Wikipedia - Press Coverage/2006gen-apr - Cronologia

Christian: The Village Voice, 10 gennaio 2006

2009-03-12T11:04:14Z

The Village Voice, 10 gennaio 2006

Christian: /* 2006 January */ :CNET, 6 gennaio 2006

2009-03-11T03:27:19Z

‎2006 January: :CNET, 6 gennaio 2006

Christian: ha spostato Wikipedia - Press Coverage/2006 a Wikipedia - Press Coverage/2006gen-apr

2009-03-08T17:01:07Z

ha spostato Wikipedia - Press Coverage/2006 a Wikipedia - Press Coverage/2006gen-apr

Christian: titoli

2009-03-08T16:57:59Z

titoli

Mostra modifiche

Christian: fonti spostate

2009-03-08T16:54:09Z

fonti spostate

Mostra modifiche

Christian: errore

2009-03-08T16:16:09Z

errore

Christian: /* The Guardian, 25 marzo 2007 */ :add.

2009-03-08T15:21:51Z

‎The Guardian, 25 marzo 2007: :add.

Christian: /* July */ :The Guardian, 25 marzo 2007

2009-03-08T14:53:40Z

‎July: :The Guardian, 25 marzo 2007

Andrea: /* August */

2009-02-20T17:20:54Z

‎August

Andrea: /* August */

2009-02-20T16:52:47Z

‎August

@@ Riga 33: / Riga 33: @@
 *:[Article about Seigenthaller issue and Nature study, and Wikipedia and Wikimedia in general]
 *York, Geoffrey. "[http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060110.wxwikipedia10/BNStory/International/ Chinese ban on Wikipedia prevents research, users say]." ''[[Globe and Mail]]'', [[10 January]] [[2006]].
 *:"Chinese students and intellectuals are expressing outrage at Beijing's decision to prohibit access to Wikipedia, the fast-growing on-line encyclopedia that has become a basic resource for many in China."
 *Aviv, Rachel. [http://villagevoice.com/arts/0602,aviv,71632,12.html "Mondo Wikipedia"].  ''[[Village Voice]]''.  January 11-17, 2005, p.34.

@@ Riga 23: / Riga 23: @@
 *Grossman, Wendy M.  [http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=28783 A tempest in a Wikipedia]." ''The Inquirer''.  ''The Inquirer''.  [[6 January]] [[2006]].
 *:"The way some of the mainstream press gleefully went after Wikipedia, you‚Äôd think none of them had ever made a mistake."
-*Terdiman, Daniel. "[http://news.com.com/2008-1082_3-6011487.html Newsmaker: Wikipedia's co-founder eyes a Digital Universe]." [[CNET]] news.com. [[6 January]] [[2006]].
 *:"Sometime this month, [[Larry Sanger]] and several colleagues will launch what they're calling the [[PBS]] of the Web." ([[Digital Universe]])
 *Datta, Devangshu.  "[http://www.business-standard.com/common/storypage.php?leftnm=lmnu5&leftindx=5&lselect=2&chklogin=N&autono=210941 The weird and wonderful Wiki]." ''Business Standard, India''.  [[7 January]] [[2006]].

@@ Riga 419: / Riga 419: @@
 :"..It further exposed the critical weakness of Wikipedia that prevents it from becoming the go-to source for Internet knowledge that it ought to be."
-===The Guardian, 25 marzo 2007===
+===The Guardian, 13 luglio 2006===
   {{cite news
 |first=Glyn

@@ Riga 439: / Riga 439: @@
 |accessdate=2007-03-25}}</ref>}}
 :Non era propriamente voluta così Wikipedia. Doveva essere d'appoggio a Nupedia. Ma i vecchi editori non erano molto d'accordo.--[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 15:53, 8 mar 2009 (CET)
 *{{cite news | first=Hugh | last=Linehan | title=Islands in the stream | date=[[15 July]] 2006 | publisher=[[The Irish Times]] | url=http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/newsfeatures/2006/0715/1124345881WK15CONNECTWK15CONNE.html}}

@@ Riga 388: / Riga 388: @@
 :"Do we dismiss Wikipedia as a dubious hodgepodge of hearsay, or embrace it in a way that makes it educationally relevant? It‚Äôs far from perfect, no doubt, but does that mean it has no educational value? Can a resource that struggles with reliability serve a valid educational purpose? What do you think?"
-===July===
+==July==
 *{{cite news | first=Susan | last=Kruglinski | pages=21 | title=Map Evolution Evolving: How a controversial entry in Wikipedia has changed over time | date=July 2006 | publisher=Discover }}
 :"The entry for ''evolution'' on Wikipedia, the Internet encyclopedia that anyone can edit, was altered 2,081 times by 68 editors between December 2001 and last October. IBM's Watson Research Center produced [http://domino.watson.ibm.com/cambridge/research.nsf/a1d792857da52f638525630f004e7ab8/66b776d91256d20d85256e2000683510?OpenDocument this image], which tracks the transformation. Each vertical line is a new version; each color is a different editor."
@@ Riga 418: / Riga 418: @@
 *{{cite news | first=Frank | last=Ahrens | title=Death by Wikipedia: The Kenneth Lay Chronicles | date=[[9 July]] 2006 | publisher=[[The Washington Post]] | url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/08/AR2006070800135.html}}
 :"..It further exposed the critical weakness of Wikipedia that prevents it from becoming the go-to source for Internet knowledge that it ought to be."
 *{{cite news | first=Hugh | last=Linehan | title=Islands in the stream | date=[[15 July]] 2006 | publisher=[[The Irish Times]] | url=http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/newsfeatures/2006/0715/1124345881WK15CONNECTWK15CONNE.html}}

← Versione meno recente	Versione delle 17:01, 8 mar 2009
(Nessuna differenza)

← Versione meno recente		Versione delle 17:20, 20 feb 2009
Riga 479:		Riga 479:

	This is how you develop credit in the economy of user-generated content. I say it was pioneered by Slashdot, but on a massive scale, it was really introduced by eBay.\|--[[User:Andrea\|Andrea]] ([[User talk:Andrea\|discussione]]) 17:50, 20 feb 2009 (CET)\|<ref>http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200608u/poe-interview/</ref>}}		This is how you develop credit in the economy of user-generated content. I say it was pioneered by Slashdot, but on a massive scale, it was really introduced by eBay.\|--[[User:Andrea\|Andrea]] ([[User talk:Andrea\|discussione]]) 17:50, 20 feb 2009 (CET)\|<ref>http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200608u/poe-interview/</ref>}}
		+
		+	{{Citazione\|Jimmy Wales is a person who puts his ethical and philosophical beliefs front and center, and objectivism is certainly one of them. But when it comes to Wikipedia, I wouldn’t call his approach objectivist. I’d call it libertarian. As it is, the consequences for bad behavior are very low online—basically zero. He realizes that there’s really no way to punish somebody.
		+
		+	So he quite reasonably says, and many people do, that whether you like it or not, you have a kind of anarchic, stateless, authority-less universe. There’s nothing anybody can really do. One way to approach this is to simply say, “Well, we are going to try to use moral suasion to get people to behave correctly, because we can’t penalize people the way we would in the real world.”\|--[[User:Andrea\|Andrea]] ([[User talk:Andrea\|discussione]]) 17:50, 20 feb 2009 (CET)\|<ref>http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200608u/poe-interview/</ref>}}
		+
		+	{{Citazione\|The neutral point of view, as has been pointed out to me repeatedly, doesn’t require that consensus be reached on a position. If you look at the entry on evolution, I’m sure there will be a section on creationism: “Many people believe that the world was created in six days.” But you won’t find a section that says, “Marshall Poe created the world in six days.” It would be kicked off. It’s not as if they arrive at the same opinion about truth. They arrive at the same opinion about what should be in the article. That’s a very different thing.
		+
		+	As for the issues themselves, I think the point is that they don’t ever get resolved. One way to think of Wikipedia is not as a static entity but as a continual dialogue.\|--[[User:Andrea\|Andrea]] ([[User talk:Andrea\|discussione]]) 17:50, 20 feb 2009 (CET)\|<ref>http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200608u/poe-interview/</ref>}}
		+
		+	{{Citazione\|When I started working on this article, the early Wikipedia listserves were a great resource. That’s one of the beauties of the Web. You can’t really hide. Once it’s out there, it never disappears. Similarly with the page records of Wikipedia entries. I was able to go back and find what was, from a historian’s point of view, a remarkably complete record of what had been done.\|--[[User:Andrea\|Andrea]] ([[User talk:Andrea\|discussione]]) 17:50, 20 feb 2009 (CET)\|<ref>http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200608u/poe-interview/</ref>}}

	*{{cite news\|title=Citizen encyclopedism\|publisher=[[Telegraph of Nashua]]\|date=[[August 2]], [[2006]]\|url=http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060802/COLUMNISTS03/108020154}}		*{{cite news\|title=Citizen encyclopedism\|publisher=[[Telegraph of Nashua]]\|date=[[August 2]], [[2006]]\|url=http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060802/COLUMNISTS03/108020154}}

@@ Riga 464: / Riga 464: @@
 {{Citazione| |--[[User:Andrea|Andrea]] ([[User talk:Andrea|discussione]]) 17:50, 20 feb 2009 (CET)|<ref>http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200608u/poe-interview/</ref>}}
-{{Citazione||--[[User:Andrea|Andrea]] ([[User talk:Andrea|discussione]]) 17:50, 20 feb 2009 (CET)|<ref>http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200608u/poe-interview/</ref>}}
+{{Citazione|As Poe points out, Wikipedia essentially borrowed this idea from the software field and applied it to epistemology. Unlike its printed predecessors, Wikipedia is a communal encyclopedia, based on the notion that the many can gather knowledge as well as, or better than, the select few. To illustrate this philosophy, Poe cites a seminal 1997 essay by Eric S. Raymond called “The Cathedral and the Bazaar.” The “cathedral” model, like the medieval church—and the old-fashioned encyclopedia—relied upon the authority of an elite committee. The “bazaar” model, in contrast, draws input from anywhere and everywhere. At an open market, there is no central authority assigning value to an object. Prices rise and fall as visitors move from stall to stall, comparing items and quibbling over costs. Wikipedia works in much the same way. As Poe extrapolates,
 {{Citazione|Then there’s a much larger group of people—I’d estimate it at several thousand—who spend a lot of time on Wikipedia. We would call them editors. They add content and also shape content as it comes in. They monitor the site and attempt to make sure that the standards of Wikipedia are upheld. That means both standards of content and standards of discourse, because they’re related. These are people who serve on arbitration committees and things like this. It’s not a closed circle, but it’s a self-referential circle. They all know one another, and they nominate one another to become administrators. They support one another.