 7 2007
March 10 2007
  • "Online encyclopedias - Fact or fiction?". The Economist. 2007-03-10. http://www.economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8820422. Retrieved on 2007-03-12. 
    "So how useful is Wikipedia? Entries on uncontentious issues—logarithms, for example—are often admirable. The quality of writing is often a good guide to an entry’s usefulness: inelegant or ranting prose usually reflects muddled thoughts and incomplete information. A regular user soon gets a feel for what to trust.
    Those on contentious issues are useful in a different way. The information may be only roughly balanced. But the furiously contested entries on, say, Armenian genocide or Scientology, and their attached discussion pages, do give the reader an useful idea about the contours of the arguments, and the conflicting sources and approaches."
March 11 2007
I don't really know. That's what I'm here to find out. Maybe it needs more promotion. But it's very difficult to say. Some of it is the Japanese Wikipedia used to be larger than the French, and there were twice as many editors working in the French Wikipedia. So we used to joke that "there's more French but the Japanese work harder." (Laughs):
Asks four celebrities to assess the accuracy of their own Wikipedia articles. Peter Hitchens - " But in the end, I'm in favour of Wikipedia. It seems to me that most users and contributors are trying to reach the truth in a reasonable manner. And that can never be a bad thing." Edwina Currie - "So don't take this 'encyclopedia' seriously. It's less accurate than most gossip columns." Craig Murray - "But the result is fair and authoritative - I am proud of my entry." Peter Tatchell - "My advice? Use Wikipedia as a resource, but check controversial claims with other sources. As my entry shows, Wikipedia is open to abuse." The Standard states the incorrect information about Essjay was publicized "when a magazine published an article on Wikipedia two weeks ago" -- Stacy Schiff's New Yorker article was actually published in July 2006. The article in Evening Standard is also mirrored here.
March 12 2007
Uses Wikipedia as an example of how new media are transforming public discourse: "What is so exciting about Wikipedia isn’t just the generation of new information, but the creation of active publics around the creation of knowledge for publics. People who have certain entries on their watch lists are part of a public in which there can be vigorous disagreement but shared interest in addressing an issue."
March 13 2007
Letter to Editor: McClellan, Joel (March 16 2007). "Open source approach". International Herald Tribune. http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/16/opinion/edlet.php. 
  • Journalist Alex Beam on how he got his Wikipedia entry improved. "...a friend slipped me a magic phone number that rang in the office of Stanford Law professor Lawrence Lessig, the Learned Hand of the Internet bar. His helpful assistant relayed my complaint to Wales, who sits on a board with Lessig. Soon afterward, the offending paragraphs were removed."
March 15 2007

2006 Marzo 16-31

March 16 2007
March 20 2007
  • Willinsky, John (March 2007). "What open access research can do for Wikipedia". First Monday. http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue12_3/willinsky/index.html. Retrieved on 2007-03-20. 
    "This study examines the degree to which Wikipedia entries cite or reference research and scholarship, and whether that research and scholarship is generally available to readers. Working on the assumption that where Wikipedia provides links to research and scholarship that readers can readily consult, it increases the authority, reliability, and educational quality of this popular encyclopedia, this study examines Wikipedia’s use of open access research and scholarship, that is, peer-reviewed journal articles that have been made freely available online. "
March 21 2007
  • Rauchway, Eric (March 21 2007). "Wikipedia is good for academia". The New Republic. http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w070319&s=rauchway032107. Retrieved on 2007-03-25. 
    'People with money, reputation, and control over public information have historically used their power to retain control over the means of producing knowledge[...] Professors can no more undo the public sphere of the Internet than the embattled experts of the early modern era could undo the coffee houses[...] Articles need to cite "reliable sources," which are those that use "process and approval between document creation and publication." In other words, academic work: Wikipedia is on our side..'
March 22 2007

Claburn, Thomas (March 22 2007). "Wikipedia Becomes Intelligence Tool And Target For Jihadists". InformationWeek. http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=198500163. Retrieved on 2007-03-26. 

  • On how both state and other interests might want to influence the slant of articles on Wikipedia. "Wikipedia, like Switzerland, wants to be neutral. But the new bankers of the Net's knowledge face foes invested in partisan points of view. "
March 23 2007

Wired, 23 marzo 2007

Zetter, Kim (March 23, 2007). "Wikipedia Shakeup: Resignations". Wired News. http://www.wired.com/news/technology/internet/0,73074-0.html. Retrieved on 2007-03-24. 
  • "Two top employees of the Wikimedia Foundation have resigned." About Danny Wool and Brad Patrick. 
CNET, Shake-up at Wikimedia, by Elinor Mills, March 23, 2007 3:09 PM PDT
  • Davidson, Cathy (March 23, 2007). "We Can't Ignore the Influence of Digital Technologies". The Chronicle of Higher Education. pp. Volume 53, Issue 29, Page B20. http://chronicle.com/free/v53/i29/29b02001.htm. 
    "When I read the othe day that the history department at Middlebury College had "banned Wikipedia," I immediately wrote to the college's president, Ronald D. Liebowitz, to express my concern that such a decision would lead to a national trend, one that would not be good for higher education. "Banning" has connotations of evil or heresy. Is Wikipedia really that bad?" ...."Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia. It is a knowledge community, uniting anonymous readers all over the world who edit and correct grammar, style, interpretations, and facts. It is a community devoted to a common good — the life of the intellect. Isn't that what we educators want to model for our students?"


March 25 2007

Usatoday, 25 marzo 2007

Bergstein, Brian (March 25, 2007). "Citizendium aims to be better Wikipedia". USA Today (Associated Press). http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/2007-03-25-wikipedia-alternative_N.htm. Retrieved on 2007-03-25. 
L'articolo, approfondito, parla di Sanger e Citizendium, ma non mancano gli spunti interessanti. --Christian (discussione) 01:35, 23 mar 2009 (CET)
(Testo originale) (Traduzione)
«Sanger contends that this and other Wikipedia woes will all but vanish on Citizendium because real names will promote civility — and attract contributors turned off by Wikipedia.

Wikipedia's de facto leader, Jimmy Wales, counters that real names are overrated. Sure, he sighs just as heavily about "trolls" and other troublemakers. But he says most Wikipedians who adopt pseudonyms want to protect the reputation of those handles as much as they would with their names.

Plus, he says, an online identity — or none at all, since participants can opt to be tagged merely by their computers' numeric Internet addresses — frees contributors to leave their "real world" baggage behind and focus only on what matters: producing good content.

"I am unaware of any problems with the quality of discourse on the site," he says. "I don't know of any higher-quality discourse anywhere."»
«[1]»
(--Christian (discussione) 01:35, 23 mar 2009 (CET))
(Testo originale) (Traduzione)
«Wales and Sanger agree that no one should be using Wikipedia — or any other single source — as the final word on a subject, but rather as a starting point for other research. Still, if Wikipedia is going to be so big, it has a responsibility to do things right. That's where these guys really diverge. Wales argues for self-improvement, with Wikipedians constantly tweaking the rules that guide them. Sanger is convinced that the only answer is to carve space for experts, specialists — anyone who could enhance the project's credibility.»
«[1]»
(--Christian (discussione) 01:35, 23 mar 2009 (CET))
(Testo originale) (Traduzione)
«Last year, Sanger began organizing Citizendium as a fork of Wikipedia. He raised $35,000 from a foundation and a private donor. But he found it hard to motivate the volunteers he recruited online.

"I didn't see the kind of excitement I saw in the early days of Wikipedia," he says. "You get excited about something if you've taken responsibility for it, if you've created it yourself. By conceiving of ourselves as a big mop-up organization for Wikipedia, we essentially lock ourselves into being a version of Wikipedia. ... In order to have a robust, distinct identity, it's important, I think, that we start over."

Citizendium has been operating in a limited manner that ends with this week's official launch. Its volunteer base numbers roughly 900 authors and 200 editors. The site has 1,100 articles, with 11 "approved" by editors, meriting them a green check mark. Volunteers can revise any article, though already-approved entries are labeled as separate "drafts" while they're being rewritten again.

Because the sign-up and other steps are the antithesis of Wikipedia's brazen ease, it's hard to imagine Citizendium garnering 3 million member accounts, like Wikipedia has.»
«[1]»
(--Christian (discussione) 01:35, 23 mar 2009 (CET))
  • Kleeman, Jenny (25 March 2007). "Wiki wars". The Observer. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2042231,00.html. Retrieved on 2007-03-25. 
    A piece that concentrates on efforts to stop vandalism. "Theresa Knott is one such devoted Wikipedian. A member since 2001, she visits the site daily, often editing at 5.30am before she leaves for work as a London primary school teacher. Her efforts have been rewarded with regular abuse from vandals and kudos from her Wikipedia peers, who elected her to the position of administrator in 2003."
March 26 2007

MSNBC, 26 marzo 2007

Bergstein, Brian (March 26, 2007). "Sanger says he co-started Wikipedia". MSNBC (Associated Press). http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17798723/. Retrieved on 2007-03-25. 
Sempre sulla questione "co-founder" fra Sanger e Wales. --Christian (discussione) 01:36, 11 mar 2009 (CET)
(Testo originale) (Traduzione)
«In a lengthy instant-message exchange about Citizendium and other topics, Wales raised the subject of Sanger's role: "When you write this up please do not uncritically repeat Sanger's absurd claim to be the co-founder of Wikipedia."

"I know of no one who was there at the company at the beginning who would think it anything other than laughable," he added.

Yet a few moments later, Wales asserted that he didn't really care: "I am not bent out of shape about it," he wrote. "The facts are on my side, which is why I bother so little about it."»
«[1]»
(--Christian (discussione) 01:36, 11 mar 2009 (CET))
Su Citizendium. Niente di rilevante.
March 27 2007

Philanthropy News Digest, March 27, 2007

Nauffts, Mitch (March 27, 2007). "5 Questions For...: Larry Sanger, Founder, Citizendium". Foundation Center (Philanthropy News Digest). http://foundationcenter.org/pnd/fivequestions/5q_item.jhtml?id=173900004. Retrieved on 2007-03-27. 
(Testo originale) (Traduzione)
«Larry Sanger: Citizendium offers two innovations you won't find in Wikipedia. First, we require our contributors to supply their real names and biographies. And second, we make special room for expert editors. There are other differences, but those are the major ones and point to why we think the world needs another wiki-based encyclopedia. One of the central problems with Wikipedia is that the ordinary reader of a Wikipedia entry doesn't know whether he or she can trust what they are reading. Our goal is to produce a more credible, reliable resource for readers, while also creating a more pleasant community for everyone to participate in.»
«[1]»
(--Christian (discussione) 15:28, 8 mar 2009 (CET))
E chi se ne frega chi scrive, no? L'importante è che l'informazione sia corretta. Per evitare il problema basta far riferimento alle fonti primarie, pubblicate altrove. E ancora, non è detto che l'esperto sia capace di scrivere una voce enciclopedica. --Christian (discussione) 15:28, 8 mar 2009 (CET)
(Testo originale) (Traduzione)
«When you eliminate anonymity on the Web, people generally behave themselves. There is a related problem, of course, which is simply bad behavior. And there the solution is well understood by people who have lots of experience managing online communities. You have to be willing to post hard-and-fast rules of conduct and then enforce them by kicking people off the site or out of the project when they violate those rules. It sounds harsh, but it's necessary if you want to have a healthy, thriving online community.»
«[1]»
(--Christian (discussione) 15:28, 8 mar 2009 (CET))
Sembra piuttosto una struttura del tipo "cattedrale" e forse anche con una buona dose di autoritarismo vecchio stile... --Christian (discussione) 15:40, 8 mar 2009 (CET)
March 28 2007

Grassetto

2007 April

Vermont Sunday Magazine, 3 aprile 2007

"The great lesson of Wikipedia in my mind is that there is always more to know, every bit of knowledge is up for debate," explains Jason Mittell, a professor at Middlebury College. "Wikipedia contains the most current thinking on any topic. As the world changes, Wikipedia will change faster than any other press out there." Mittell, who teaches film and media culture, describes it as "potentially transformative."

L'articolo mi sembra molto interessante anche perché è il punto di vista di un'insegnante. --Christian (discussione) 17:09, 9 mar 2009 (CET)
(Testo originale) (Traduzione)
«Unlike some Web sites, which burst into the public consciousness, get maximum press coverage and become must-clicks overnight - think MySpace and YouTube - Wikipedia has evolved slowly. It first materialized on my computer screen in the fall of 2003, when I was preparing for a college class that I was teaching. Since I was trying to set a good example of finding reliable sources for my students, I was a little leery of a Web site with which I was unfamiliar. I did some exploration and cautiously decided the site was OK to use in this case. I would use it to show my students how to properly cite material.

Back then, Wikipedia was 21/2 years old and seemed like just another interesting Web site. My initial foray didn't reveal to me the extent of how Wikipedia worked. Only now do I realize that I cited it incorrectly.

So how does it work? What is Wikipedia? Here's how Wikipedia defines itself in the "Wikipedia" entry at 9:49 p.m. on March 9 (As you'll see, it's important when citing Wikipedia to give the exact date and time the entry was used: that information can be found at the bottom of each entry.)»
«[1]»
(--Christian (discussione) 17:09, 9 mar 2009 (CET))
(Testo originale) (Traduzione)
«Hundreds of software robots troll the site looking for vandalism and errors (one, for example, searches for foul language).»
«[1]»
(--Christian (discussione) 17:09, 9 mar 2009 (CET))
(Testo originale) (Traduzione)
«Wikipedia is sometimes the first to admit when something is wrong. When I first visited the Act 250 entry there was a warning on top: "This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards." The entry on Killington cautioned: "This article or section is written like an advertisement." The maple syrup entry warned: "This article does not cite its references or sources" - a red flag for possible inaccuracy. [...] Many Wikipedia entries on controversial topics, including "Palestinian refugee" and "intelligent design," are locked so only administrators can do edits; users who consistently vandalize are blocked from using the site.»
«[1]»
(--Christian (discussione) 17:09, 9 mar 2009 (CET))
(Testo originale) (Traduzione)
« It was fun looking up my high school and college, and checking out Vermont entries. I haven't found it rife with errors - although I'm no expert. The entry on The Times Argus has a minor inaccuracy. A porn star was described as the creator of the cotton gin. Apparently Yale students have created fake entries. And I'm not sure I would trust the elephant article since Colbert's fans enjoy messing with it.»
«[1]»
(--Christian (discussione) 17:09, 9 mar 2009 (CET))
(Testo originale) (Traduzione)
«After a little digging, I figured out that the entry on the state of Vermont has been changed 1,000 times just since Oct. 30, 2006. The frequency of editing means that if you cite Wikipedia, in any kind of a research paper, you really ought to indicate the day, hour and minute it was written. Seconds after you finish your paper, the entry could be substantially different.»
«[1]»
(--Christian (discussione) 17:09, 9 mar 2009 (CET))
(Testo originale) (Traduzione)
«"The great lesson of Wikipedia in my mind is that there is always more to know, every bit of knowledge is up for debate," explains Jason Mittell, a professor at Middlebury College. "Wikipedia contains the most current thinking on any topic. As the world changes, Wikipedia will change faster than any other press out there." Mittell, who teaches film and media culture, describes it as "potentially transformative." Grace Armstrong, one of Mittell's former students, writes in her blog: "One of Wikipedia's most interesting roles ... is as a collaborative conversation about information, rather than a simple repository of facts. One of the most exciting things about new media such as Wikipedia is their ability to broaden and deepen the abilities of both the academic and non-academic communities to access, understand, and contribute to the expansion of human knowledge."»
«[1]»
(--Christian (discussione) 17:09, 9 mar 2009 (CET))
(Testo originale) (Traduzione)
«Middlebury College has become a focal point of this debate.

In January, Middlebury's history department announced its students can no longer cite Wikipedia. This statement, which has been written about in the higher education trade press, The New York Times and on countless blogs, has been both derided and praised.

The precipitating factor for the Middlebury history department decision came when some students used Wikipedia - and not the assigned reading - to study for exams. The students presented the same wrong information, and the professors traced the mistakes to its source.

[...]

Some critics are astounded Middlebury students don't already know that Wikipedia - and all encyclopedias, in fact - should never be cited in college research. Even Wikipedia issued a statement supporting Middlebury's policy, saying its articles are not authoritative and should be used only as a starting point. But still, there are proponents who argue Wikipedia is the threshold to an exciting, new brand of interactive research.»
«[1]»
(--Christian (discussione) 17:09, 9 mar 2009 (CET))
(Testo originale) (Traduzione)
«

In high schools in Vermont, the issue seems less cut and dried.

Linda McSweeney of Spaulding High School in Barre, and a number of other school librarians, reported that some teachers allow Wikipedia to be used as a source, a few ban it, but the challenge is to always teach students to be critical of sources. "My personal opinion," said McSweeney, "is that Wikipedia is a good source for popular culture topics. ... When you're trying to find information on Ella Fitzgerald or John Coltrane, Wikipedia is one of the best places to go."»
«[1]»
(--Christian (discussione) 17:09, 9 mar 2009 (CET))
(Testo originale) (Traduzione)
«At Middlebury, Mittell argues that the history department may be over-reacting. He also says it may be missing the opportunity to radically change the process of research. He suggests students start with Wikipedia, go off and do their research, and then return and update Wikipedia to share their new knowledge. Here's his blog entry on the subject: "... In the traditional academic formulation, students gather research to assemble into a project to be read by an audience of one, after which the professor (hopefully) returns the paper with comments exclusively for the author. Arguably this interchange results in student learning, but it is a singular exchange with few ripple effects beyond the individual. "But wikis are not a 'read only' medium - they are inherently a 'read/write' format. Reading a Wikipedia entry is only one part of the equation - to truly use Wikipedia requires people to become editors. Personally, I feel empowered and engaged by editing articles on wikis, knowing that by improving an entry I'm giving back to a shared resource. I believe in encouraging students to use their knowledge gained in a course beyond the confines of the classroom - wikis provide a simple and accessible interface to share and disseminate knowledge."»
«[1]»
(--Christian (discussione) 17:09, 9 mar 2009 (CET))
(Testo originale) (Traduzione)
«But problems do arise. Congressional staffers have been caught adding "political spin" to articles. Microsoft even offered to pay someone to edit entries. As a result, public-relations firms, campaign workers and anyone else with a potential conflict of interest is not supposed to edit. "Wikipedia is not the place for self-promotion," Ordonez said. "It works off good faith ... We really try to trust people." »
«[1]»
(--Christian (discussione) 17:09, 9 mar 2009 (CET))
(Testo originale) (Traduzione)
«The Wiki Project: Vermont got under way in December 2004. Its mission statement explains: "This Wiki Project intends to organize, format, expand, and exemplify Vermont related articles on Wikipedia," the project states. It goes on to say ... "Our to-do list is located below, and is in a constant state of flux."»
«[1]»
(--Christian (discussione) 17:09, 9 mar 2009 (CET))
(Testo originale) (Traduzione)
«What's fascinating about Wikipedia, however, is that while it does encourage some to actively participate in the accumulation of knowledge, it is also leads others to passively accept that information. As scholars debate the value of Wikipedia, users have to decide whether to ignore it because it is just "democracy run amok," as one professor describes it, or to subscribe to Jessamyn West's view: "In library circles, sometimes, there are people who complain: 'I found something wrong on Wikipedia.' I wonder, 'Did you change it?' We are all responsible (on Wikipedia). That's an unusual way to feel about a Web site. You are responsible if you see a mistake. Everyone should be responsible for making Wikipedia better."»
«[1]»
(--Christian (discussione) 17:09, 9 mar 2009 (CET))


CNET News, April 5, 2007

Newsmaker: Wikipedia today, Citizendium tomorrow, Neha Tiwari, CNET News, April 5, 2007 4:00 AM PDT
Lunga intervista a Sanger su Citizendium. --Christian (discussione) 04:09, 11 mar 2009 (CET)
April 6 2007
April 10 2007
Su Citizendium, ma niente di rilevante. --Christian (discussione) 04:09, 11 mar 2009 (CET)
April 11 2007
  • Frean, Alexandra (April 11, 2007). "Wikipedia a force for good? Nonsense, says a co-founder". The Times. http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article1637535.ece. Retrieved on 2007-04-11. 
    A report on a speech by the UK Education Secretary, Alan Johnson, to the National Association of Schoolteachers and Union of Women Teachers (NASUWT) conference in Belfast, Northern Ireland. Mr Johnson described the internet as "an incredible force for good in education" for teachers and pupils, and singled out Wikipedia for praise saying "Wikipedia enables anybody to access information which was once the preserve only of those who could afford the subscription to Encyclopaedia Britannica and could spend the time necessary to navigate its maze of indexes and content pages". The article however goes on to focus on a critical response to this view by Larry Sanger who is quoted as saying "While Wikipedia is still quite useful and an amazing phenomenon, I have come to the view that it is also broken beyond repair."
  • staff and agencies (April 11, 2007). "Johnson slapped on wrist for recommending Wikipedia". The Guardian. http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,2054497,00.html. Retrieved on 2007-04-11. 
    Another article on Alan Johnson's speech offering a positive view of Wikipedia. The article reports comments from the NASUWT general secretary, Chris Keates that the Wikipedia article on the union has had scurilous content in the past and that she would not herself recommend this website to pupils as their only source. The article, on the Guardian website, misprints the NASUWT acronym, and spells "students" as "studnets". Larry Sanger is also quoted, but in less detail than in The Times article. The Guardian (dated 10 April) reprints the full text of Johnson's speech here (scroll to about the mid point of the article to see what was said).
April 12 2007
April 13 2007

Information World Review, 13 aprile 2007

Thomson, Iain (April 13, 2007). "Wikipedia 'broken beyond repair' says co-founder". Information World Review. http://www.iwr.co.uk/information-world-review/news/2187709/wikipedia-broken-beyond-repair. Retrieved on 2007-04-15. 
Breve articolo, ma Sanger critica duramente WP. --Christian (discussione) 03:02, 23 mar 2009 (CET)
(Testo originale) (Traduzione)
«He spoke out after the Education Secretary Alan Johnson praised Wikipedia at the annual conference of the National Association of Schoolteachers and Union of Women Teachers (NASUWT), saying it opened up knowledge that was previously unavailable to those who could not get access to copies of the Encyclopaedia Britannica.

“I’m afraid that Mr Johnson does not realise the many problems afflicting Wikipedia, from serious management problems, to an often dysfunctional community, to frequently unreliable content, and to a whole series of scandals,” Sanger told The Times.

“While Wikipedia is still quite useful and an amazing phenomenon, I have come to the view that it is also broken beyond repair.”»
«[1]»
(--Christian (discussione) 03:02, 23 mar 2009 (CET))
April 14 2007
April 17 2007

CBC News, 19 aprile 2007

Jay, Paul (April 19, 2007). "I, editor — The Wikipedia experiment". CBC News. http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/tech/wikipedia.html. Retrieved on 2008-02-05. 
(Testo originale) (Traduzione)
«"The basic wiki model is sound and I'm a great believer in it," Sanger said. "But I think experts in particular fields can play a role in releasing more stable entries, in the same way that open source software relies on a core group of programmers to release versions others can work from."

Without the guiding hand of experts, Sanger argues, the rules governing Wikipedia are left to the mob or — when an issue becomes particularly polarizing — a small group of core administrators. The result, he says, is that real experts are staying away from the site for fear their voices will be drowned out.

Wales doesn't buy this line of reasoning, however, arguing real academics aren't afraid to get their hands dirty in the court of public opinion.

"Our experience is exactly the opposite: the best academics think that interacting with the general public in the open marketplace of ideas is core to what it means to be an intellectual," he wrote.»
«[1]»
(--Christian (discussione) 14:55, 8 mar 2009 (CET))
IHMO la posizione di Sanger ha un punto debole: chi è l'esperto? Il fatto che una persona sia esperta di una materia, non la rende necessariamente imparziale e non è detto che abbia le capacità di rivolgersi ad un pubblico non specialistico, come richiesto ad esempio da un'enciclopedia generale. In un certo senso WP media una selezione naturale degli esperti.
--Christian (discussione) 14:55, 8 mar 2009 (CET)
(Testo originale) (Traduzione)
«But Sanger is skeptical of the results of the study, saying it is a leap to suggest the popularity of articles translates to quality.

"If it were established that featured articles were indeed of higher quality, then I'd be willing to accept the wisdom of crowds," he said.

"But I suspect popularity and quality do not necessarily match up. There are articles that have been worked on extensively that are not very good."»
«[1]»
(--Christian (discussione) 14:55, 8 mar 2009 (CET))
April 20 2007
April 21 2007
  • Fisk, Robert (21 April, 2007). "Caught in the deadly web of the internet". The Independent. http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article2469270.ece. Retrieved on 2007-05-01. 
    The Turkish scholar Taner Akçam has been a victim of wholly false claims that he is a terrorist in his Wikipedia biography article, which is reported as being frequently vandalised. This resulted on February 16 2007 in Akçam being detained at Montreal Airport on the basis of this claim and US Homeland Security operatives at the airport recommending that he does not travel for the time being. Fisk referred to Akçam's experiences in the wider context of the internet being a vehicle for the transmission of hate.
April 23 2007
April 24 2007
April 26 2007
April 30 2007
Estratto da "http://www.biasco.ch/wiki/index.php5/Wikipedia_-_Press_Coverage/2007gen-apr"
Strumenti personali
testi
collegamenti esterni