<analytics uacct="UA-6089322-1" ></analytics>
Wikipedia - Press Coverage/2001-2003: differenze tra le versioni
Da Cantiere.
(articolo poco importante) |
(→Kuro5hin.org, March 1, 2002) |
||
| Riga 180: | Riga 180: | ||
:Niente di particolare. --[[User:Andrea|Andrea]] ([[User talk:Andrea|discussione]]) 16:04, 18 feb 2009 (CET) | :Niente di particolare. --[[User:Andrea|Andrea]] ([[User talk:Andrea|discussione]]) 16:04, 18 feb 2009 (CET) | ||
:Beh, qualcosa sì: le dimissioni di Sanger! --[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 04:11, 19 feb 2009 (CET) | :Beh, qualcosa sì: le dimissioni di Sanger! --[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 04:11, 19 feb 2009 (CET) | ||
| + | ::Oddio,che stupido.. è vero ;-) [[User:Andrea|Andrea]] ([[User talk:Andrea|discussione]]) 11:53, 19 feb 2009 (CET) | ||
===Computer User, May 2, 2002=== | ===Computer User, May 2, 2002=== | ||
Versione delle 12:53, 19 feb 2009
{{#ifexpr: 0 = 1|
}}
{{#ifexpr: 0 >1|<h{{{livello}}} style="font-size:100%;border:0;margin:0;padding:0;color:inherit;text-align:inherit;font-weight:inherit;">}}WikiGuide{{#ifexpr: 0 >1|</h{{{livello}}}>}}
{{#if:Template:WikiGuide|}}
{{#if:|
| {{#if:|Copione WikiGuide: Wikipedia · Commons · Wikisource · Wikiquote
Organizzazione: Progetto · Portineria · Gruppo su Facebook
Organizzazione: Progetto · Portineria · Gruppo su Facebook
[[|]]
}}
[[Immagine:{{{sfondo}}}|center]]
}}
|
Copione WikiGuide: Wikipedia · Commons · Wikisource · Wikiquote |
[[|]]
{{#ifexpr: 0 = 1|
{{#ifexpr: 0 >1|<h{{{livello}}} style="font-size:100%;border:0;margin:0;padding:0;color:inherit;text-align:inherit;font-weight:inherit;">}}Press Coverage{{#ifexpr: 0 >1|</h{{{livello}}}>}}
{{#if:Template:Press Coverage|}}
{{#if:|
| {{#if:|Unsorted: · 2001-2003 · 2004: gen-apr/mag-ago/set-dic · 2005: gen-apr/mag-ago/set-dic · 2006: gen-apr/mag-ago/set-dic ·
Sorted: The Register
2007: gen-apr/mag-ago/set-dic · 2008: gen-apr/mag-ago/set-dic · 2009 · Scientific articles
Sorted: The Register
[[|]]
}}
[[Immagine:{{{sfondo}}}|center]]
}}
}}
2001
Kuro5hin 25.7.2001
Kuro5hin 2001/07/26 Britannica or Nupedia? The Future of Free Encyclopedias (by Wikipedia's Larry Sanger)
| (Testo originale) | (Traduzione) | |||
|
«"The economics of the all-free model has changed," said Britannica spokesman Tom Panelas says in the AP story. Gone are the halcyon days of free content.
Au contraire--that's only what Britannica wants you to think. The grandest days of free content have not yet begun. Britannica and other proprietary encyclopedias will be hopelessly obsolete within ten years--small, out-of-date, and generally irrelevant--by comparison with Nupedia, Wikipedia, and the many other non-proprietary reference works that are being and will be developed. »
|
|
«Il portavoce della Britannica aveva annunciato in quei giorni che il modello economico del "tutto gratis" stava cambiando. Sanger invece sosteneva che invece dovevano ancora venire spingendosi addirittura ad ipotizzare che di lì a dieci anni le enciclopedie proprietarie come la Britannica sarebbero diventate obsolete: "piccole, datate e generalmente irrilevanti"<ref>Kuro5hin 2001/07/26 Britannica or Nupedia? The Future of Free Encyclopedias (by Wikipedia's Larry Sanger)</ref>»
| |
| {{#if:--Christian (discussione) 02:42, 18 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 02:42, 18 feb 2009 (CET)) }}
|
|
«"The economics of the all-free model has changed," said Britannica spokesman Tom Panelas says in the AP story. Gone are the halcyon days of free content.
Au contraire--that's only what Britannica wants you to think. The grandest days of free content have not yet begun. Britannica and other proprietary encyclopedias will be hopelessly obsolete within ten years--small, out-of-date, and generally irrelevant--by comparison with Nupedia, Wikipedia, and the many other non-proprietary reference works that are being and will be developed. »
| ||
| {{#if:--Christian (discussione) 02:42, 18 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 02:42, 18 feb 2009 (CET)) }}
}} | ||||
| (Testo originale) | (Traduzione) | |||
|
|
«This means, as you no doubt already know, that anyone may use their content, for nonprofit or for-profit purposes, provided they link back to the content's source. It also means that the content can be developed further by other parties. Someone who releases an article under an open content license does so in order to guarantee that the article remains free to the public. This guarantee of freedom is a strong motivation to work on a free encyclopedia.
Moreover, if scholars concentrate their forces in building an open content encyclopedia, they will be fired by a further motive: there is considerable value in the collaboration that can be found in a general encyclopedia project and in the uniformity and high quality of the results. This value cannot be found in as high a degree in the activities of each writer posting content independently. »
|
|
«Nell'articolo Sanger spiega che cosa significa la licenza GNU FDL: chiunque può usarne il contenuto, anche per scopi commerciali, a condizione di indicare la fonte del contenuto. Inoltre il contenuto può essere sviluppato ulteriormente da altri. Sanger spiega che chi rilascia un articolo con questo tipo di licenza lo fa per garantire che l'articolo rimanga libero al pubblico. Questa garanzia di libertà è una forte motivazione per lavorare su un'enciclopedia libera. Ma esiste anche un'altra ragione importante per partecipare: l'incredibile forza della collaborazione e l'uniformità e l'alta qualità del risultato, che non può essere raggiunto attraverso la somma di lavori individuali.<ref>Kuro5hin 2001/07/26 Britannica or Nupedia? The Future of Free Encyclopedias (by Wikipedia's Larry Sanger)</ref>»
| |
| {{#if:--Christian (discussione) 02:42, 18 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 02:42, 18 feb 2009 (CET)) }}
|
|
«This means, as you no doubt already know, that anyone may use their content, for nonprofit or for-profit purposes, provided they link back to the content's source. It also means that the content can be developed further by other parties. Someone who releases an article under an open content license does so in order to guarantee that the article remains free to the public. This guarantee of freedom is a strong motivation to work on a free encyclopedia.
Moreover, if scholars concentrate their forces in building an open content encyclopedia, they will be fired by a further motive: there is considerable value in the collaboration that can be found in a general encyclopedia project and in the uniformity and high quality of the results. This value cannot be found in as high a degree in the activities of each writer posting content independently. »
| ||
| {{#if:--Christian (discussione) 02:42, 18 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 02:42, 18 feb 2009 (CET)) }}
}} | ||||
| (Testo originale) | (Traduzione) | |||
|
|
«contributing articles to Wikipedia is easy, as is editing other people's articles. There is naturally little motivation to make substantive edits to articles on subjects about which one knows nothing, and mistakes are often caught and made a public spectacle. So experts are respected and deferred to, which encourages and motivates the experts--thus the increasing level of expertise on the website. Moreover, Wikipedians edit each other's stuff, so they feel a sense of collective purpose, responsibility, and camaraderie, which is yet another motivation to participate. »
|
|
«Sanger spiega inoltre come sia semplice contribuire a Wikipedia e editare le voci scritte da altri. Chiaramente non è naturale intervenire su temi che non si conoscono. Gli errori sono scoperti in fretta. Gli esperti sono rispettati E XXXXXXXXXXXX. Inoltre i Wikipediani, correggendosi l'un l'altro, percepiscono un senso di scopo comune, di responsabilità, di cameratismo, che sono altre ragioni per cui partecipare.<ref>Kuro5hin 2001/07/26 Britannica or Nupedia? The Future of Free Encyclopedias (by Wikipedia's Larry Sanger)</ref>»
| |
| {{#if:--Christian (discussione) 02:42, 18 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 02:42, 18 feb 2009 (CET)) }}
|
|
«contributing articles to Wikipedia is easy, as is editing other people's articles. There is naturally little motivation to make substantive edits to articles on subjects about which one knows nothing, and mistakes are often caught and made a public spectacle. So experts are respected and deferred to, which encourages and motivates the experts--thus the increasing level of expertise on the website. Moreover, Wikipedians edit each other's stuff, so they feel a sense of collective purpose, responsibility, and camaraderie, which is yet another motivation to participate. »
| ||
| {{#if:--Christian (discussione) 02:42, 18 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 02:42, 18 feb 2009 (CET)) }}
}} | ||||
| (Testo originale) | (Traduzione) | |||
|
|
«There is a page on Wikipedia called "brilliant prose" in which Wikipedia members praise each other for really superlative work. The articles on that page--and that is only a selection of the best work, not all of it--are at or near the level of quality that you would find in an proprietary encyclopedia. Out of the thousands of Wikipedia articles, there are hundreds of articles that are of this level of quality. All of the articles tend to grow in level of quality, as well--to paraphrase Linus Torvalds, "Given enough eyeballs, all typos, factual errors, and other errors of content are shallow." »
|
|
«A luglio 2001 esiste già una pagina denominata "Brilliant Prose", in cui i membri di Wikipedia si fanno i complimenti per le voci scritte particolarmente bene. Gli articoli segnalati (fino a quel momento qualche centinaio) sono praticamente al livello di quelli delle enciclopedie proprietarie. Man mano che passa il tempo gli articoli migliorano. Parafrasando Linus Torvalds "Dati sufficienti occhi, tutti gli errori vengono scoperti".<ref>Kuro5hin 2001/07/26 Britannica or Nupedia? The Future of Free Encyclopedias (by Wikipedia's Larry Sanger)</ref>»
| |
| {{#if:--Christian (discussione) 02:42, 18 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 02:42, 18 feb 2009 (CET)) }}
|
|
«There is a page on Wikipedia called "brilliant prose" in which Wikipedia members praise each other for really superlative work. The articles on that page--and that is only a selection of the best work, not all of it--are at or near the level of quality that you would find in an proprietary encyclopedia. Out of the thousands of Wikipedia articles, there are hundreds of articles that are of this level of quality. All of the articles tend to grow in level of quality, as well--to paraphrase Linus Torvalds, "Given enough eyeballs, all typos, factual errors, and other errors of content are shallow." »
| ||
| {{#if:--Christian (discussione) 02:42, 18 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 02:42, 18 feb 2009 (CET)) }}
}} | ||||
| (Testo originale) | (Traduzione) | |||
|
|
«Suppose that, as is perfectly possible, Wikipedia continues producing articles at a rate of 1,000 per month. In seven years, it would have 84,000 articles.»
|
|
«Sanger fa inoltre questa proiezione: se Wikipedia continua a produrre articoli al ritmo di 1000 al mese, in sette anni avrà prodotto 84'000 articoli.<ref>Kuro5hin 2001/07/26 Britannica or Nupedia? The Future of Free Encyclopedias (by Wikipedia's Larry Sanger)</ref>»
| |
| {{#if:--Christian (discussione) 02:42, 18 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 02:42, 18 feb 2009 (CET)) }}
|
|
«Suppose that, as is perfectly possible, Wikipedia continues producing articles at a rate of 1,000 per month. In seven years, it would have 84,000 articles.»
| ||
| {{#if:--Christian (discussione) 02:42, 18 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 02:42, 18 feb 2009 (CET)) }}
}} | ||||
- Può fornire l'occasione per parlare abbastanza presto nella narrazione dei "numeri" attuali di Wikipedia.
- --Christian (discussione) 02:42, 18 feb 2009 (CET)
- Si, mi piace come idea. E' talmente al di sotto delle aspettative che va citata. Altra conferma che nessuno si aspettava un successo tale. --Andrea (discussione) 15:29, 18 feb 2009 (CET)
Sun Media syndicated "netelligence" column by Sandy McMurray (printed in the London Free Press, Calgary Sun, and Toronto Sun 2001/08/15, Edmonton Sun 2001/08/16)--Christian (discussione) 18:10, 16 feb 2009 (CET)- Wales on Sunday 2001/08/26 Knowledge at your fingertips
- Irish News 2001/08/27 The information is at your fingertips - but for a price
MIT Technology Review 2001/09/04
MIT Technology Review 2001/09/04 Free the Encyclopedias!
| (Testo originale) | (Traduzione) | |||
|
|
«Wales, who is founder and CEO of San Diego-based Web portal Bomis, has spent about $150,000 of his own money developing Wikipedia. Technically, Wikipedia is owned by Bomis, but Wales and Sanger plan to set up a nonprofit to run the Web-based encyclopedia.»
|
|
«Wales dichiara di aver speso circa 150'000 dollari per lo sviluppo di Wikipedia. Wikipedia appartiene alla società Bomis, ma Wales e Sanger hanno già l'idea di mettere in piedi una struttura non-profit per gestire Wikipedia.<ref>MIT Technology Review 2001/09/04 Free the Encyclopedias!</ref>»
| |
| {{#if:--Christian (discussione) 03:48, 18 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 03:48, 18 feb 2009 (CET)) }}
|
|
«Wales, who is founder and CEO of San Diego-based Web portal Bomis, has spent about $150,000 of his own money developing Wikipedia. Technically, Wikipedia is owned by Bomis, but Wales and Sanger plan to set up a nonprofit to run the Web-based encyclopedia.»
| ||
| {{#if:--Christian (discussione) 03:48, 18 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 03:48, 18 feb 2009 (CET)) }}
}} | ||||
| (Testo originale) | (Traduzione) | |||
|
|
«Wikipedia, which one might consider intellectual anarchy extruded into encyclopedia form with a chat feature thrown in, is stemming a tide against charging for content on the Web. But it will probably never dethrone Britannica, whose 232-year reputation is based upon hiring world-renowned experts and exhaustively reviewing their articles with a staff of more than a hundred editors.
"There are a lot of reference works on the Internet, but we don't concern ourselves about them too much," says Tom Panelas, director of communications at Britannica. "People are coming to realize that while there's a lot of information on the Internet, a lot of it is plain nonsense, and much of it is of questionable provenance. Being Britannica, we've always had a natural constituency of people who know Britannica is a name they can trust for reliable, well-written information." To read Britannica on the Web you must pony up $50 a year, although you can read the first two paragraphs of articles for free. The company won't release subscription figures but claims that more than seven million users search britannica.com each month during the school year. Walter Bender, executive director of MIT's Media Laboratory, believes that what makes Britannica a valuable resource is the scope and depth of its editing, and free Web-based encyclopedias such as Wikipedia will probably never be able to compete with that. "The downside is that [Britannica] cannot practically keep pace with the growth of knowledge and information," says Bender. "For example, Britannica still uses the entry on the city of Boston written almost twenty years ago by Jack Driscoll, former editor of the Boston Globe. The article was written in a timeless prose, but it no longer captures the essence of the city." True, but Wikipedia's entry on Boston reads as follows: "The capital city of Massachusetts, USA. The greater Boston area has many suburbs, including Cambridge, Massachusetts."» |
|
«L'articolo del MIT è molto supponente nei confronti di Wikipedia. "Wikipedia, che qualcuno potrebbe considerare come l'anarchia intellettuale sviluppata in forma enciclopedica, con l'aggiunta di una chat, cerca di andar contro la tendenza di far pagare per i contenuti in rete. Ma non riuscirà mai a detronizzare la Britannica, che con i suoi 232 anni di reputazione si basa sull'assunzione di esperti riconosciuti a livello mondiale e rivedendo i loro articoli con uno staff di più di cento editori.
"Ci sono un mucchio di lavori con riferimentiXXXXX in internet, ma non ci interessano più di tanto" dice Tom Panelas, direttore delle comunicazioni per la Britannica. "Le persone stanno cominciando a realizzare che mentre c'è molta informazione in internet, molta è assolutamente priva di senso, e molta è di dubbia provenienza. Essendo la Britannica, noi sempre abbiamo una natural constituency of people che sa che la Britannica è un nome di cui fidarsi per informazioni affidabili e ben scritte." Per leggere la Britannica sul web bisogna pagare 50$ all'anno, sebbene sia possibile leggere gratuitamente i primi due paragrafi degli articoli. La società non rilascia le cifre delle sottoscrizioni ma afferma che più di 7 milioni di utenti hanno consultato britannica.com ogni mese durante l'anno scolastico. Walter Bender, direttore esecutivo dei Media Laboratory del MIT, crede che ciò che rende la Britannica una valida risorsa è l'obiettivo e la profondità dei suoi lavori, e le enciclopedie libere come Wikipedia non saranno probabilmente mai in grado di competere con questo. "Il lato negativo è che la Britannica non può praticamente tenere il passo con la crescita della conoscenza e dell'informazione", dice Bender. "Per esempio, la Britannica usa ancora la voce della città di Boston scritta 20 anni prima da Jack Driscoll, l'allora editore del Boston Globe. L'articolo fu scritto in una prosa atemporale, ma non coglie più l'essenza della città". Vero, la voce di Wikipedia su Boston dice: "La capitale del Massachusetts, USA. La grande Boston ha molti quartieri, incluso Cambridge, Massachusetts."<ref>MIT Technology Review 2001/09/04 Free the Encyclopedias!</ref>» | |
| {{#if:--Christian (discussione) 03:48, 18 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 03:48, 18 feb 2009 (CET)) }}
|
|
«Wikipedia, which one might consider intellectual anarchy extruded into encyclopedia form with a chat feature thrown in, is stemming a tide against charging for content on the Web. But it will probably never dethrone Britannica, whose 232-year reputation is based upon hiring world-renowned experts and exhaustively reviewing their articles with a staff of more than a hundred editors.
"There are a lot of reference works on the Internet, but we don't concern ourselves about them too much," says Tom Panelas, director of communications at Britannica. "People are coming to realize that while there's a lot of information on the Internet, a lot of it is plain nonsense, and much of it is of questionable provenance. Being Britannica, we've always had a natural constituency of people who know Britannica is a name they can trust for reliable, well-written information." To read Britannica on the Web you must pony up $50 a year, although you can read the first two paragraphs of articles for free. The company won't release subscription figures but claims that more than seven million users search britannica.com each month during the school year. Walter Bender, executive director of MIT's Media Laboratory, believes that what makes Britannica a valuable resource is the scope and depth of its editing, and free Web-based encyclopedias such as Wikipedia will probably never be able to compete with that. "The downside is that [Britannica] cannot practically keep pace with the growth of knowledge and information," says Bender. "For example, Britannica still uses the entry on the city of Boston written almost twenty years ago by Jack Driscoll, former editor of the Boston Globe. The article was written in a timeless prose, but it no longer captures the essence of the city." True, but Wikipedia's entry on Boston reads as follows: "The capital city of Massachusetts, USA. The greater Boston area has many suburbs, including Cambridge, Massachusetts."» | ||
| {{#if:--Christian (discussione) 03:48, 18 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 03:48, 18 feb 2009 (CET)) }}
}} | ||||
New York Times 2001/09/20
New York Times 2001/09/20 Fact-Driven? Collegial? This Site Wants You
| (Testo originale) | (Traduzione) | |||
|
|
«Wikipedians, as they call themselves»
|
|
«Wikipediani, come si chiamano fra loro<ref>New York Times 2001/09/20 Fact-Driven? Collegial? This Site Wants You</ref>»
| |
| {{#if:--Christian (discussione) 03:59, 18 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 03:59, 18 feb 2009 (CET)) }}
|
|
«Wikipedians, as they call themselves»
| ||
| {{#if:--Christian (discussione) 03:59, 18 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 03:59, 18 feb 2009 (CET)) }}
}} | ||||
- È questa la prima traccia (pubblica) del termine "Wikipediani"?
- --Christian (discussione) 03:59, 18 feb 2009 (CET)
| (Testo originale) | (Traduzione) | |||
|
|
«In July Encyclopaedia Britannica began charging $5 a month for access.»
|
|
«In Luglio l'Enclopedia Britannica ha iniziato a farsi pagare $5 per l'accesso.<ref>New York Times 2001/09/20 Fact-Driven? Collegial? This Site Wants You</ref>»
| |
| {{#if:--Christian (discussione) 03:59, 18 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 03:59, 18 feb 2009 (CET)) }}
|
|
«In July Encyclopaedia Britannica began charging $5 a month for access.»
| ||
| {{#if:--Christian (discussione) 03:59, 18 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 03:59, 18 feb 2009 (CET)) }}
}} | ||||
| (Testo originale) | (Traduzione) | |||
|
|
«That is the view of James J. O'Donnell, a professor of classical studies and vice provost for information systems at the University of Pennsylvania who examined the influence of digital media on writing in his book Avatars of the Word (Harvard University Press, 1998), I had a strong sense as I went in that I was in a community of people who were talking to each other, he said of his explorations of Wikipedia.
The thing and the experience may be much more valuable for those who are creating it than it is for somebody who just walks in saying, 'So when is the Second Punic War and which one was that?' Mr. O'Donnell said. A community that finds a way to talk in this way is creating education and online discourse at a higher level.»
|
|
«Questa è l'opinione di James O'Donnel, un professore di studi classici e vice provost all'Università della Pennsylvenia che ha esaminato l'influenza dei media digitali sulla scrittura nel suo libr "Avatars del mondo" (Harvard University Press, 1998), Ho avuto la forte impressione, quando entrai, di trovarmi in una comunità di persone che si parlavano fra loro disse riguardo ad una delle sue esplorazioni in Wikipedia.
La cosa stessa e l'esperienza potrebbero essere molto più preziose per coloro che lo stanno creando piuttoso che per qualcuno da fuori che entra dicendo, 'Allora quando c'è stata la Seconda Guerra punica e che è successo?' ha detto O'Donnell. Una comunità che trova il modo di parlare in questo modo stra creando educazione e una conversazione online ad un più altro livello.<ref>New York Times 2001/09/20 Fact-Driven? Collegial? This Site Wants You</ref> »
| |
| {{#if:--Christian (discussione) 03:59, 18 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 03:59, 18 feb 2009 (CET)) }}
|
|
«That is the view of James J. O'Donnell, a professor of classical studies and vice provost for information systems at the University of Pennsylvania who examined the influence of digital media on writing in his book Avatars of the Word (Harvard University Press, 1998), I had a strong sense as I went in that I was in a community of people who were talking to each other, he said of his explorations of Wikipedia.
The thing and the experience may be much more valuable for those who are creating it than it is for somebody who just walks in saying, 'So when is the Second Punic War and which one was that?' Mr. O'Donnell said. A community that finds a way to talk in this way is creating education and online discourse at a higher level.»
| ||
| {{#if:--Christian (discussione) 03:59, 18 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 03:59, 18 feb 2009 (CET)) }}
}} | ||||
reveries.com (NYT story summarized)--Christian (discussione) 18:10, 16 feb 2009 (CET)International Herald Tribune (reprint of NYT story) 2001/09/24
Kuro5hin 2001/9/24
Kuro5hin Wikipedia is wide open. Why is it growing so fast? Why isn't it full of nonsense? (by Wikipedia's Larry Sanger)
| (Testo originale) | (Traduzione) | |||
|
|
«The most recent development is that free software guru Richard Stallman has endorsed the Wikipedia project alongside his endorsement of Nupedia. Stallman described Wikipedia's successes to me as "really exciting news." »
|
|
«La più recente novità è che Richard Stallman, il guru del software libero appoggia il progetto<ref>Kuro5hin Wikipedia is wide open. Why is it growing so fast? Why isn't it full of nonsense? (by Wikipedia's Larry Sanger)</ref>»
| |
| {{#if:--Christian (discussione) 17:23, 18 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 17:23, 18 feb 2009 (CET)) }}
|
|
«The most recent development is that free software guru Richard Stallman has endorsed the Wikipedia project alongside his endorsement of Nupedia. Stallman described Wikipedia's successes to me as "really exciting news." »
| ||
| {{#if:--Christian (discussione) 17:23, 18 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 17:23, 18 feb 2009 (CET)) }}
}} | ||||
| (Testo originale) | (Traduzione) | |||
|
|
«(Full disclosure: I am, with Jimmy Wales, the co-founder of Wikipedia and its only full-time paid participant. I feel very uncomfortable calling myself its "editor-in-chief." The participants would rebel at that title, and it would be "anti-wiki"--"anti-wiki" is bad, in case you didn't know.)
Among Wikipedia's active contributors are Axel Boldt, mathematics professor at Metropolitan State University in Saint Paul, Minnesota; Michael Tinkler, a professor of art history; a female professor in both ESL and mathematics at Columbia U. and CUNY; and well over a dozen other Ph.D.'s, M.D.'s, and highly-educated people from around the world. In addition, there are many extremely bright, articulate graduate students and undergraduates involved. There are also dozens of computer programmers who are constantly displaying their knowledge both within and outside the bounds of computer science. Everyone is welcome and their work is judged on its own merits. »
|
|
«Sono, insieme a Jimmy Wales, co-fondatore di Wikipedia e l'unico partecipante pagato a tempo pieno. Non mi sento a mio agio definendomi "capo editore". I partecipanti si ribellerebbero a questo titolo, e sarebbe "anti-wiki" - "anti-wiki" è male, nel caso non lo sapeste.
Fra gli utenti attivi c'è Axel Boldt, professore di matematica alla Metropolitan State University di Saint Paul, Minnesota; Michael Tinkler, un professore di storia dell'arte; una professoressa "in both ESL" e matematica alla Columbia U. e CUNY; e più di una dozzina di dottori, laureati e persone con una educazione avanzata da tutto il mondo. In più ci sono molti studenti svegli e versatili, universitari e di college. Dozzine di programmatori che costantemente mostrano le loro conoscenze non solo nell'informatica. Chiunque è benvenuto e il loro lavoro è giudicato per il proprio merito<ref>Kuro5hin Wikipedia is wide open. Why is it growing so fast? Why isn't it full of nonsense? (by Wikipedia's Larry Sanger)</ref>»
| |
| {{#if:--Christian (discussione) 17:23, 18 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 17:23, 18 feb 2009 (CET)) }}
|
|
«(Full disclosure: I am, with Jimmy Wales, the co-founder of Wikipedia and its only full-time paid participant. I feel very uncomfortable calling myself its "editor-in-chief." The participants would rebel at that title, and it would be "anti-wiki"--"anti-wiki" is bad, in case you didn't know.)
Among Wikipedia's active contributors are Axel Boldt, mathematics professor at Metropolitan State University in Saint Paul, Minnesota; Michael Tinkler, a professor of art history; a female professor in both ESL and mathematics at Columbia U. and CUNY; and well over a dozen other Ph.D.'s, M.D.'s, and highly-educated people from around the world. In addition, there are many extremely bright, articulate graduate students and undergraduates involved. There are also dozens of computer programmers who are constantly displaying their knowledge both within and outside the bounds of computer science. Everyone is welcome and their work is judged on its own merits. »
| ||
| {{#if:--Christian (discussione) 17:23, 18 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 17:23, 18 feb 2009 (CET)) }}
}} | ||||
| (Testo originale) | (Traduzione) | |||
|
|
«So how is it possible that so many otherwise upstanding intellectuals love Wikipedia (some, secretly) and spend so much time on it? Why aren't we writing for academic journals, or something?
It's fun, first of all. But it can be fun for intellectually serious people only if we know that we're creating something of quality. And how do we know that? The basic outlines of the answer ought to be fairly obvious to anyone who has read Eric S. Raymond's famous essay on the open source movement, "The Cathedral and the Bazaar." Remember, if we can edit any page, then we can edit each other's work. Given enough eyeballs, all errors are shallow. We catch each other's mistakes and enjoy correcting them. So, we're are constantly monitoring Wikipedia's Recent Changes page. When--as happens rarely--some eedjit shows up and vandalizes a page, it's fixed nearly instantly. (We save back copies of all pages, and these are very easily accessible.) We (that is, we participants) work on a lot of different pages, and I think most of us feel some collective responsibility for how the whole thing looks. We're constantly cleaning up after each other and new people. In the process, a camaraderie--a politeness and congeniality not found on many online discussion forums--has developed. We've got to respect each other, because we are each other's editors, and we all have more or less the same goal: to create a huge, high-quality free encyclopedia. The way I see it, we're having fun creating a thing of beauty. » |
|
«Ma come è possibile che così tanti otherwise upstanding intellectuals amano Wikipedia (alcuni segretamente) e spendono così tanto tempo su di essa? Perché non scriviamo per giornali scientifici o altro?
Innanzitutto è divertente. Ma può essere divertente per le persone intellettualmente serie solo se crediamo che stiamo creando qualcosa di qualità. E come lo sappiamo? La risposta è abbastanza ovvia per chiunque abbia letto il test di Eric S. Raymond sul movimento open source: "LA cattedrale e il bazaar". Se si può modificare qualsiasi pagina, significa che si può modificare il lavoro di altri. Dati abbastanza occhi, tutti gli errori sono scoperti. Ci troviamo l'un l'altro gli errori e li correggiamo. Monitoriamo costantemente la pagina deglle ultime modifiche. Quando, rare volte una pagina è stata vandalizzata, viene ripristinata immediatamente. Salviamo le copie precedenti di tutte le pagine e queste sono facilmente recuperabili. Noi partecipanti lavoriamo molto su diverse pagine, e credo che molti di noi sentono una specie di responsabilità collettiva per come appare tutta la cosa. Facciamo le pulizie dopo ogni intervento. Nel processo si è sviluppato un cameratismo, un'educazione e una congenialità che non si trova in molti forum di discussione online. Dobbiamo rispettarci l'un l'altro, perché siamo ognuno editori dell'altro e abbiamo tutti più o meno lo stesso obiettivo: creare un'enorme, enciclopedia libera e di qualità<ref>Kuro5hin Wikipedia is wide open. Why is it growing so fast? Why isn't it full of nonsense? (by Wikipedia's Larry Sanger)</ref>» | |
| {{#if:--Christian (discussione) 17:23, 18 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 17:23, 18 feb 2009 (CET)) }}
|
|
«So how is it possible that so many otherwise upstanding intellectuals love Wikipedia (some, secretly) and spend so much time on it? Why aren't we writing for academic journals, or something?
It's fun, first of all. But it can be fun for intellectually serious people only if we know that we're creating something of quality. And how do we know that? The basic outlines of the answer ought to be fairly obvious to anyone who has read Eric S. Raymond's famous essay on the open source movement, "The Cathedral and the Bazaar." Remember, if we can edit any page, then we can edit each other's work. Given enough eyeballs, all errors are shallow. We catch each other's mistakes and enjoy correcting them. So, we're are constantly monitoring Wikipedia's Recent Changes page. When--as happens rarely--some eedjit shows up and vandalizes a page, it's fixed nearly instantly. (We save back copies of all pages, and these are very easily accessible.) We (that is, we participants) work on a lot of different pages, and I think most of us feel some collective responsibility for how the whole thing looks. We're constantly cleaning up after each other and new people. In the process, a camaraderie--a politeness and congeniality not found on many online discussion forums--has developed. We've got to respect each other, because we are each other's editors, and we all have more or less the same goal: to create a huge, high-quality free encyclopedia. The way I see it, we're having fun creating a thing of beauty. » | ||
| {{#if:--Christian (discussione) 17:23, 18 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 17:23, 18 feb 2009 (CET)) }}
}} | ||||
| (Testo originale) | (Traduzione) | |||
|
|
«The implication is that Wikipedia has a nice community, but it doesn't have much breadth, depth, or reliability; so if you want serious information, go to Britannica.
If Wikipedians believed that, we'd bag the whole thing. We think we are--gradually, and sometimes from very rough first drafts--developing a reliable resource. So what answer can I offer to the above concerns? Part of the answer is already given above: Wikipedia's self-correction process (Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales calls it "self-healing") is very robust. » |
|
«La conseguenza è che Wikipedia ha una bella community, ma non ha ampiezza, spessore, affidabilità; se vuoi infomazioni serie, vai sulla Britannica.
Se i Wikipediani credessero a ciò, lascerebbero perdere. Crediamo che stiamo sviluppando una risorsa affidabile. Che cosa posso rispondere al dubbio sollevato sopra? Parte della risposta è già stata data: Il processo di autocorrezione di Wikipedia (che Jimmy Wales definisce "auto-curante") è molto solido.<ref>Kuro5hin Wikipedia is wide open. Why is it growing so fast? Why isn't it full of nonsense? (by Wikipedia's Larry Sanger)</ref>»
| |
| {{#if:--Christian (discussione) 01:16, 19 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 01:16, 19 feb 2009 (CET)) }}
|
|
«The implication is that Wikipedia has a nice community, but it doesn't have much breadth, depth, or reliability; so if you want serious information, go to Britannica.
If Wikipedians believed that, we'd bag the whole thing. We think we are--gradually, and sometimes from very rough first drafts--developing a reliable resource. So what answer can I offer to the above concerns? Part of the answer is already given above: Wikipedia's self-correction process (Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales calls it "self-healing") is very robust. » | ||
| {{#if:--Christian (discussione) 01:16, 19 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 01:16, 19 feb 2009 (CET)) }}
}} | ||||
| (Testo originale) | (Traduzione) | |||
|
|
«So it seems very reasonable to think that within a few years the project will surpass Britannica in both breadth and depth. At our current rate of growth, we will have over 100,000 articles by 2005; »
|
|
«È piuttosto ragionevole pensare che entro pochi anni il progetto sorpasserà la Britannica sia in estensione che in precisione. All'attuale tasso di crescita, avremo più di 100'000 articoli entro il 2005<ref>Kuro5hin Wikipedia is wide open. Why is it growing so fast? Why isn't it full of nonsense? (by Wikipedia's Larry Sanger)</ref>»
| |
| {{#if:--Christian (discussione) 02:39, 19 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 02:39, 19 feb 2009 (CET)) }}
|
|
«So it seems very reasonable to think that within a few years the project will surpass Britannica in both breadth and depth. At our current rate of growth, we will have over 100,000 articles by 2005; »
| ||
| {{#if:--Christian (discussione) 02:39, 19 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 02:39, 19 feb 2009 (CET)) }}
}} | ||||
- Un'altra buona dose di "numeri" di Wikipedia per confronto ;-) --Christian (discussione) 01:16, 19 feb 2009 (CET)
| (Testo originale) | (Traduzione) | |||
|
|
«But what about reliability? That's a third part of the answer. It seems very likely that, in coming months, Wikipedia will set up some sort of approval process, whereby certain versions of articles receive the stamp of approval of some body of Wikipedia reviewers. There have been two main proposals about how to set up a review process. Whatever the shape of the process, it would act entirely independently of article generation. (We certainly do not want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.) But after it's in place, we will be able to present a set of genuine expert-approved articles that can favorably compare with articles from any general encyclopedia--Britannica included. »
|
|
«Che tipo di affidabilità? C'è una terza parte della risposta. È abbastanza probabile che, nei prossimi mesi, Wikipedia metterà in piedi una sorta di processo di approvazione, in cui certe versioni dell'articolo ricevono un marchio di approvazione da una parte dei revisori di Wikipedia. Ci sono stati due proposte principali su come mettere in piedi questo sistema di revisione. Qualunque forma avrà il processo, agirà in modo completamente indipendente dalla sviluppo dell'articolo (Certamente non vogliamo uccidere la gallina dalle uova d'oro). Ma dopo che sarà in funzione, saremo capaci di presentare una serie di articoli originali approvati da esperti che potranno confrontarsi con qualsiasi enciclopedia generale, anche la Britannica.<ref>Kuro5hin Wikipedia is wide open. Why is it growing so fast? Why isn't it full of nonsense? (by Wikipedia's Larry Sanger)</ref>»
| |
| {{#if:--Christian (discussione) 01:16, 19 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 01:16, 19 feb 2009 (CET)) }}
|
|
«But what about reliability? That's a third part of the answer. It seems very likely that, in coming months, Wikipedia will set up some sort of approval process, whereby certain versions of articles receive the stamp of approval of some body of Wikipedia reviewers. There have been two main proposals about how to set up a review process. Whatever the shape of the process, it would act entirely independently of article generation. (We certainly do not want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.) But after it's in place, we will be able to present a set of genuine expert-approved articles that can favorably compare with articles from any general encyclopedia--Britannica included. »
| ||
| {{#if:--Christian (discussione) 01:16, 19 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 01:16, 19 feb 2009 (CET)) }}
}} | ||||
MSNBC (reprint of Tech Review story)--Christian (discussione) 18:10, 16 feb 2009 (CET)Graham Lawton, "The Great Giveway," NewScientist (British science magazine) (see also the associated forum and note that this article is copylefted!)--Christian (discussione) 18:10, 16 feb 2009 (CET)Open Source Schools, reprinted on iteachnet.org (by Wikipedia's Larry Sanger)
- Accesso negato
Free Online Scholarship Newsletter 10/26/01
Free Online Scholarship Newsletter, 10/26/01 (Larry Sanger)
| (Testo originale) | (Traduzione) | |||
|
|
«So why should you trust unsigned articles that might have been written by idiots and revised by morons? The creators have introduced many features whose tendency is to insure that ignorant, incorrect, illiterate, and mischievous contributions --and deletions-- are caught early and either corrected or undone. For example, only Wikipedia administrators can totally or permanently delete pages. Other deletions are kept for two weeks in a "kept pages" archive where any other user can find and restore them. After mischievous contributors are identified they can be blocked by administrators. Recent changes are collected on a special page for special scrutiny. Soon administrators will have the power to undo all changes from a particular user or particular IP address. The entire Wikipedia is frequently backed up, allowing administrators to restore any entry mangled by users. Administrators are considering several proposals for retroactive peer review.»
|
|
«{{{3}}}»
| |
| {{#if:--Christian (discussione) 02:57, 19 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 02:57, 19 feb 2009 (CET)) }}
|
|
«So why should you trust unsigned articles that might have been written by idiots and revised by morons? The creators have introduced many features whose tendency is to insure that ignorant, incorrect, illiterate, and mischievous contributions --and deletions-- are caught early and either corrected or undone. For example, only Wikipedia administrators can totally or permanently delete pages. Other deletions are kept for two weeks in a "kept pages" archive where any other user can find and restore them. After mischievous contributors are identified they can be blocked by administrators. Recent changes are collected on a special page for special scrutiny. Soon administrators will have the power to undo all changes from a particular user or particular IP address. The entire Wikipedia is frequently backed up, allowing administrators to restore any entry mangled by users. Administrators are considering several proposals for retroactive peer review.»
| ||
| {{#if:--Christian (discussione) 02:57, 19 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 02:57, 19 feb 2009 (CET)) }}
}} | ||||
- Si parla di amministratori, una pagina limbo (sparita con il cambio di software?!), la possibilità di bloccare degli utenti, la pagina delle "Ultime modifiche", backup. Su quest'ultimo punto si potrebbe sviluppare il discorso che la licenza permette di scaricare tutte le pagine e ripartire con il progetto in un altro posto. In teoria ci sono altri backup in giro per il mondo. Wikipedia va oltre Wikipedia. Ma nello stesso tempo Wikipedia è insostituibile in quanto raccoglie una comunità e un savoir-faire articolatissimo.
- Sanger insiste ancora, anche qui sul peer review: forse lui stesso si immagina ancora un'enciclopedia "controllata". Interessante che siano anche i giorni dello scontro con "The Cunctator", no?
- --Christian (discussione) 02:57, 19 feb 2009 (CET)
| (Testo originale) | (Traduzione) | |||
|
|
«After it gets off the ground, it may generate revenue through ads and pay its administrators from the revenue.»
|
|
«{{{3}}}»
| |
| {{#if:--Christian (discussione) 02:57, 19 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 02:57, 19 feb 2009 (CET)) }}
|
|
«After it gets off the ground, it may generate revenue through ads and pay its administrators from the revenue.»
| ||
| {{#if:--Christian (discussione) 02:57, 19 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 02:57, 19 feb 2009 (CET)) }}
}} | ||||
- A questo punto i timori degli spagnoli sono legittimi...
- --Christian (discussione) 02:57, 19 feb 2009 (CET)
Open Source Schools (another column) (by Wikipedia's Larry Sanger)
- Accesso negato
Shift Magazine (mentioned in The Shiftlist, a regular link collection)
- Non più disponibile
- Niente di particolare, se non che è stato scritto da un hawaiano!
The New York Times Magazine 2001/12/09
The New York Times Magazine 2001/12/09 Populist editing
| (Testo originale) | (Traduzione) | |||
|
|
«With a total of 16,000 articles in the database, the Wikipedia is already large enough to be a source of generally reliable information, though stronger in some areas (Star Trek spinoffs) than others (the novels of Charles Dickens).»
|
|
«Con in tutto 16.000 articoli nel database, Wikipedia è già larga abbastanza per essere la fonte di informazione generalmente affidabile, anche se più forte in alcuni campi (come Star Trek) che altri (i romanzi di Charles Dickens)<ref>The New York Times Magazine 2001/12/09 Populist editing</ref>»
| |
| {{#if:--Christian (discussione) 03:08, 19 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 03:08, 19 feb 2009 (CET)) }}
|
|
«With a total of 16,000 articles in the database, the Wikipedia is already large enough to be a source of generally reliable information, though stronger in some areas (Star Trek spinoffs) than others (the novels of Charles Dickens).»
| ||
| {{#if:--Christian (discussione) 03:08, 19 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 03:08, 19 feb 2009 (CET)) }}
}} | ||||
An interview about the wiki concept with Ward Cunningham by National Public Radio in the U.S. mentioned Wikipedia. The interview can be listened to (as of this writing) here. 2001/12/20 future tense
- Interessante la metafora del wiki come una storia che migliora ogni volta che viene raccontata. Ma niente di particolare.
-
What Are the Busiest Web Sites? ThirdAge , December 25, 2001, AP
- Non più disponibile
Yahoo! Internet Life: "Brain Waves: Works in Progress," apparently (has anyone seen it yet?) is in Volume 8, Number 2.
- Non più disponibile
2002
siliconvalley.internet.com, January 16, 2002
Michael Singer, "Free Encyclopedia Project Celebrates Year One," siliconvalley.internet.com, January 16, 2002
| (Testo originale) | (Traduzione) | |||
|
|
«The two attribute Wikipedia's success so far to the presence of a strong core group of contributors who together maintain community standards of quality and neutrality.
At present, nearly 200 people are working on the project daily, from all around the world; organizers estimate that the project has had well over a thousand contributors. The success of such an open project, staffed by such a large and diverse body of writers, is a puzzle: how can so many people with so many different backgrounds collaborate with such little oversight? Project organizers say that it is partly because the participants can edit each others' contributions easily, and partly because the project has a strong "nonbias" policy; this keeps interaction relatively polite and productive. "If contributors took controversial stands, it would be virtually impossible for people of many different viewpoints to collaborate," says Sanger. "Because of the neutrality policy, we have partisans working together on the same articles. It's quite remarkable."» |
|
«Il secondo attributo per il successo di Wikipedia finora è la presenza di un forte gruppo centrale di utenti che insieme mantiene gli standard comunitari di qualità e neutralità. [...] Al momento quasi 200 persone stanno lavorando al progetto giornalmente, da tutto il mondo; gli organizzatori stimano che il progetto abbia avuto molto più di mille utenti. Il successo di un simile progetto aperto, realizzato da un così grande numero di scrittori anche molto diversi fra loro, è un mistero: com'è possibile che collaborino persone con background così diversi fra di loro con così poca sorveglianza? Gli organizzatori del progetto sostengono che in parte è dovuto al fatto che i partecipanti possono editarsi facilmente i contributi l'un l'altro e in parte perché il progetto ha una forte politica "nonbias"; questo mantiene le interazioni relativamente gentili e produttive.
"Se i partecipanti prendessero posizioni controverse, sarebbe virtualmente impossibile collaborare per persone con così tanti e differenti punti di vista." dice Sanger. "Grazie alla politica della 'neutralità', abbiamo delle persone attive che lavorano insieme sullo stesso articolo. È abbastanza rilevante"<ref>Michael Singer, "Free Encyclopedia Project Celebrates Year One," siliconvalley.internet.com, January 16, 2002</ref>»
| |
| {{#if:--Andrea (discussione) 16:20, 18 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Andrea (discussione) 16:20, 18 feb 2009 (CET)) }}
|
|
«The two attribute Wikipedia's success so far to the presence of a strong core group of contributors who together maintain community standards of quality and neutrality.
At present, nearly 200 people are working on the project daily, from all around the world; organizers estimate that the project has had well over a thousand contributors. The success of such an open project, staffed by such a large and diverse body of writers, is a puzzle: how can so many people with so many different backgrounds collaborate with such little oversight? Project organizers say that it is partly because the participants can edit each others' contributions easily, and partly because the project has a strong "nonbias" policy; this keeps interaction relatively polite and productive. "If contributors took controversial stands, it would be virtually impossible for people of many different viewpoints to collaborate," says Sanger. "Because of the neutrality policy, we have partisans working together on the same articles. It's quite remarkable."» | ||
| {{#if:--Andrea (discussione) 16:20, 18 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Andrea (discussione) 16:20, 18 feb 2009 (CET)) }}
}} | ||||
- Non so se l'avevano già detto prima da qualche parte, ma credo qui inizi l'idea del ristretto numero di utenti che controlla e rende il progetto stabile (la questione se inseriscono nuovo materiale non è qui citata). Iniziano anche le riflessioni sull' effetto del NPOV--Andrea (discussione) 16:20, 18 feb 2009 (CET)
- Potrebbe essere un buon punto per inserire il NPOV. Interessante anche i numeri che dà. E poi c'è il wiki magic, no? Bravo Andre', siamo sulla stessa linea d'onda! --Christian (discussione) 03:46, 19 feb 2009 (CET)
"Open Source SEM-Cyclopedia Project Launched," Software Dioxide, January 17, 2002
- Pagina non trovata. --Andrea (discussione) 16:27, 18 feb 2009 (CET)
-
"Free Encyclopedia Project," PNN online: the nonprofit news and information resource, January 28, 2002 (light editing of press release)
- Pagina non travata. --Andrea (discussione) 16:27, 18 feb 2009 (CET)
Kuro5hin.org, March 1, 2002
"Wikipedia Editor Larry Sanger Resigns," Kuro5hin.org, March 1, 2002.
| (Testo originale) | (Traduzione) | |||
|
|
«Wikipedia Editor Larry Sanger has announced his resignation. [...] Sanger writes that he was offered to edit Wikipedia as a full time job, but that funding for such full time participation was no longer available:
As a job, this has been the best I've ever had. But this project is not something I would have chosen as a hobby, frankly;»
|
|
«<ref>"Wikipedia Editor Larry Sanger Resigns," Kuro5hin.org, March 1, 2002.</ref>»
| |
| {{#if:--Christian (discussione) 04:11, 19 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 04:11, 19 feb 2009 (CET)) }}
|
|
«Wikipedia Editor Larry Sanger has announced his resignation. [...] Sanger writes that he was offered to edit Wikipedia as a full time job, but that funding for such full time participation was no longer available:
As a job, this has been the best I've ever had. But this project is not something I would have chosen as a hobby, frankly;»
| ||
| {{#if:--Christian (discussione) 04:11, 19 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 04:11, 19 feb 2009 (CET)) }}
}} | ||||
| (Testo originale) | (Traduzione) | |||
|
|
«Wikipedia is a commercial project for which several funding models have been discussed. The site's creators seem to favor a model where a designated "fixed" section of Wikipedia articles is used for advertisements -- the FDL allows such document sections. However, none of these plans have come to fruition yet, and donations are not currently visibly requested. Wikipedia has recently reached a milestone of 25,000 articles (this number does not include article "stubs" or meta content). The transition to a new PHP-based Wiki engine has put the project temporarily in peril, with massive slowdowns for common operations. »
|
|
«<ref>"Wikipedia Editor Larry Sanger Resigns," Kuro5hin.org, March 1, 2002.</ref>»
| |
| {{#if:--Christian (discussione) 04:11, 19 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 04:11, 19 feb 2009 (CET)) }}
|
|
«Wikipedia is a commercial project for which several funding models have been discussed. The site's creators seem to favor a model where a designated "fixed" section of Wikipedia articles is used for advertisements -- the FDL allows such document sections. However, none of these plans have come to fruition yet, and donations are not currently visibly requested. Wikipedia has recently reached a milestone of 25,000 articles (this number does not include article "stubs" or meta content). The transition to a new PHP-based Wiki engine has put the project temporarily in peril, with massive slowdowns for common operations. »
| ||
| {{#if:--Christian (discussione) 04:11, 19 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 04:11, 19 feb 2009 (CET)) }}
}} | ||||
| (Testo originale) | (Traduzione) | |||
|
|
«Larry Sanger played a crucial role in the first year of Wikipedia and has helped establish a shared philosophy for its users. At the same time, many felt that his authoritative tone was unnecessary and in contradiction to Wikipedia's goals. This may well be the right time to abandon the concept of "editorship" altogether and let the project grow into a "meritocracy", a site dominated by those who have contributed the most and only controlled in a technical sense.
It is also high time for Wikipedia to explore actual business models, or other people will simply download the Wikipedia tarballs and fork a new project. Given the fact that Wikipedia is actually read by many different people (it is well-indexed by most search engines), it seems like a donation link (and statistics) on every page would be a good start. Naysayers should look at projects like DynDNS, which has received substantial donations from nearly 10,000 of its users, which amounts to roughly 5% of its user base. »
|
|
«<ref>"Wikipedia Editor Larry Sanger Resigns," Kuro5hin.org, March 1, 2002.</ref>»
| |
| {{#if:--Christian (discussione) 04:11, 19 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 04:11, 19 feb 2009 (CET)) }}
|
|
«Larry Sanger played a crucial role in the first year of Wikipedia and has helped establish a shared philosophy for its users. At the same time, many felt that his authoritative tone was unnecessary and in contradiction to Wikipedia's goals. This may well be the right time to abandon the concept of "editorship" altogether and let the project grow into a "meritocracy", a site dominated by those who have contributed the most and only controlled in a technical sense.
It is also high time for Wikipedia to explore actual business models, or other people will simply download the Wikipedia tarballs and fork a new project. Given the fact that Wikipedia is actually read by many different people (it is well-indexed by most search engines), it seems like a donation link (and statistics) on every page would be a good start. Naysayers should look at projects like DynDNS, which has received substantial donations from nearly 10,000 of its users, which amounts to roughly 5% of its user base. »
| ||
| {{#if:--Christian (discussione) 04:11, 19 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 04:11, 19 feb 2009 (CET)) }}
}} | ||||
| (Testo originale) | (Traduzione) | |||
|
|
«Disagreements often center on what is or is not "mainstream" opinion and what is or isn't a fact that does not need further explanation.
A real problem is that there is absolutely no guarantee that an article you view at any given time is not totally biased or screwed up, because it may well have been edited by someone just a minute ago. But usually, such edits are quickly fixed. More rigid security models may help the project, but this is commonly seen as a bad thing by wiki advocates. »
|
|
«<ref>"Wikipedia Editor Larry Sanger Resigns," Kuro5hin.org, March 1, 2002.</ref>»
| |
| {{#if:--Christian (discussione) 04:11, 19 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 04:11, 19 feb 2009 (CET)) }}
|
|
«Disagreements often center on what is or is not "mainstream" opinion and what is or isn't a fact that does not need further explanation.
A real problem is that there is absolutely no guarantee that an article you view at any given time is not totally biased or screwed up, because it may well have been edited by someone just a minute ago. But usually, such edits are quickly fixed. More rigid security models may help the project, but this is commonly seen as a bad thing by wiki advocates. »
| ||
| {{#if:--Christian (discussione) 04:11, 19 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 04:11, 19 feb 2009 (CET)) }}
}} | ||||
| (Testo originale) | (Traduzione) | |||
|
|
«Overall, the future of Wikipedia still looks promising -- even if its content is eventually hosted by someone else, or on a peer-to-peer network. »
|
|
«<ref>"Wikipedia Editor Larry Sanger Resigns," Kuro5hin.org, March 1, 2002.</ref>»
| |
| {{#if:--Christian (discussione) 04:11, 19 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 04:11, 19 feb 2009 (CET)) }}
|
|
«Overall, the future of Wikipedia still looks promising -- even if its content is eventually hosted by someone else, or on a peer-to-peer network. »
| ||
| {{#if:--Christian (discussione) 04:11, 19 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 04:11, 19 feb 2009 (CET)) }}
}} | ||||
- Niente di particolare. --Andrea (discussione) 16:04, 18 feb 2009 (CET)
- Beh, qualcosa sì: le dimissioni di Sanger! --Christian (discussione) 04:11, 19 feb 2009 (CET)
- Oddio,che stupido.. è vero ;-) Andrea (discussione) 11:53, 19 feb 2009 (CET)
Computer User, May 2, 2002
Sara Aase, "The do-it-yourself encyclopedia: Wikipedia's storehouse of knowledge is a group effort," Computer User, May 2, 2002.
| (Testo originale) | (Traduzione) | |||
|
|
«The more I looked at this site, the more I realized that it also embodies the exasperating and exhilarating nature of the World Wide Web--that information is free and ultimately uncontrollable.»
|
|
«<ref>"Wikipedia Editor Larry Sanger Resigns," Kuro5hin.org, March 1, 2002.</ref>»
| |
| {{#if:--Christian (discussione) 04:22, 19 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 04:22, 19 feb 2009 (CET)) }}
|
|
«The more I looked at this site, the more I realized that it also embodies the exasperating and exhilarating nature of the World Wide Web--that information is free and ultimately uncontrollable.»
| ||
| {{#if:--Christian (discussione) 04:22, 19 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 04:22, 19 feb 2009 (CET)) }}
}} | ||||
| (Testo originale) | (Traduzione) | |||
|
|
«There are naming conventions to respect, so that people can find and add to your entry. There are also language rules to learn. For example, to create a link, you place double brackets around a word, like this. Contributors must also make sure that they only submit information to which they either hold the copyright or took from the public domain. Because Wikipedia operates under the same open-source agreement as Linux, contributors agree that anything they submit is distributed freely and can be augmented.»
|
|
«<ref>"Wikipedia Editor Larry Sanger Resigns," Kuro5hin.org, March 1, 2002.</ref>»
| |
| {{#if:--Christian (discussione) 04:22, 19 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 04:22, 19 feb 2009 (CET)) }}
|
|
«There are naming conventions to respect, so that people can find and add to your entry. There are also language rules to learn. For example, to create a link, you place double brackets around a word, like this. Contributors must also make sure that they only submit information to which they either hold the copyright or took from the public domain. Because Wikipedia operates under the same open-source agreement as Linux, contributors agree that anything they submit is distributed freely and can be augmented.»
| ||
| {{#if:--Christian (discussione) 04:22, 19 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 04:22, 19 feb 2009 (CET)) }}
}} | ||||
American Library Association September 15, 2002
Mary Ellen Quinn, Wikipedia, Booklist Magazine, a publication of the American Library Association, September 15, 2002
- Wikipedia. [1]. (Last accessed August 1, 2002)
| (Testo originale) | (Traduzione) | |||
|
|
«In last year’s Encyclopedia Update we checked on the progress of Nupedia [2], the “open content” Web-based encyclopedia. This time around we lookat Wikipedia, a “complementary encyclopedia project” that we found as a link from the Nupedia home page. Nupedia editor-in-chief Larry Sanger is one of Wikipedia’s founders. What is Wikipedia? For starters it’s an online encyclopedia, something like Nupedia, but different, in that you, or anyone else, can not only contribute an article but can make changes to anyone else’s article. A Wiki, it seems, is—well, we’re still not sure, but it’s just one of many new-to-us terms we encountered on the site, along with flame-wars, slashdotted, and more. The approach is the opposite of Nupedia’s, which has good content but gets bogged down in its peer review process. At Wikipedia anything gets posted, good or bad, and then, the theory goes, is corrected, expanded, refined, and fashioned into a real encyclopedia article as more people interact with it. Wikipedia started in January 2001 and already has more than 35,000 articles. Searching is rudimentary, and quality varies tremendously. There are long, detailed articles on game theory and Alexander the Great along with entries for every character on The Simpsons. Information on Afghanistan ranges from a lengthy survey of the nation’s history, with a fairly extensive list of references, to an entry on the military that merely lists a few statistics and cites no sources. New pages added on August 1 include the brief but adequate Broccoli, Prairie, and Social realism and the incomprehensible (“KM [short for Katten Mickelin] is a deity within Kmism”). There are policies about using copyrighted material and maintaining a neutral point of view, but there is no overall editorial plan. At this early stage, Wikipedia is more about the process than about someone looking for an article on space exploration or the Civil War. What about authority and reliability and all the other things we’ve been taught to look for in an encyclopedia? We were prepared to hate Wikipedia, but were disarmed when we got to the section “Wikipedia: Our Replies to Our Critics,” which answered all these questions and more. The Wikipedians admit that coverage is limited and unbalanced, that a lot of the articles are mediocre, that content is vulnerable to partisans and cranks. But though they do plan to institute a review process whereby some articles will be frozen as the “approved” versions (even as the revision process continues), they believe that their process of continuous editing means that articles can only improve. Bad content will be edited out, and good content will rise to the top, like cream: “As further edits accumulate, the quality of the article moves asymptomatically towards perfection, and likewise the quality of the encyclopedia as a whole.” Maybe. We’ll keep an open mind.»
|
|
«<ref>"Wikipedia Editor Larry Sanger Resigns," Kuro5hin.org, March 1, 2002.</ref>»
| |
| {{#if:--Andrea (discussione) 20:32, 18 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Andrea (discussione) 20:32, 18 feb 2009 (CET)) }}
|
|
«In last year’s Encyclopedia Update we checked on the progress of Nupedia [3], the “open content” Web-based encyclopedia. This time around we lookat Wikipedia, a “complementary encyclopedia project” that we found as a link from the Nupedia home page. Nupedia editor-in-chief Larry Sanger is one of Wikipedia’s founders. What is Wikipedia? For starters it’s an online encyclopedia, something like Nupedia, but different, in that you, or anyone else, can not only contribute an article but can make changes to anyone else’s article. A Wiki, it seems, is—well, we’re still not sure, but it’s just one of many new-to-us terms we encountered on the site, along with flame-wars, slashdotted, and more. The approach is the opposite of Nupedia’s, which has good content but gets bogged down in its peer review process. At Wikipedia anything gets posted, good or bad, and then, the theory goes, is corrected, expanded, refined, and fashioned into a real encyclopedia article as more people interact with it. Wikipedia started in January 2001 and already has more than 35,000 articles. Searching is rudimentary, and quality varies tremendously. There are long, detailed articles on game theory and Alexander the Great along with entries for every character on The Simpsons. Information on Afghanistan ranges from a lengthy survey of the nation’s history, with a fairly extensive list of references, to an entry on the military that merely lists a few statistics and cites no sources. New pages added on August 1 include the brief but adequate Broccoli, Prairie, and Social realism and the incomprehensible (“KM [short for Katten Mickelin] is a deity within Kmism”). There are policies about using copyrighted material and maintaining a neutral point of view, but there is no overall editorial plan. At this early stage, Wikipedia is more about the process than about someone looking for an article on space exploration or the Civil War. What about authority and reliability and all the other things we’ve been taught to look for in an encyclopedia? We were prepared to hate Wikipedia, but were disarmed when we got to the section “Wikipedia: Our Replies to Our Critics,” which answered all these questions and more. The Wikipedians admit that coverage is limited and unbalanced, that a lot of the articles are mediocre, that content is vulnerable to partisans and cranks. But though they do plan to institute a review process whereby some articles will be frozen as the “approved” versions (even as the revision process continues), they believe that their process of continuous editing means that articles can only improve. Bad content will be edited out, and good content will rise to the top, like cream: “As further edits accumulate, the quality of the article moves asymptomatically towards perfection, and likewise the quality of the encyclopedia as a whole.” Maybe. We’ll keep an open mind.»
| ||
| {{#if:--Andrea (discussione) 20:32, 18 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Andrea (discussione) 20:32, 18 feb 2009 (CET)) }}
}} | ||||
- Sono riuscito a trovarlo in un database (ho accesso ad un sacco di roba ora ;-)) e lo riporto tutto. Interessante perchè simpatico, e credo il primo "articolo" scritto da e per il mondo bibliotecario. --Andrea (discussione) 20:32, 18 feb 2009 (CET)
- Davvero complimenti! Ottimo lavoro. Stavo pensando che, visto che si tratta di un documento vero e proprio, forse andava messo in una pagina sua e linkato. Qui poi possiamo riprendere solo le citazioni più rilevanti (che comunque penso siano diverse) --Christian (discussione) 04:34, 19 feb 2009 (CET)
-
John Jerney, "The Wikipedia: The encyclopedia for the rest of us" for the Daily Yomiuri Online (Yomiuri Shimbun), 2002/10/22 (no longer available online).
- Non più disponibile --Christian (discussione) 04:37, 19 feb 2009 (CET)
Daily Telegraph online article, 17 August 2001
Daily Telegraph online article "Japan and South Korea fall out over 'sea with no name'" (17 August) links to Sea of Japan
- Il Daily Telegraph online linka a Wikipedia! --Christian (discussione) 04:47, 19 feb 2009 (CET)
- Daily Telegraph online article "Mahathir's drive against militants wins over West" (1 November) links to Demographics of Malaysia.
- [4] Daily Telegraph online article "New clue to riddle of hanged banker" (15 Oct) links to Roberto Calvi
- Daily Telegraph online article "Tebbit will stay, says Tory leader" (12 Oct) links to Norman Tebbit
- Articolo carino, ma tocca solo di striscio Wikipedia. --Christian (discussione) 04:52, 19 feb 2009 (CET)
2003
- In an interview on NPR's "Talk of the Nation - Science Friday", Bruce Perens made a special point of referencing Wikipedia as an example of an OpenSource project. January 17, 2003.
- Wired News, January 28, 2003
- The Guardian (UK), January 30 2003
- Tectonic African open source news, February 7, 2003
- SearchDay, February 10, 2003
- Nashua (N.H., USA) Telegraph - February 12, 2003 first-person account
- BBC's h2g2 entry, February 13, 2003
- Mark Jeays, "Wikipedia - An Online Collaborative Encyclopedia", published in The Canadian Writers Guide, 13th Edition, 2003.
- This is Local London: It's Common Knowledge February 22, 2003 - incorrectly states that Wikipedia uses CamelCase
- Sunday Herald Sun: Factual free-for-all takes on Britannica (cache) February 23, 2003
- Jack Ganssle, On Language on EE Times Network, 27 March 2003. Ganssle favourably compares Wikipedia with other online reference works.
- Four futures for scientific and medical publishing letter in April issue of British Medical Journal (BMJ).
- EContent Magazine April issue, incorrectly states that there is no way to email users
- Brief mention of Wiktionary in William Gibson interview in The Guardian. May 1, 2003
- PC Magazine - What's a Wiki?, 9th May 2003 by Sebastian Rupley
- Nashua (N.H., USA) Telegraph - 14 May 2003; bottom half of column talks about personal experience with one Wikipedia entry.
- New York Times - Business Is Toying With A Web Tool, 19 May 2003 - Wikipedia mentioned and pictured. Article on Socialtext wikis in businesses.
- Information Outlook June 2003
- PC Magazine Site of the Week June 6, 2003
- The Javapedia Project (Java Today), by Ron Goldman. Introduces Javapedia, citing Wikipedia as the inspiration. June 10, 2003
- Gettin' Wiki With It in Sarah's Blog Report (part of The Screen Savers)
- Expertise is key in Wiki world The Advertiser, LA. Jun 30, 2003
- USA Today, July 1, 2003, It's a Wiki world out there for the Web's groupmind
- Website turns tables on government officials, Hiawatha Bray, The Boston Globe, July 4, 2003. About the Government Information Awareness project, mentions Wikipedia in comparison as the "best known wiki site".
- Edmonton Sun, July 7, 2003, Shakeup coming on Bourbon Street: SITE FOR SORE EYES. Article reads "There's a very good online encyclopedia on the Internet called Wikipedia." Then the article uses wikipedia as a source for "this day in history."
- National Public Radio, July 21, 2003, Commentary: Wikis. Wikipedia.org, for example, lets the public collaborate to build a surprisingly accurate encyclopedia. Commentator David Weinberger says wikis are one example of "social software," intended to allow people to work together with ease.
- The Age, July 22, 2003, What a wiki thing to do. Article about wiki's with paragraph about wikipedia.
- Open content and value creation by Magnus Cedergren. Wikipedia cited as an example of Open Content.
- CNN TechWatch video or Web article, August 4, 2003, CNN International Tech Watch aired a segment on the Wikipedia and the Hong Kong University student project
- Time Magazine Article entitled The People's Encyclopedia. August 12, 2003
- Christian Science Monitor passing reference in article entitled The People's War August 14, 2003
- Science September 5, 2003.
- Computer Weekly September 2003
- Encyclopedias a Click Away; Washington Post, Sep. 7, 2003. Brushes off Wikipedia fairly quickly and focuses on CD-ROM encyclopedias.
- PressofAtlanticCity.com. Article entitled Save cash on books, find them free on Net advises using Wikipedia rather than paying for encyclopedias. Positive comments about the current events section. September 14 2003.
- MIT, October 1 2003, Votive Offering: How to Have Your Election Cake and Eat It Too. An article about voting systems in MIT's online newspaper, The Tech ends with the line "An excellent introduction to voting systems and voting reform is www.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Voting_system." Note the typographical error of the inserted space character that prevents you from using the URL directly as presented in the article.
- The "Glassine Surfer" column in the October 2003 issue of The American Philatelist (the main magazine of the American Philatelic Society) has a brief mention of Wikipedia, characterizing its stamp collecting material as "fairly good", and including the URL for Postage Stamp. The column is a monthly feature that mentions various websites of interest to philatelists.
- ABC 7 Denver Write for an Encyclopedia, October 8. Mirrored by 46 on October 9: [5]
- Wired News article entitled "Open Source Everywhere" has a section on Wikipedia. October 15 2003
- "Reference wwworks", Daily Mirror (UK). Names Wikipedia as one of "our top 10 reference sites". October 17, 2003
- Debian Weekly News talks about the article Debian in Wikipedia. 21 October, 2003.
- MS-Mobiles article on the German Wikipedia available in MobiPocket Reader format. 19 November 2003
- Berkeley Daily - Famed Berkeley Home Hosts Kucinich E-campaign - Henry Poole, boardmember of Free Software Foundation talks about Wikipedia, November 28, 2003.
- Tech Bloom in Full Flower, an editoral by Alex Steffen in the Seattle Post-Intellegencer, mentions Wikipedia as an example. November 20, 2003
- Join hands, Asian media urged in The Star, Malaysia mentions Wikipedia as an example of participatory journalism. December 9, 2003
- "St. Nick not well known", Deseret News, Salt Lake City, Utah. Carrie A. Moore explains the history of Christmas celebrations with the assistance of "Wikipedia, a free online encyclopedia". December 20, 2003
