italiano - español

Wikipedia - Press Coverage/2008gen-apr

Da Cantiere.

WikiGuide
WikiGuide

WikiGuida "Wikipedia": Brainstorming · Struttura · Copione
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

2008 January

The launch of Wikia gets extensive reportage in the media with frequent mention of its relationship to Wikipedia. Many are critical.
Financial Times, Business Week, Reuters, BBC News
È Wired, ma non c'è niente di rilevante. --Christian (discussione) 14:34, 9 mar 2009 (CET)

2008 February

"The popular online encyclopaedia Wikipedia has come to play an important role in informing and also shaping public debates. Yet as a Florida-based, US creation, it brings its own baggage to those debates. US corporate media sources (Time, CNN, Fox, and so on) are privileged as reliable and “neutral” sources in Wiki entries, despite the fact that many of these bodies are intimately involved in many of the most contentious public debates, such as privatisation, intervention and war."
Continuing The Register's singular coverage of Wikipedia, the article alleges that User:Jossi has a conflict of interest with respect to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard and Prem Rawat. Discussion of the matter is available from the WP:COI archives
  • Anderson, Callum (February 2008). "The rise of wikidemia" (in English). inQuire. p. 4. "Does anyone know the collective noun for hawks? No, well it's a kettle. That's right a group of hawks is called a kettle of hawks. Or at least that's what Wikipedia says, so it must be true. Well not quite, because I have actually spent most of today editing the collective nouns database on Wikipedia to falsify it with the, including the two above; such absurdities as: a shard of whales, a jive of jelly fish and, worst of all, a stir of spoons. We seem to live in the age of information, yet as far as the collective nouns database on Wikipedia is concerned, an age of false information." 
    Unfortunately, this one isn't available on Inquire's web site, I checked. This is the student newspaper of the University of Kent at Canterbury. After admitting he was a vandal on Wikipedia, he goes on to talk about professors who ban Wikipedia and Google for research purposes and cites one Professor Tara Brabazon of the University of Brighton who not only bans Wikipedia and Google for research purposes, but also provides her students with excerpts to replace such research. By the way, the bad punctuation and grammar in the quote is copied directly from the printed version.
  • Johnson, Daniel. "Webopoly to World: Resistance is Futile". New Unversity. http://www.newuniversity.org/checkDB.php?id=6561. Retrieved on 2008-02-11. "Since 2001, Wikipedia has refused to restrict Chinese visitors from accessing certain materials prohibited by the PRC...However, if corporations like Microsoft and Google have the power to impose their policies by absorbing companies as large as Yahoo!, the same could just as easily be done to Wikipedia." 
    Analysis on the possible future oligopolies on the net and its effect on censorship, comparing large web corporations to Wikipedia on the issue.
(Testo originale) (Traduzione)
«And now that crowd-sourcing and social webs are all the rage, it's worth repeating: the bottom is not enough. You need a bit of top-down as well. The reason every bottom-up crowd-source hive-mind needs some top-down control is because of time. The bottom runs on a different time scale than our instant culture.»
«[1]»
(--Andrea (discussione) 16:42, 20 feb 2009 (CET))
(Testo originale) (Traduzione)
«But it doesn't take very long to discover -- if we look hard and honestly -- that none of these innovations is pure hive mind, and that the supposed paragon of adhocracy -- the Wikipedia itself -- is itself far from strictly bottom-up. In fact a close inspection of Wikipedia's process reveals that it has an elite at its center, (and that it does have an elite center is news to most). Turns out there is far more deliberate top-down design management going on than first appears. This is why Wikipedia has worked in such a short time.»
«[1]»
(--Andrea (discussione) 16:42, 20 feb 2009 (CET))
(Testo originale) (Traduzione)
«It's taken a while but I think we've learned that while top-down is needed, not much of it is needed. Editorship and expertise are like vitamins. You don't need much of them, just a trace even for a large body, and too much will be toxic, or just pissed away. But the proper dosage of intelligent control will vitalize the dumb hive mind.»
«[1]»
(--Andrea (discussione) 16:42, 20 feb 2009 (CET))
(Testo originale) (Traduzione)
«The bottom-up hive mind will always take us much further than even seems possible. It keeps surprising us in this regard. Given enough time, dumb things can be smarter than we think.

At that same time, the bottom-up hive mind will never take us to our end goal. We are too impatient. So we add design and top down control to get where we want to go.

The systems we keep will be hybrid creations. They will have a strong rootstock of peer-to-peer generation, grafted below highly refined strains of controlling functions. Sturdy, robust foundations of user-made content and crowd-sourced innovation will feed very small slivers of leadership agility. Pure plays of 100% smart mobs or 100% smart elites will be rare.

The real art of business and organizations in the network economy will not be in harnessing the crowd of "everybody" (simple!) but in finding the appropriate hybrid mix of bottom and top for each niche, at the right time. The mix of control/no-control will shift as a system grows and matures.»
«[1]»
(--Andrea (discussione) 16:42, 20 feb 2009 (CET))
Gran bell'articolo del sempre geniale Kevin Kelly. Sottolinea la natura ibrida di Wikipedia, che necessita ordine e top-down per sopravvivere ed essere quello che è. Da collegare al lavoro di Sanger e all'idea assiomatica del design originario, come delle regole ferree della comunità. --Andrea (discussione) 16:52, 20 feb 2009 (CET)
"[Fielding's] age has been the subject of some debate. She says she was 73 in November. Enemies, some of whom appear to have tampered with her Wikipedia entry, ungallantly ' assert that she has been with us slightly longer than that." (See also: discussion at Fielding's year of birth.)

March

  • Baker (User:Wageless) reviews Wikipedia - The Missing Manual and ruminates on his experience and impressions as a user of and contributor to the encyclopaedia
  • One of the many reports of the consequences of the end of an affair between Rachel Marsden and Jimmy Wales. A write up of the story is available on the Wikipedia Signpost. Other outlets picking up the story include:
  • A report combining the Rachel Marsden incident with postings by Danny Wool on his blog. A write up of the story is available on the Wikipedia Signpost. Other outlets picking up the story include:
  • "The popular online encyclopedia, written by volunteer contributors, has unlimited space. So does it matter if it includes trivia?."
  • Dokoupil, Tony (March 6, 2008). "Revenge of the Experts". Newsweek. http://www.newsweek.com/id/119091/page/1. Retrieved on 2008-03-08. "The individual user has been king on the Internet, but the pendulum seems to be swinging back toward edited information vetted by professionals." 
    Argues that the demand for reliable information will work against sites like Wikipedia to take traffic to new sites like Knol that pay professional experts to edit and produce online content. It calls this move Web 3.0.
  • Howley, Kerry (March 2008). "Artifact: The World Needs Citations". Reason Magazine. http://www.reason.com/news/show/124400.html. Retrieved on 2008-03-10. "Wikipedia’s detractors criticize the online, user-written, constantly changing encyclopedia’s sometimes dubious sourcing, which they say makes it unreliable. Wikipedia’s defenders counter that the site’s mutable, fluid nature engenders a valuable skepticism toward all manner of too-trusted authorities. Nothing conveys Wikipedia’s openness to revision quite like “[citation needed],” the bracketed phrase sprinkled throughout its pixellated scrolls." 
  • Moses, Asher (March 11 2008). "More woes for Wikipedia's Jimmy Wales". Sydney Morning Herald. http://www.smh.com.au/news/web/more-woes-for-wikipedias-jimmy-wales/2008/03/11/1205125874243.html. Retrieved on 2008-03-11. 
    discusses deletion and protection of Template:Article by User:Jimbo Wales allegedly in return for donations. Merkey has alleged on the Wikia mailing list that I am notifying the foundation I was approached on Friday by the Associated Press regarding statements attributed to me which are in some way, perceived to be related to Mr. Wales private affairs which seem to have gotten a great deal of press coverage ... he then follows with a statement to Associated Press which includes the assertion: According to Merkey, in 2006, Wales agreed that in exchange for a substantial donation and other financial support of the Wikimedia Foundation projects, Wales would use his influence to make Merkey's article adhere to Wikipedia's stated policies with regard to internet libel "as a courtesty" [sic] and place Merkey under his "special protection" as an editor. The newspaper article links to the wikia mailing list thread and also to the revision history of the article.
    Associated Press do not appear to have picked up Merkey's press release and only a few independent news sources have also mentioned the incident. Wales responded on the mailing list that the allegation is nonsense and this too was reported by the SMH although noting The claim is the most damning yet against Wales 
Cohen, Noam (2008-03-17). "Open-Source Troubles in Wiki World". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/17/technology/17wikipedia.html. 
  • General article about Wales and recent controversies such as Marsden, Danny Wool's allegations and Wales' relationship with Roger McNamee and Elevation Partners.
  • Petrilli, Michael J. (Spring 2008). "Wikipedia or Wickedpedia?". Education Next (Hoover Institution). http://www.hoover.org/publications/ednext/16111162.html. Retrieved on 2008-03-20. "As a K–12 educational tool, then, Wikipedia appears to pass the test, at least to the limited degree that any encyclopedia assists the learning process. Still, that doesn’t mean the site is perfect. As a resource about hot-button political issues, Wikipedia is notoriously subject to manipulation and spin. This is apparent in its treatment of education policy issues." 
    Compares ten articles in world and US history with their equivalents in Britannica.
  • Bergstein, Brian (2008-03-22). "Wikipedia Questions Paths to More Money". The Associated Press. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i8x-wlh7nMm12x_kVQ6MZxrYWK9QD8VHLJ3G0. Retrieved on 2008-03-22. "With 2 million articles in English alone, Wikipedia, the Internet encyclopedia "anyone can edit," stormed the Web's top ranks through the work of unpaid volunteers and the assistance of donors. But that means Wikipedia has far less financial clout than its Web peers, and doing almost anything to improve that situation invites scrutiny from the same community that proudly generates the content." 
  • Bruno, Antony (March 22, 2008). "Music fans prefer Wikipedia to MySpace". Reuters. http://www.reuters.com/article/internetNews/idUSN2148195720080322. Retrieved on 2008-03-24. "According to data provided to Billboard from Yahoo -- the second-most popular search engine on the Web after Google -- those searching for artist information are selecting the Wikipedia entry link over artists' MySpace pages by a factor of more than 2-to-1. The Wikipedia entries are also more popular than artists' Web sites." 
    In the last six months Wikipedia has become the first choice for music fans seeking information on artists because of its tight, focused and vetted overview of the subject.
Further coverage at:
related content surrounding Wikipedia and the college's article on Wikipedia:

April

  • Johnson, Chris (April 3, 2008). "Edits to gay soldier’s Wikipedia entry traced to Pentagon". Washington Blade. http://www.washblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=17515. Retrieved on 2008-04-03. "A Wikipedia article about Maj. Alan Rogers, a gay soldier who was killed in January in Iraq, was apparently edited by someone in the Pentagon, who removed any mention that Rogers was gay. ... Rob Pilaud, a patent agent and a friend of Rogers who attended the soldier’s funeral, restored the information to the Wikipedia article the next day. Pilaud was among Rogers’ friends who created the Wikipedia page. ... Pilaud is asking Rogers’ friends for biographical information on the fallen soldier to enhance the Wikipedia article. ... “With Wikipedia, at least, I simply want to present objective information about Alan — about who he was, what he did with his life and what he would have wanted,” he said." 
  • Brown, Barrett (Spring 2008). "Information flow on Campus: A Closer Look at Wikipedia". 2600: The Hacker Quarterly. pp. 54-57. http://store.2600.com/spring2008.html. "... Wikipedia has grown enormously since its inception, and is fast becoming widely accepted as a verifiable academic resource. How reliable is Wikipedia? How does it work? And, can it be manipulated by third parties? ... In theory, Wikipedia is a collaborative internet encyclopedia which relies on peer review and procedure to keep a neutral point of view (NPOV). The evidence from my experiments and experience inside the Wikipedia social structure point to a slightly different reality. ... Quite simply, since the system is based on collaboration, it does not matter who is right; it matters who is agreed with the most. Therefore the Wikipedia system is flawed."  - [Article not available on line.]
This is a 3,225 word article critical of Wikipedia. The author talks about his experiences editing five specific Wikipedia articles and ends with a suggestion of how the CIA or al-Qaeda could gain increased control over Wikipedia's content. Copy with publisher's permission to reproduce is available here.
  • "Wild Wiki Ways of Liam of the Lavaflow". Inside Cover (The West Australian). 2008-04-08. "Some miscreant has being fiddling with Liam of Lebanon's Wikipedia entry. When we checked yesterday the former Perth shock jock was described as a "robotic journalist from Bikini Bottom"." 
Referring to this revision.
An abridged version of the Baker's New York Review of Books article "The Charms of Wikipedia", listed above under March.
  • Miller, John J. (2008-04). "Liberal web" (in EN) (HTML). National Review. http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=YWM4Nzc3ODk3NDQxYWYyMjMzZjQ3NzEzM2JkMzM1OTk=. Retrieved on 2008-04-10. "Wikipedia calls itself “the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.” It has become the most influential reference site on the web. It may even be the most influential reference source available anywhere, online or off. Its English-language edition carries more than 2.3 million articles, written by thousands of contributors who call themselves “Wikipedians.” These entries almost always rank high on Google searches... A couple of years ago, the journal Nature compared a sampling of scientific entries found on Wikipedia with those published in Encyclopedia Britannica. It determined that the newcomer was almost as trustworthy as the old hand... The most egregious examples of vandalism tend to be corrected quickly by devoted Wikipedians... Plenty of controversial subjects are handled with an exquisite sense of fairness, and Wikipedia provides a special forum for editors to debate each other on how best to treat topics. There are vigorous debates between “deletionists” who seek to eliminate material they consider irrelevant and “inclusionists” who believe that more information equals richer content." 
  • Rampell, Catherine (2008-04-10). "Publisher Compares Wikipedia to Oxford English Dictionary" (in EN) (HTML). The Chronicle of Higher Education. http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/index.php?id=2894. Retrieved on 2008-04-10. "Over at the Oxford University Press’s blog, OUP publisher Niko Pfund paid Wikipedia the ultimate compliment: He compared it to the Oxford English Dictionary." 
    Refers to a a short Q&A by Niko Pfund, Vice President and Publisher of the Academic and Trade division of Oxford University Press in New York, on the Oxford University Press USA blog, in which he compares the method by which the early OED was compiled with the wikipedia method.
  • Shiels, Maggie (2008-04-16). "Wikipedia takes business approach" (in EN) (HTML). BBC News website. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7347766.stm. Retrieved on 2008-04-16. "I thought if we are really successful we might make the top one hundred websites and now we are like number eight on the internet and much bigger than I would have ever thought." 
    Relatively bland overview of the current state of things in wikipedia, based on an interview with Jimmy Wales.
  • "EI exclusive: a pro-Israel group's plan to rewrite history on Wikipedia" (in English). Uruknet. 21 April 2008. http://uruknet.info/?p=m43258&s1=h1. Retrieved on 2008-04-21. "A pro-Israel pressure group is orchestrating a secret, long-term campaign to infiltrate the popular online encyclopedia Wikipedia to rewrite Palestinian history, pass off crude propaganda as fact, and take over Wikipedia administrative structures to ensure these changes go either undetected or unchallenged." 
    Reports an exposé of an alleged conspiracy to set up an undercover pressure group within Wikipedia to give certain articles a pro Zionist slant.
  • Altoft, Patrick (April 21, 2008). "Is there room for britannica.com & Wikipedia?". Search Engine News. http://blog.seoptimise.com/2008/04/is-there-room-for-britannicacom-wikipedia.html. Retrieved on 2008-04-24. "Last week Britannica.com decided to adopt a “first click free” strategy allowing web publishers to link directly to article pages. Readers who clicked through to the page were allowed to see the content of that article for free and if they wanted to explore further they need a subscription. This is a very interesting piece of linkbait from britannica.com and one that could see them challenging Wikipedia if they can sort out their on site SEO strategy." 
    Reports that Britannica may be seeking to generate a higher search engine ranking by offering free access to its articles for the first click only.


  • Guess, Andy (2008-04-28). "Making Wikis Work for Scholars". Inside Higher Ed (Washington, D.C.). http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/04/28/wiki. Retrieved on 2008-05-06. "For computer science, especially, many topics on Wikipedia are in a form polished and accessible enough to assign to students as reading, and the subjects aren’t controversial in a way that would inspire the sort of back-and-forth citation wars that cause some articles to fluctuate wildly between competing versions. But other topics get assigned from Wikipedia as well — not least in courses about digital culture itself." 
    Despite ongoing controversy over students using Wikipedia as a source for papers, professors are finding some articles (Complexity classes P and NP and Chernoff bound are specifically linked to), useful enough to refer students to for basic information on a topic. Larry Sanger and others involved in more academic wikis are quoted.
  • Tweney, Dylan (April 29, 2008). "Attention Bloggers: Now You Can Link to Actual Information". Wired. http://blog.wired.com/business/2008/04/attention-blogg.html. Retrieved on 2008-04-29. "Old-school encyclopedia Britannica is giving bloggers free subscriptions to Britannica Online, the internet version of its multivolume masterpiece. What this means is that bloggers no longer have to rely on Wikipedia's crowdsourced and sometimes questionably factual encyclopedia entries when they want to insert a quick link to background info on, say, Bosnia, or circular polarized light, or the grammatical structure of Klingon." 
    Britannica will vet the blogger's standing before granting requests for a free link to one of its pages.
Estratto da "http://www.biasco.ch/wiki/index.php5/Wikipedia_-_Press_Coverage/2008gen-apr"
Strumenti personali
testi
collegamenti esterni