Wikipedia - Press Coverage/2004gen-apr: differenze tra le versioni

Versione delle 15:02, 24 feb 2009 (visualizza wikitesto) Andrea (Discussione | contributi) (→‎2004 August) ← Differenza precedente		Versione delle 15:19, 24 feb 2009 (visualizza wikitesto) Andrea (Discussione | contributi) (→‎2004 August) Differenza successiva →
Riga 440:		Riga 440:
	*'''[http://chiptalk.com/linkpage.htm The world's largest encyclopedia]''' August 6, 2004.  Wikipedia was discussed on ''Chip Talk'', a one-minute [[Dave Ross]] radio feature about technology which is aired several times during the day on news stations across the United States.  The URL was given on air and posted on the Chip Talk website.		*'''[http://chiptalk.com/linkpage.htm The world's largest encyclopedia]''' August 6, 2004.  Wikipedia was discussed on ''Chip Talk'', a one-minute [[Dave Ross]] radio feature about technology which is aired several times during the day on news stations across the United States.  The URL was given on air and posted on the Chip Talk website.
		+	:Non lo trovo. --[[User:Andrea|Andrea]] ([[User talk:Andrea|discussione]]) 14:19, 24 feb 2009 (CET)
	*'''The thinker's new best friend ; As the internet overtakes the encyclopedia, the editor of a new dictionary asks if this is the end for the multi-volume reference book''' London Evening Standard, August 9, 2004 (not online). Jonathon Green, author of the ''Cassell Dictionary of Slang'', reviews Wikipedia's content: "I checked out "[[slang]]" and was impressed. A solid overview, with references to cant (underworld slang), rhyming slang, Polari (camp and theatrical), and even French butcher's slang Louchebem (of which I was ignorant). All these topics are covered, some with a specimen vocabulary-and every article offers links within Wikipedia and elsewhere on the net."		*'''The thinker's new best friend ; As the internet overtakes the encyclopedia, the editor of a new dictionary asks if this is the end for the multi-volume reference book''' London Evening Standard, August 9, 2004 (not online). Jonathon Green, author of the ''Cassell Dictionary of Slang'', reviews Wikipedia's content: "I checked out "[[slang]]" and was impressed. A solid overview, with references to cant (underworld slang), rhyming slang, Polari (camp and theatrical), and even French butcher's slang Louchebem (of which I was ignorant). All these topics are covered, some with a specimen vocabulary-and every article offers links within Wikipedia and elsewhere on the net."
	*'''[http://www.syracuse.com/news/poststandard/index.ssf?/base/news-0/1092128190206490.xml Doc corrects record on Apple vs. Microsoft]''' Syracuse Post-Standard, August 10, 2004. "A good source for unbiased information on the case is the Wikipedia encyclopedia at <nowiki>http://en.wikipedia.org</nowiki>. Use the Wikipedia search form and look for Apple vs. Microsoft."		*'''[http://www.syracuse.com/news/poststandard/index.ssf?/base/news-0/1092128190206490.xml Doc corrects record on Apple vs. Microsoft]''' Syracuse Post-Standard, August 10, 2004. "A good source for unbiased information on the case is the Wikipedia encyclopedia at <nowiki>http://en.wikipedia.org</nowiki>. Use the Wikipedia search form and look for Apple vs. Microsoft."
		+	:Non lo trovo. --[[User:Andrea|Andrea]] ([[User talk:Andrea|discussione]]) 14:19, 24 feb 2009 (CET)
	*'''[http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/aug2004/nf20040811_1095_db_81.htm Howard Rheingold's Latest Connection]''' BusinessWeek Online, [[August 11]] [[2004]]. Q&A with [[Howard Rheingold]], author of ''Smart Mobs: The Next Social Revolution''. "There's also Wikipedia [the online encyclopedia written by volunteers]. It has 500,000 articles in 50 languages at virtually no cost, vs. Encyclopedia Britannica spending millions of dollars and they have 50,000 articles." At the end of the session, he says, "Here's where Wikipedia fits in. It used to be if you were a kid in a village in India or a village in northern Canada in the winter, maybe you could get to a place where they have a few books once in a while. Now, if you have a telephone, you can get a free encyclopedia. You have access to the world's knowledge. Knowing how to use that is a barrier. The divide increasingly is not so much between those who have and those who don't, but those who know how to use what they have and those who don't."		*'''[http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/aug2004/nf20040811_1095_db_81.htm Howard Rheingold's Latest Connection]''' BusinessWeek Online, [[August 11]] [[2004]]. Q&A with [[Howard Rheingold]], author of ''Smart Mobs: The Next Social Revolution''. "There's also Wikipedia [the online encyclopedia written by volunteers]. It has 500,000 articles in 50 languages at virtually no cost, vs. Encyclopedia Britannica spending millions of dollars and they have 50,000 articles." At the end of the session, he says, "Here's where Wikipedia fits in. It used to be if you were a kid in a village in India or a village in northern Canada in the winter, maybe you could get to a place where they have a few books once in a while. Now, if you have a telephone, you can get a free encyclopedia. You have access to the world's knowledge. Knowing how to use that is a barrier. The divide increasingly is not so much between those who have and those who don't, but those who know how to use what they have and those who don't."
Riga 459:		Riga 461:
	*'''[http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/aug2004/tc20040818_1593.htm Linus Torvalds' Benevolent Dictatorship]''' BusinessWeek Online, August 18, 2004. Q&A with Linux creator Linus Torvalds. In discussing the application of open-source methods outside of software, he mentions, "There are encyclopedias -- a collection of a lot of information that's neutral. One project on the Web is Wikipedia."		*'''[http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/aug2004/tc20040818_1593.htm Linus Torvalds' Benevolent Dictatorship]''' BusinessWeek Online, August 18, 2004. Q&A with Linux creator Linus Torvalds. In discussing the application of open-source methods outside of software, he mentions, "There are encyclopedias -- a collection of a lot of information that's neutral. One project on the Web is Wikipedia."
		+
		+	{{Citazione|Q: Some say Linux and a lot of open-source projects really aren't innovative, that they're copies of commercial products. What's your reaction to that?
		+	A: I disagree. It's an easy argument to make. One reason people make it is that, in open source, they don't see the revolutionary new versions magically appearing. In comparison, look at commercial closed systems. They make a new release every year or three to four years with a huge marketing splash. They make it look very different. But it's a circus to make it look like a sudden innovation.
		+
		+	In open source, you don't have a circus. You don't see a sudden explosion. It's not done that way. All development is very gradual -- whether commercial or open source. Even when you have a big thinker coming along with a new idea, actually getting it working takes a lot of sweat and tears.|<ref>[http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/aug2004/tc20040818_1593.htm Linus Torvalds' Benevolent Dictatorship]</ref>|--[[User:Andrea|Andrea]] ([[User talk:Andrea|discussione]]) 14:19, 24 feb 2009 (CET)}}
		+
		+	:Non c'entra molto ma mi sembra un concetto interessante, quello dell'aggiornamento continuo, senza uscite in 3 anni nè marketing. E' qualcosa che similmente è accaduto anche con le enciclopedia (gli aggiornamenti, le enciclopedia multimediali, ...) --[[User:Andrea|Andrea]] ([[User talk:Andrea|discussione]]) 14:19, 24 feb 2009 (CET)
	*'''[http://www.dallasnews.com/s/dws/bus/technology/stories/081804dnbusptech.48583.html Grass-roots Encyclopedia]''' (reg. required) ''Dallas Morning News'', August 18, 2004.  Overview article about Wikipedia in personal technology section including quotes from [[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] and [[User:RadicalBender|Ben Dyer]]. (For a free version, use [http://springfield.news-leader.com/business/today/1017-Experiment-202805.html this reprint] from the Springfield (MO) News-Leader.)		*'''[http://www.dallasnews.com/s/dws/bus/technology/stories/081804dnbusptech.48583.html Grass-roots Encyclopedia]''' (reg. required) ''Dallas Morning News'', August 18, 2004.  Overview article about Wikipedia in personal technology section including quotes from [[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] and [[User:RadicalBender|Ben Dyer]]. (For a free version, use [http://springfield.news-leader.com/business/today/1017-Experiment-202805.html this reprint] from the Springfield (MO) News-Leader.)

---

Versione delle 15:19, 24 feb 2009

2004 January

• Emerging Technology: Internet-Era Democracy: Can the World Wide Web give ordinary people a shot at true populism? Discover Magazine cites Wikipedia as an example of how the public can be harnessed. Jan 2004.

Pagina non trovata. --Andrea (discussione) 01:16, 21 feb 2009 (CET)

• Image Conscious Fast Company Magazine discusses a study of "collaboratively written or edited document"s, History Flow, headed by a member of IBM's research division, Martin Wattenberg. Written by Scott Kirsner, January 2004 issue (#78), page 38.

Niente di che, ma si parla di History flow, un tool per la visualizzazione colorata e stratificata della cronologia. --Andrea (discussione) 01:16, 21 feb 2009 (CET)

• The Wall Street Journal, January 12, 2004, The Journal Report, Technology; Business Solutions by Michael Totty. "There is even a wiki encyclopedia (wikipedia.org) where anyone can add or amend entries."

Non trovato. --Christian (discussione) 02:17, 21 feb 2009 (CET)

• Popular Science, February 2004 mentions wikipedia.org among a few sites on the web as "Where to turn on the net for scientific bolstering" on page 65 in the print version, and here in the online version.

Pagina non trovata. --Andrea (discussione) 01:16, 21 feb 2009 (CET)

• Today Linux, Tomorrow the World? Tech Central Station very briefly mentions Wikipedia saying, "Just as the open source movement can point to valuable software, it is also producing some interesting things in other areas, such as the popular encyclopedia Wikipedia...," in an article about open source titled Today Linux, Tomorrow the World?. January 22, 2004.

Pagina non trovata. --Andrea (discussione) 01:18, 21 feb 2009 (CET)

• Online reference to reach milestone from The Mercury News talks about Wikipedia and its impending 200,000 article milestone. January 25, 2004. Reprinted in Siliconvalley.com, Bradenton Herald, FL, Biloxi Sun Herald, MS, The Kansas City Star, MO, Miami Herald

Pagina non trovata. --Andrea (discussione) 01:18, 21 feb 2009 (CET)

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCE, 26 gennaio 2004

Microsoft Notebook: Wiki pioneer planted the seed and watched it grow from Seattle Post-Intelligencer's Todd Bishop is an article on Ward Cunningham, the creator of the wiki concept. Wikipedia is mentioned as the largest wiki on the web. The article also has quotes from Wikipedia's co-founder, Jimmy Wales. January 26, 2004.

{{#if:--Andrea (discussione) 01:26, 21 feb 2009 (CET)| {{#if:<ref>http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/158020_msftnotebook26.html Microsoft Notebook: Wiki pioneer planted the seed and watched it grow</ref>||class="hiddenStructure noprint"}}

(Testo originale)		(Traduzione)
	«The wiki concept has become "a study in what's now called social software -- anything where the real behavior is not possible if there's only one person using it," Cunningham said. With a wiki, "I write the seed of the idea and I come back in a week and see how the idea has grown."»		«--Andrea (discussione) 01:26, 21 feb 2009 (CET)»
{{#if:<ref>http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/158020_msftnotebook26.html Microsoft Notebook: Wiki pioneer planted the seed and watched it grow</ref>| (<ref>http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/158020_msftnotebook26.html Microsoft Notebook: Wiki pioneer planted the seed and watched it grow</ref>) }}				«The wiki concept has become "a study in what's now called social software -- anything where the real behavior is not possible if there's only one person using it," Cunningham said. With a wiki, "I write the seed of the idea and I come back in a week and see how the idea has grown."»
	{{#if:<ref>http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/158020_msftnotebook26.html Microsoft Notebook: Wiki pioneer planted the seed and watched it grow</ref>| (<ref>http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/158020_msftnotebook26.html Microsoft Notebook: Wiki pioneer planted the seed and watched it grow</ref>) }} }}

{{#if:--Andrea (discussione) 01:26, 21 feb 2009 (CET)| {{#if:<ref>http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/158020_msftnotebook26.html Microsoft Notebook: Wiki pioneer planted the seed and watched it grow</ref>||class="hiddenStructure noprint"}}

(Testo originale)		(Traduzione)
	«Wales acknowledged that the idea takes some getting used to. "It sounds insane, right? You have a Web site and anyone can edit it? Isn't that a disaster? But it works amazingly well." What happens, though, when people contribute something incorrect, or remove something the broader community considers valuable? The key is to have enough participation that someone, somewhere in the world, quickly sees what has happened and corrects it. Cunningham experienced that with the first wiki.»		«--Andrea (discussione) 01:26, 21 feb 2009 (CET)»
{{#if:<ref>http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/158020_msftnotebook26.html Microsoft Notebook: Wiki pioneer planted the seed and watched it grow</ref>| (<ref>http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/158020_msftnotebook26.html Microsoft Notebook: Wiki pioneer planted the seed and watched it grow</ref>) }}				«Wales acknowledged that the idea takes some getting used to. "It sounds insane, right? You have a Web site and anyone can edit it? Isn't that a disaster? But it works amazingly well." What happens, though, when people contribute something incorrect, or remove something the broader community considers valuable? The key is to have enough participation that someone, somewhere in the world, quickly sees what has happened and corrects it. Cunningham experienced that with the first wiki.»
	{{#if:<ref>http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/158020_msftnotebook26.html Microsoft Notebook: Wiki pioneer planted the seed and watched it grow</ref>| (<ref>http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/158020_msftnotebook26.html Microsoft Notebook: Wiki pioneer planted the seed and watched it grow</ref>) }} }}

Intervista a Cunningham, creatore dei wiki. Carino perchè parla finalmente di social software, e del fatto che l'idea del wiki è stupida, ma funziona. --Andrea (discussione) 01:26, 21 feb 2009 (CET)

• Dan Gillmor, "Wikipedia emerges as credible resource", San Jose Mercury News (Jan. 29, 2004). About 200,000 article mark: "Wikipedia (www.wikipedia.org), an encyclopedia created and operated by volunteers, is one of the most fascinating developments of the Digital Age. In just over three years of existence, it has become a valuable resource and an example of how the grass roots in today's interconnected world can do extraordinary things."

Trovato solo l'inizio, ma non sembra particolarmente rilevante. --Christian (discussione) 02:28, 21 feb 2009 (CET)

2004 February

• Information Outlook (Feb 2004). eBooks: rumors of our death are greatly exaggerated..

Non rilevante. --Andrea (discussione) 01:30, 21 feb 2009 (CET)

• Prospect, "The Microsoft Killers", pp. 54-58, Feburary 2004 edition; uses Wikipedia as an example of an open content project. "Open source software has come of age, and open source working methods are spreading beyond computers."

Non trovato. --Andrea (discussione) 01:30, 21 feb 2009 (CET)

Far Eastern Economic Review, February 19, 2004

Far Eastern Economic Review issue dated February 19, 2004: Wikipedia:It's Wicked (registration required). Enthusiastic reportage, notes the 200,000th English article and the Asian languages Wikipedia is available in. (Also posted to Usenet at [1]) A pdf of the article can be found at [2] which is the copy that was carried by the Wall Street Journal.

{{#if:<ref>Far Eastern Economic Review issue dated February 19, 2004: Wikipedia:It's Wicked</ref>| {{#if:--Christian (discussione) 23:11, 21 feb 2009 (CET)||class="hiddenStructure noprint"}}

(Testo originale)		(Traduzione)
	«The most obvious concern, with all this freedom, is abuse. What is there to stop people with bad intentions, or just bias, altering, defacing or deleting content? How can we be sure that what we're reading is accurate, if anyone can contribute? The answer: peer pressure. It's not that this kind of thing doesn't happen; it's just that it's fixed so quickly most people won't notice. That's because the software is set up so that, while anybody can change anything they want, other folk can see what has been changed and, if necessary, alter it or change it back. With about 200 regulars watching the site, and another 1,000 or so frequently monitoring, there are a lot of folk watching out for wreckers, zealots and the misinformed. »		«<ref>Far Eastern Economic Review issue dated February 19, 2004: Wikipedia:It's Wicked</ref>»
{{#if:--Christian (discussione) 23:11, 21 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 23:11, 21 feb 2009 (CET)) }}				«The most obvious concern, with all this freedom, is abuse. What is there to stop people with bad intentions, or just bias, altering, defacing or deleting content? How can we be sure that what we're reading is accurate, if anyone can contribute? The answer: peer pressure. It's not that this kind of thing doesn't happen; it's just that it's fixed so quickly most people won't notice. That's because the software is set up so that, while anybody can change anything they want, other folk can see what has been changed and, if necessary, alter it or change it back. With about 200 regulars watching the site, and another 1,000 or so frequently monitoring, there are a lot of folk watching out for wreckers, zealots and the misinformed. »
	{{#if:--Christian (discussione) 23:11, 21 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 23:11, 21 feb 2009 (CET)) }} }}

{{#if:<ref>Far Eastern Economic Review issue dated February 19, 2004: Wikipedia:It's Wicked</ref>| {{#if:--Christian (discussione) 23:11, 21 feb 2009 (CET)||class="hiddenStructure noprint"}}

(Testo originale)		(Traduzione)
	«Recent research by a team from IBM found that most vandalism suffered by Wikipedia had been repaired within five minutes.»		«<ref>Far Eastern Economic Review issue dated February 19, 2004: Wikipedia:It's Wicked</ref>»
{{#if:--Christian (discussione) 23:11, 21 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 23:11, 21 feb 2009 (CET)) }}				«Recent research by a team from IBM found that most vandalism suffered by Wikipedia had been repaired within five minutes.»
	{{#if:--Christian (discussione) 23:11, 21 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 23:11, 21 feb 2009 (CET)) }} }}

Carina la valutazione spannometrica sulle varie enciclopedie online, da risalto alla velocità di aggiornamento. Usa la parola peer pressure per descrivere il controllo (reciproco) degli utenti. --Andrea (discussione) 01:37, 21 feb 2009 (CET)

Condivido le stesse annotazioni di Andrea. --Christian (discussione) 23:12, 21 feb 2009 (CET)

• The Internet Column: WIKI REMARKS from Scotsman.com (Also printed in the (Liverpool) Daily Post) has an article on Wikis in general. Quote: "The best known [Wiki] is Wikipedia, an encyclopaedia written entirely using the wiki system. Anyone browsing through Wikipedia can edit any page; so if you know a lot about a specific subject, you can add your knowledge to that subject's page easily." February 16, 2004.

Non trovata. --Andrea (discussione) 01:49, 21 feb 2009 (CET)

• British comedian Bill Bailey being interviewed by The Times (UK). Quote: "8:00PM SURFING AND BLOGGING If I'm writing a show I spend a lot of time researching it on the net. I use Wikipedia (www.wikipedia.org) a lot. It's a brilliant online encyclopaedia, invaluable for historical stuff, and probably the most accurate of all those sites." [3] February 21, 2004.

Non trovata. --Andrea (discussione) 01:49, 21 feb 2009 (CET)

• The Guardian, from an article about changing the world. Quote: "EBay does something no other network has done: it treats the social network as the supply-chain and by building systems of communications and reputation management into the network, turns a group of individuals into an organised, structured and wildly economically viable marketplace. The same can be said at an emergent level about open-source knowledge projects such as the Wikipedia encyclopedia." [4] February 23, 2004.

Non trovata. --Andrea (discussione) 01:49, 21 feb 2009 (CET)

A me il link funziona, ma l'articolo comunque non è rilevante. --Christian (discussione) 02:31, 21 feb 2009 (CET)

• An English translation of the transcript of Wikipedia as a news item in Germany, includes a screenshot. February 25, 2004.

Non trovata. --Andrea (discussione) 01:49, 21 feb 2009 (CET)

Trovata! Link corretto, ma comunque non rilevante. --Christian (discussione) 22:58, 21 feb 2009 (CET)

Kuro5hin, 25 feb 2004

Kuro5hin is apparently the first news site to publish Wikipedia's 500,000 article press release. [5]

{{#if:<ref>Kuro5hin is apparently the first news site to publish Wikipedia's 500,000 article press release. [6]</ref>| {{#if:--Christian (discussione) 03:11, 21 feb 2009 (CET)||class="hiddenStructure noprint"}}

(Testo originale)		(Traduzione)
	«The English-language Wikipedia has also revamped the design of its front page and created a community portal to welcome new editors. »		«<ref>Kuro5hin is apparently the first news site to publish Wikipedia's 500,000 article press release. [7]</ref>»
{{#if:--Christian (discussione) 03:11, 21 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 03:11, 21 feb 2009 (CET)) }}				«The English-language Wikipedia has also revamped the design of its front page and created a community portal to welcome new editors. »
	{{#if:--Christian (discussione) 03:11, 21 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 03:11, 21 feb 2009 (CET)) }} }}

{{#if:<ref>Kuro5hin is apparently the first news site to publish Wikipedia's 500,000 article press release. [8]</ref>| {{#if:--Christian (discussione) 03:11, 21 feb 2009 (CET)||class="hiddenStructure noprint"}}

(Testo originale)		(Traduzione)
	«The project has recently been transferred from Bomis to the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation (wikimediafoundation.org). Bomis still provides free bandwidth and basic server maintenance to Wikimedia. »		«<ref>Kuro5hin is apparently the first news site to publish Wikipedia's 500,000 article press release. [9]</ref>»
{{#if:--Christian (discussione) 03:11, 21 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 03:11, 21 feb 2009 (CET)) }}				«The project has recently been transferred from Bomis to the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation (wikimediafoundation.org). Bomis still provides free bandwidth and basic server maintenance to Wikimedia. »
	{{#if:--Christian (discussione) 03:11, 21 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 03:11, 21 feb 2009 (CET)) }} }}

{{#if:<ref>Kuro5hin is apparently the first news site to publish Wikipedia's 500,000 article press release. [10]</ref>| {{#if:--Christian (discussione) 03:11, 21 feb 2009 (CET)||class="hiddenStructure noprint"}}

(Testo originale)		(Traduzione)
	«MediaWiki (mediawiki.org), the software that runs the various Wikimedia projects, is also available for free under the terms of the GNU General Public License, the same license used by the free GNU/Linux operating system. "The MediaWiki software is the best solution yet to the problem of easily creating and maintaining hypermedia," says Nicholas Pisarro, Jr. of Aperture Technologies, Inc. The company uses MediaWiki to run an internal wiki knowledge base. "In the six weeks since it has been made available internally, it has already become an indispensable part of our development department's operation." »		«<ref>Kuro5hin is apparently the first news site to publish Wikipedia's 500,000 article press release. [11]</ref>»
{{#if:--Christian (discussione) 03:11, 21 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 03:11, 21 feb 2009 (CET)) }}				«MediaWiki (mediawiki.org), the software that runs the various Wikimedia projects, is also available for free under the terms of the GNU General Public License, the same license used by the free GNU/Linux operating system. "The MediaWiki software is the best solution yet to the problem of easily creating and maintaining hypermedia," says Nicholas Pisarro, Jr. of Aperture Technologies, Inc. The company uses MediaWiki to run an internal wiki knowledge base. "In the six weeks since it has been made available internally, it has already become an indispensable part of our development department's operation." »
	{{#if:--Christian (discussione) 03:11, 21 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 03:11, 21 feb 2009 (CET)) }} }}

{{#if:<ref>Kuro5hin is apparently the first news site to publish Wikipedia's 500,000 article press release. [12]</ref>| {{#if:--Christian (discussione) 03:11, 21 feb 2009 (CET)||class="hiddenStructure noprint"}}

(Testo originale)		(Traduzione)
	«On June 20th 2003, the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation (wikimediafoundation.org) was created to manage and fund the operations of Wikipedia and its sister projects. These include: Wiktionary, a multilingual dictionary and thesaurus (wiktionary.org) Wikiquote, a compendium of famous quotations (wikiquote.org) Wikibooks, a collection of e-book resources, aimed at the needs of students (wikibooks.org) Wikisource, a repository of public domain historical documents and books (wikisource.org). Since its first fundraising appeal in December 2003, the Wikimedia Foundation has raised nearly US$40,000 to support these projects, half of which has already been invested in infrastructure. See wikimediafoundation.org/fundraising for more information. »		«<ref>Kuro5hin is apparently the first news site to publish Wikipedia's 500,000 article press release. [13]</ref>»
{{#if:--Christian (discussione) 03:11, 21 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 03:11, 21 feb 2009 (CET)) }}				«On June 20th 2003, the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation (wikimediafoundation.org) was created to manage and fund the operations of Wikipedia and its sister projects. These include: Wiktionary, a multilingual dictionary and thesaurus (wiktionary.org) Wikiquote, a compendium of famous quotations (wikiquote.org) Wikibooks, a collection of e-book resources, aimed at the needs of students (wikibooks.org) Wikisource, a repository of public domain historical documents and books (wikisource.org). Since its first fundraising appeal in December 2003, the Wikimedia Foundation has raised nearly US$40,000 to support these projects, half of which has already been invested in infrastructure. See wikimediafoundation.org/fundraising for more information. »
	{{#if:--Christian (discussione) 03:11, 21 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 03:11, 21 feb 2009 (CET)) }} }}

{{#if:Commento all'articolo<ref>Kuro5hin is apparently the first news site to publish Wikipedia's 500,000 article press release. [14]</ref>| {{#if:--Christian (discussione) 03:11, 21 feb 2009 (CET)||class="hiddenStructure noprint"}}

(Testo originale)		(Traduzione)
	«There are a few comments in this discussion stating that Wikipedia is unreliable or biased. This has also been a common theme for discussion in past articles about Wikipedia such as Wikipedia is wide open. Why is it growing so fast? Why isn't it full of nonsense? and Britannica or Nupedia? The Future of Free Encyclopedias. However, the thing that I notice that is different this time is not one of the posts stating that Wikipedia is unreliable has listed an example. I would like to propose the following challenges to those who say Wikipedia is unreliable or biased: Find either a significant bias (including non-existent articles) or false fact in wikipedia that has been there at least a week (Difficulty level 5) Find either a significant bias (missing mainstream point of view) or false fact in a wikipedia article that has been there at least a week and the article has had either of the following occur: 1) been linked by a widely read external site, or 2) had at least 10 authors in the history of the article. (There are over 10,000 articles with at least 10 authors, so you have plenty of articles to look through) (Difficulty level 8) Find a vandalism that has not been corrected after 10 minutes. (Difficultly level 3) Find a vandalism that has not been corrected within 24 hours. (Difficultly level 6) Find a vandalism that has not been corrected within 1 week and had at least 10 authors in it's history. (Difficultly level 9) Find a correct edit that included a Summary and was removed and not restored within a week. (Difficultly level 7) Find a correct edit that included a Summary and a statement in talk explaining the change that was deleted without useful summary or reply and not restored within a week. (Difficulty level 9) Here is your big chance. If you think Wikipedia is unreliable or biased or likes deleting facts, then prove it. Since Wikipedia tends to change over time, give the time and the date of the change for the article that you dislike. I will be quite impressed if you succeed in any thing with a difficulty rating of 8 or higher. If no-one succeeds in any of the challenges, then my private conclusion is that people who say Wikipedia is unreliable or biased do not know what they are talking about. Good luck. My experience with Wikipedia makes me think that all of these are possible to find, but that they are all rare, and the 8+ difficultly ones are very rare.»		«Commento all'articolo<ref>Kuro5hin is apparently the first news site to publish Wikipedia's 500,000 article press release. [15]</ref>»
{{#if:--Christian (discussione) 03:11, 21 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 03:11, 21 feb 2009 (CET)) }}				«There are a few comments in this discussion stating that Wikipedia is unreliable or biased. This has also been a common theme for discussion in past articles about Wikipedia such as Wikipedia is wide open. Why is it growing so fast? Why isn't it full of nonsense? and Britannica or Nupedia? The Future of Free Encyclopedias. However, the thing that I notice that is different this time is not one of the posts stating that Wikipedia is unreliable has listed an example. I would like to propose the following challenges to those who say Wikipedia is unreliable or biased: Find either a significant bias (including non-existent articles) or false fact in wikipedia that has been there at least a week (Difficulty level 5) Find either a significant bias (missing mainstream point of view) or false fact in a wikipedia article that has been there at least a week and the article has had either of the following occur: 1) been linked by a widely read external site, or 2) had at least 10 authors in the history of the article. (There are over 10,000 articles with at least 10 authors, so you have plenty of articles to look through) (Difficulty level 8) Find a vandalism that has not been corrected after 10 minutes. (Difficultly level 3) Find a vandalism that has not been corrected within 24 hours. (Difficultly level 6) Find a vandalism that has not been corrected within 1 week and had at least 10 authors in it's history. (Difficultly level 9) Find a correct edit that included a Summary and was removed and not restored within a week. (Difficultly level 7) Find a correct edit that included a Summary and a statement in talk explaining the change that was deleted without useful summary or reply and not restored within a week. (Difficulty level 9) Here is your big chance. If you think Wikipedia is unreliable or biased or likes deleting facts, then prove it. Since Wikipedia tends to change over time, give the time and the date of the change for the article that you dislike. I will be quite impressed if you succeed in any thing with a difficulty rating of 8 or higher. If no-one succeeds in any of the challenges, then my private conclusion is that people who say Wikipedia is unreliable or biased do not know what they are talking about. Good luck. My experience with Wikipedia makes me think that all of these are possible to find, but that they are all rare, and the 8+ difficultly ones are very rare.»
	{{#if:--Christian (discussione) 03:11, 21 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 03:11, 21 feb 2009 (CET)) }} }}

Press release realizzata con l'aiuto dei Wikipediani, è molta completa. Si citano sia la foundation che, udite udite, i progetti fratelli (rilasciati a giugno 2003, forse è la prima volta che se ne parla.). Tanti numeri e statistiche, per avere un'idea dello stato dellìarta a marzo 2004. --Andrea (discussione) 01:49, 21 feb 2009 (CET)

Molti gli spunti in effetti. Mi è sembrata curiosa anche la proposta di uno dei commentatori che ho messo per ultimo. --Christian (discussione) 03:11, 21 feb 2009 (CET)

• February 29 - computerworld.co.nz in an article about wikis (about how cool they are) ("Wicked (good) Wikis") mentions Wikipedia as "the largest, and perhaps most ambitious, Wiki in the world ? attempting to capture encyclopedia entries on everything". [16] Also printed in Darwin Magazine.

Da leggere ancora per estrapolare citazioni, scritta da un esperto di collaborazione online. descrive brevemente i principi di un wiki, paragonandolo con altri wiki. --Andrea (discussione) 01:53, 21 feb 2009 (CET)

Io non c'ho trovato molto di rilevante. --Christian (discussione) 23:26, 21 feb 2009 (CET)

2004 March

• New Yahoo! Search Planned To Go Deeper, an Associated Press report, based on this Yahoo Press Release [17] "... pay for placement, the company is working with groups like National Public Radio, the Library of Congress, the New York Public Library and Wikipedia to make ..."

Direi non rilevante. --Christian (discussione) 15:45, 22 feb 2009 (CET)

Poynter Online, Mar. 8, 2004

Wikipedia for Journalists, Trusting a free resource, Poynter Online, article by Sree Sreenivasan, and Andrew Lih, Mar. 8, 2004. 

{{#if:| {{#if:--Christian (discussione) 16:18, 22 feb 2009 (CET)||class="hiddenStructure noprint"}}

(Testo originale)		(Traduzione)
	«So far, the effort has created numerous reference-quality articles as wide ranging as the Hutton Inquiry, algorithms, social history of the piano, origins of the American Civil War, and severe acute respiratory syndrome. As its quality has improved, news publications have increasingly cited Wikipedia on subjects such as Wahhabism, crony capitalism, folk metal, British "honours" system, Abdul Qadeer Khan and extinct animals. It has even been used in litigation, when in July 2003, a Wikipedia article on profanity was cited in a motion to dismiss a case in a Colorado court.»		«{{{3}}}»
{{#if:--Christian (discussione) 16:18, 22 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 16:18, 22 feb 2009 (CET)) }}				«So far, the effort has created numerous reference-quality articles as wide ranging as the Hutton Inquiry, algorithms, social history of the piano, origins of the American Civil War, and severe acute respiratory syndrome. As its quality has improved, news publications have increasingly cited Wikipedia on subjects such as Wahhabism, crony capitalism, folk metal, British "honours" system, Abdul Qadeer Khan and extinct animals. It has even been used in litigation, when in July 2003, a Wikipedia article on profanity was cited in a motion to dismiss a case in a Colorado court.»
	{{#if:--Christian (discussione) 16:18, 22 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 16:18, 22 feb 2009 (CET)) }} }}

Niente di speciale, se non il titolo stessso e la citazione. --Christian (discussione) 16:18, 22 feb 2009 (CET)

• The contenders for Google's throne, BBC Dot.life, March 22, 2004, talking about Yahoo's search engine, "It has set up a program to index many of the databases held at places such as the US Library of Congress, US National Public Radio, the National Science Digital Library and the Wikipedia online encyclopaedia."

Non rilevante. --Christian (discussione) 16:25, 22 feb 2009 (CET)

RTHK Media Digest March 2004

Wikipedia and the rise of Participatory Journalism, RTHK Media Digest, March 2004, by Andrew Lih. Article about origins of Wikipedia and Chinese Wikipedia.

{{#if:<ref>Wikipedia and the rise of Participatory Journalism, RTHK Media Digest, March 2004, by Andrew Lih.</ref>| {{#if:--Christian (discussione) 22:44, 22 feb 2009 (CET)||class="hiddenStructure noprint"}}

(Testo originale)		(Traduzione)
	«Wikipedia has served not just as a readable reference work, but as a valuable teaching tool at the University of Hong Kong Journalism and Media Studies Centre, where it was used in undergraduate and graduate journalism classes to teach the skill of writing in a fair and balanced manner for an international audience. By collaborating online with others, students can interact with each other when writing, and receive advice and corrections from complete strangers around the world within minutes of making contributions. With students for which English is a second language, this provides a highly interactive experience for learning copy editing and grammar usage. »		«<ref>Wikipedia and the rise of Participatory Journalism, RTHK Media Digest, March 2004, by Andrew Lih.</ref>»
{{#if:--Christian (discussione) 22:44, 22 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 22:44, 22 feb 2009 (CET)) }}				«Wikipedia has served not just as a readable reference work, but as a valuable teaching tool at the University of Hong Kong Journalism and Media Studies Centre, where it was used in undergraduate and graduate journalism classes to teach the skill of writing in a fair and balanced manner for an international audience. By collaborating online with others, students can interact with each other when writing, and receive advice and corrections from complete strangers around the world within minutes of making contributions. With students for which English is a second language, this provides a highly interactive experience for learning copy editing and grammar usage. »
	{{#if:--Christian (discussione) 22:44, 22 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 22:44, 22 feb 2009 (CET)) }} }}

Non è particolarmente interessante, ma fornisce una fonte in più per l'esperimento di Hong Kong. --Christian (discussione) 22:44, 22 feb 2009 (CET)

• A turn up for the books, The Independent, pg. 11, Danny Bradbury, March 24, 2004, "Weighty volumes are on their way out. Even CD-Roms are old hat. So why has the biggest online encyclopedia decided to produce a paper version?" Story about Jimbo Wales and Wikipedia.

Non rilevante. --Christian (discussione) 23:21, 22 feb 2009 (CET)

• Open-source software offers alternative to off-the-shelf products, USA Today.com, Andrew Kantor, March 26, 2004. A story on source products mentions Wikipedia: "To see an incredible example of open-source intellectual collaboration, check out Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia with more than 230,000 articles contributed by anyone who wants to add to it. You might expect it to be a hodgepodge of garbage and rhetoric, but it's not. It's not. It's actually one of the best reference resources on the Web."

Niente di rilevante, sull'OS e cita Wikipedia dicendo che strnamente funziona. --Andrea (discussione) 23:39, 21 feb 2009 (CET)

• David Sidwell, "The Web As It Was Meant To Be", The Age (Mar. 18, 2004). "But the idea of web-based creation and updating never really went away. Indeed, it is very much alive in a concept known as a Wiki."

Non trovato. --Christian (discussione) 23:21, 22 feb 2009 (CET)

2004 April

• Beyond Google, PCWorld, April 2004, "Or try Wikipedia, a volunteer encyclopedia with a global flavor, for data on topics from math to mythology to the arts."

Non rilevante. --Christian (discussione) 23:56, 22 feb 2009 (CET)

• Q. What does the term "wiki" mean with regard to the Web?, J. Biersdorfer tech column, April 1, 2004, The New York Times "The Wikipedia (wikipedia.org) is an ambitious online encyclopedia in several languages that also invites participation."

Non rilevante. --Christian (discussione) 23:56, 22 feb 2009 (CET)

• Weave a wiki web, The Guardian, April 1, 2004. "Wiki sites that work include the impressive Wikipedia, a collaborative encyclopaedia covering every topic imaginable. It puts the wiki concept to practical use, drawing on the combined knowledge and experience of all its contributors to create something informative and authoritative." Reprinted in The Hindu (India), April 2, 2004.

Non rilevante. --Christian (discussione) 23:56, 22 feb 2009 (CET)

• Tomorrow's work forecast, USA TODAY, April 12, 2004. "Loose hierarchies. The free online encyclopedia Wikipedia (www.wikipedia.org ) is mostly a volunteer operation, but it employs a few guidelines, such as writing articles from a neutral point of view..."

L'articolo presenta il libro "The Future of Work" di Thomas W. Malone, Harvard Business School Press, 225 pages, che probabilmente parla di Wikipedia. Comunque non mi sembra rilevante, anche se il libro potrebbe essere interessante. --Christian (discussione) 23:56, 22 feb 2009 (CET)

• The power of search, The Age, April 13, 2004. "By far the best of the free services is Wikipedia, constructed by volunteers. It works on the premise that everyone is an expert in at least one topic and can write an encyclopedic entry that is vetted and corrected by others with enough knowledge to make it authoritative. This peer-to-peer nature has seen Wikipedia grow to one of the biggest resources. However, its open nature means that some controversial materials should be double-checked against other sources for accuracy and objectivity. Wikipedia is available in 73 languages including Catalan, Vietnamese and Greek."

Non rilevante. --Christian (discussione) 23:56, 22 feb 2009 (CET)

• 2004 100 Top Websites You Didn't Know You Couldn't Live Without, PC Magazine, April 20, 2004. Under Information category: "Wikipedia is a collaborative, community-built, open-content encyclopedia; anyone can edit any page, augment an existing entry, or add a new one. Sure, there's a lot of questionable and incomplete content, but you'll also find many fascinating, detailed, well-written articles. Go ahead and make your contribution to the sum of human knowledge."

Non rilevante. --Christian (discussione) 23:56, 22 feb 2009 (CET)

• bomb of Wikipedia's [18] article:
  • Anti-Semitic site bumped off Google's top spot (Jerusalem Post, Internet, April 15, 2004) "Utilizing a cyber-petition and some clever HTML programming, a diverse group of Jewish activists, academics and even a US senator managed to replace the top spot with Wikipedia's encyclopedia, which two weeks ago held no rank."

Trovato e link corretto. --Christian (discussione) 00:19, 23 feb 2009 (CET)

• • Googlebombing Of Jew Keyword Continues, WebProNews, April 15, 2004, " Daniel Sieradski, editor of Jew School, a Web site dedicated to Jewish fringe culture, has spearheaded a Googlebomb designed to knock JewWatch.com out of the first place. Yesterday, the top listing for the keyword was Wikipedia.org, a reference page devoted to the definition of the word "Jew"." It was reported later in the article that JewWatch.com was back to the number one spot.
  • Googling for a better tomorrow, Jerusalem Post, Internet, April 22, 2004, "The Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew ) is a lot more user-friendly, and discusses Judaism from an objective, factual point of view – just the thing for our friends in Wyoming and China."

Trovato e link corretto. --Christian (discussione) 00:19, 23 feb 2009 (CET)

• • Google: Watch Out for 'Watch', Steven Levy, Newsweek, April 26, 2004, "Soon people may see a different top choice for "Jew": a hate-free entry in the participatory reference work called Wikipedia."

Trovato e link corretto. --Christian (discussione) 00:19, 23 feb 2009 (CET)

• • Who can define 'Jew?' Internet flap shows challenge of the digital age, Jewish Telegraphic Agency, April 27, 2004, "The Jewschool-led offensive pointed to the online encyclopedia Wikipedia. Within weeks, Wikipedia’s definition of the word 'Jew' became the first result for that search term."

Trovato e link corretto. --Christian (discussione) 00:19, 23 feb 2009 (CET)

L'argomento del Google Bombing e il caso stesso mi sembrano interessanti, ma mi sembra che non siano particolarmente rilevanti per la storia di Wikipedia. --Christian (discussione) 00:19, 23 feb 2009 (CET)

• Targeted ads are the route to online profits, Journalism.co.uk, April 22, 2004. "Wikipedia, an online encyclopaedia project, invites readers to add or amend information on the site. The site is an interesting example of a project with participatory journalism at its core, said speaker Andrew Lih, assistant professor at Hong Kong University."

Non rilevante. --Christian (discussione) 00:57, 23 feb 2009 (CET)

• Yahoo Search Shortcuts, WebProNews, April, 22 2004). "Now, Yahoo does offer a built-in encyclopedia search. If you type in 'caterpillar facts' then your top result links to an encyclopedia entry. Now, does this beat wikipedia's caterpillar entry? No, but it does beat Google's encyclopedia entry."

Non rilevante. --Christian (discussione) 00:57, 23 feb 2009 (CET)

• Brisbane council Web site nominated for Web Oscar, ZDNet, April 23, 2004). "Receiving multiple [Webby Awards] nominations include iTunes Music Store, Meetup.com, Google, Noggin, Wikipedia and Live 365."

Non rilevante. (Poi lo vince!) --Christian (discussione) 00:57, 23 feb 2009 (CET)

• A question of trust online, BBC News, April 23, 2004. "And there is the wikipedia, a community-written encyclopedia that has evolved over the years from a largely technical bunch of articles into one of the most reliably useful sources of information around, on or off-line."

Non rilevante. --Christian (discussione) 00:57, 23 feb 2009 (CET)

Salon.com, April 27, 2004

Everyone is an Editor, Salon.com, April 27, 2004. "Launched in January 2001 with barely a dozen articles, Wikipedia crossed the 500,000 articles mark in February, with posters contributing content in more than 30 languages and, by last measure, at a rate of 300,000 articles per year."

{{#if:<ref>Everyone is an Editor, Salon.com, April 27, 2004.</ref>| {{#if:--Christian (discussione) 00:57, 23 feb 2009 (CET)||class="hiddenStructure noprint"}}

(Testo originale)		(Traduzione)
	«Like most frontier sheriffs, Wikipedia Arbitration Committee member Martin Harper wears his badge with a mixture of pride and caution. [...] Today, Harper is one of a select few working to impose a civilized order on what has become one of the Internet's fastest growing boomtowns. [...] Needless to say, so much activity generates plenty of controversy and plenty of work for Harper and the nine other members of the Arbitration Committee. Whether that means throwing cold water on recurring editorial battles over Israel and Iraq or deciding whether a ban on offensive user names such as "Mr. Throbbing Monster Cock," the disputes can vary from the mundane to the humorous to the truly informative all within the space of a single day. [...] "The hardest problems are always at the lowest level," he says. "People being rude, people refusing to compromise. We have a guy whose skill is copy editing. However, unlike most copy editors, he's quite stubborn and adamant about what's proper for articles. He won't budge and people have been complaining. After far too much discussion amongst the community, it was referred to us the second time. We're trying to ease it. We can't get rid of it." [...] As one of those admins, Harper describes Wikipedia's vandalism policy as fairly easy to enforce. Most vandals get a two-strikes allowance. On the third offense, administrators block the offending poster's I.P. address, preventing them from accessing the site. Though some find a new way back in, taunting the admins as they do so, most casual vandals get bored and find other places to ply their hatred.»		«<ref>Everyone is an Editor, Salon.com, April 27, 2004.</ref>»
{{#if:--Christian (discussione) 00:57, 23 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 00:57, 23 feb 2009 (CET)) }}				«Like most frontier sheriffs, Wikipedia Arbitration Committee member Martin Harper wears his badge with a mixture of pride and caution. [...] Today, Harper is one of a select few working to impose a civilized order on what has become one of the Internet's fastest growing boomtowns. [...] Needless to say, so much activity generates plenty of controversy and plenty of work for Harper and the nine other members of the Arbitration Committee. Whether that means throwing cold water on recurring editorial battles over Israel and Iraq or deciding whether a ban on offensive user names such as "Mr. Throbbing Monster Cock," the disputes can vary from the mundane to the humorous to the truly informative all within the space of a single day. [...] "The hardest problems are always at the lowest level," he says. "People being rude, people refusing to compromise. We have a guy whose skill is copy editing. However, unlike most copy editors, he's quite stubborn and adamant about what's proper for articles. He won't budge and people have been complaining. After far too much discussion amongst the community, it was referred to us the second time. We're trying to ease it. We can't get rid of it." [...] As one of those admins, Harper describes Wikipedia's vandalism policy as fairly easy to enforce. Most vandals get a two-strikes allowance. On the third offense, administrators block the offending poster's I.P. address, preventing them from accessing the site. Though some find a new way back in, taunting the admins as they do so, most casual vandals get bored and find other places to ply their hatred.»
	{{#if:--Christian (discussione) 00:57, 23 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 00:57, 23 feb 2009 (CET)) }} }}

{{#if:<ref>Everyone is an Editor, Salon.com, April 27, 2004.</ref>| {{#if:--Christian (discussione) 00:57, 23 feb 2009 (CET)||class="hiddenStructure noprint"}}

(Testo originale)		(Traduzione)
	«Wales, who inaugurated this "three strikes" policy during the days when his role as Wikipedia's co-creator put him in the self-described role of "god king," sees it as a cornerstone of the site's overall "soft security" policy. The policy is, in many ways, a Darwinian response to the pressures that undermine most open Internet communities. Instead of courting controversy, Wikipedia's culture has evolved an almost religious aversion to it. "We talk about 'wiki love,'" says Wales. "We say, hey, if you think this is Usenet and you're supposed to flame people you're really out of line. We really don't approve of that as a community." A key tenet of "wiki love" is a devotion to NPOV, Wikipedian for "neutral point of view." Articles don't have to be perfect, but they should be free of bias. As an example, Wales cites the 2000 U.S. presidential election. "Two people who disagree vehemently about whether or not it was a fair outcome can at least agree with the description that there was a controversy." All wikis run the risk of vandalism. Not all wikis have been bold enough to adapt a neutral content policy. Such distinctions, notes Sunir Shah, a University of Toronto computer scientist who contributes to both Wikipedia and his own wiki project, MeatballWiki, make Wikipedia something of a rogue variant in the wiki world. "They're not interested in having discussions and learning in a dialectic kind of way," argues Shah. "Their goal is to build an encyclopedia, and that changes everything. They don't want to have opinions and they want everything to look appropriate, which means they have to spend a lot of extra time going after vandalism and trolling." Offering MeatballWiki as a counterexample, Shah says most traditional wikis evolve along the lines of a dialectic or Talmudic discussion. Readers respond to but rarely overwrite previous' authors comments, leaving room for future readers to follow the conversational evolution. In such a scenario, opinion is more than valued: It's practically necessary to keep the conversation moving. "At MeatballWiki we are kind of happy dealing with the social problems," Shah says. "We have this saying that Meatball will be around in 50 years, so why worry. We can come to a better answer over time." Harper, who also contributes to MeatballWiki, shares the rogue variant view. Because of its encyclopedic ambitions, Wikipedia has had to adopt new levels of management and security -- log-in names, I.P. address blocks, arbitration and deletion committees -- that most wikis never have to worry about. "If anything I would say the wiki is more suited to those smaller-scale projects, he says. "As wikis get larger you run into the problem of troublesome users. You can't manage it like the small group where you say, 'We're not going to invite you down to the pub anymore.'" Wales, on the other hand, sees that level of familiarity operating at the editorial level, where most people who groom the site and have taken on voluntary management tasks have been around long enough to know the major players. Like other scalable open development projects, Linux most notably, Wikipedia has succeeded in passing on its internal cultural values to newcomers encouraged by the project's overall ambitions. To further fuel that ambition and underwrite costs, Wales says he is already talking with some of the larger search engine players about licensing specific portions of the Wikipedia knowledge base and is talking with a publisher about putting out an official 1.0 version. A few kinks have to be worked out between now and then, of course. With no formal Q-and-A mechanism, Wikipedia would have to ship its 1.0 version free of guarantees. Readers hoping to catch up on the history of World War I might stumble onto a porn star biography or vice versa. Supposing project leaders did take the time to download and vet Wikipedia content, releasing it on a static format such as CD-ROM, a new question emerges: Is a static version of Wikipedia still Wikipedia? In the Schrodinger's cat paradox of wiki publishing -- where the only way to verify an article's quality is to keep checking it -- never knowing what you're going to find is half the fun. Despite such complicating factors, Wales is optimistic. A fundraising campaign on the project's third anniversary drew $50,000, more than double the $20,000 target, and Wales says he is currently saving the reserve funds for servers and other future project needs. »		«<ref>Everyone is an Editor, Salon.com, April 27, 2004.</ref>»
{{#if:--Christian (discussione) 00:57, 23 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 00:57, 23 feb 2009 (CET)) }}				«Wales, who inaugurated this "three strikes" policy during the days when his role as Wikipedia's co-creator put him in the self-described role of "god king," sees it as a cornerstone of the site's overall "soft security" policy. The policy is, in many ways, a Darwinian response to the pressures that undermine most open Internet communities. Instead of courting controversy, Wikipedia's culture has evolved an almost religious aversion to it. "We talk about 'wiki love,'" says Wales. "We say, hey, if you think this is Usenet and you're supposed to flame people you're really out of line. We really don't approve of that as a community." A key tenet of "wiki love" is a devotion to NPOV, Wikipedian for "neutral point of view." Articles don't have to be perfect, but they should be free of bias. As an example, Wales cites the 2000 U.S. presidential election. "Two people who disagree vehemently about whether or not it was a fair outcome can at least agree with the description that there was a controversy." All wikis run the risk of vandalism. Not all wikis have been bold enough to adapt a neutral content policy. Such distinctions, notes Sunir Shah, a University of Toronto computer scientist who contributes to both Wikipedia and his own wiki project, MeatballWiki, make Wikipedia something of a rogue variant in the wiki world. "They're not interested in having discussions and learning in a dialectic kind of way," argues Shah. "Their goal is to build an encyclopedia, and that changes everything. They don't want to have opinions and they want everything to look appropriate, which means they have to spend a lot of extra time going after vandalism and trolling." Offering MeatballWiki as a counterexample, Shah says most traditional wikis evolve along the lines of a dialectic or Talmudic discussion. Readers respond to but rarely overwrite previous' authors comments, leaving room for future readers to follow the conversational evolution. In such a scenario, opinion is more than valued: It's practically necessary to keep the conversation moving. "At MeatballWiki we are kind of happy dealing with the social problems," Shah says. "We have this saying that Meatball will be around in 50 years, so why worry. We can come to a better answer over time." Harper, who also contributes to MeatballWiki, shares the rogue variant view. Because of its encyclopedic ambitions, Wikipedia has had to adopt new levels of management and security -- log-in names, I.P. address blocks, arbitration and deletion committees -- that most wikis never have to worry about. "If anything I would say the wiki is more suited to those smaller-scale projects, he says. "As wikis get larger you run into the problem of troublesome users. You can't manage it like the small group where you say, 'We're not going to invite you down to the pub anymore.'" Wales, on the other hand, sees that level of familiarity operating at the editorial level, where most people who groom the site and have taken on voluntary management tasks have been around long enough to know the major players. Like other scalable open development projects, Linux most notably, Wikipedia has succeeded in passing on its internal cultural values to newcomers encouraged by the project's overall ambitions. To further fuel that ambition and underwrite costs, Wales says he is already talking with some of the larger search engine players about licensing specific portions of the Wikipedia knowledge base and is talking with a publisher about putting out an official 1.0 version. A few kinks have to be worked out between now and then, of course. With no formal Q-and-A mechanism, Wikipedia would have to ship its 1.0 version free of guarantees. Readers hoping to catch up on the history of World War I might stumble onto a porn star biography or vice versa. Supposing project leaders did take the time to download and vet Wikipedia content, releasing it on a static format such as CD-ROM, a new question emerges: Is a static version of Wikipedia still Wikipedia? In the Schrodinger's cat paradox of wiki publishing -- where the only way to verify an article's quality is to keep checking it -- never knowing what you're going to find is half the fun. Despite such complicating factors, Wales is optimistic. A fundraising campaign on the project's third anniversary drew $50,000, more than double the $20,000 target, and Wales says he is currently saving the reserve funds for servers and other future project needs. »
	{{#if:--Christian (discussione) 00:57, 23 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 00:57, 23 feb 2009 (CET)) }} }}

Ho forse esagerato con le citazioni, ma l'articolo mi sembra interessante e pieno di spunti. --Christian (discussione) 00:57, 23 feb 2009 (CET)

2004 May

Newsweek, May 3, 2004

Grass-roots guide to everything, Newsweek and Newsweek Society, May 3, 2004. 

{{#if:<ref>Grass-roots guide to everything, Newsweek and Newsweek Society, May 3, 2004. </ref>| {{#if:--Christian (discussione) 01:29, 23 feb 2009 (CET)||class="hiddenStructure noprint"}}

(Testo originale)		(Traduzione)
	«"Here's an encyclopedia that evokes a variation on the famous Groucho line: would you get your information from a reference work that accepts you as an author?"»		«<ref>Grass-roots guide to everything, Newsweek and Newsweek Society, May 3, 2004. </ref>»
{{#if:--Christian (discussione) 01:29, 23 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 01:29, 23 feb 2009 (CET)) }}				«"Here's an encyclopedia that evokes a variation on the famous Groucho line: would you get your information from a reference work that accepts you as an author?"»
	{{#if:--Christian (discussione) 01:29, 23 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 01:29, 23 feb 2009 (CET)) }} }}

Ho letto l'articolo attraverso un account temporaneo, ma non è interessante, se non per la geniale battuta iniziale! --Christian (discussione) 01:29, 23 feb 2009 (CET)

• Build an Encyclopedia: Everybody is Invited, YaleGlobal Online, May 5, 2004. "Wikipedia - the largest example of these collaborative efforts - is a functioning, user-contributed online encyclopedia that has become a popular and highly regarded reference in just three years of existence."
  • Anyone may contribute to E-encyclopedia, Jakarta Post (Indonesia), May 8, 2004. Syndicated version of above Yale Global article.
  • Wikipedia builds 'free market of knowledge' , The Standard (Hong Kong), May 10, 2004. Syndicated version of above Yale Global article.

Non rilevante (e uguale a uno di aprile). --Christian (discussione) 01:29, 23 feb 2009 (CET)

• Participatory Journalism: The Essence of Wikipedia, International Symposium on Online Journalism (from the University of Texas), May, 2004. "Wiki wiki -- Hawaiian for "quick" -- is at the root of Wikipedia, a encyclopedia website where any page can be edited by users with the simple click of an "edit this page" button." There is also a PDF of a paper from that Symposium by Andrew Lih, of Hong Kong University: [19]

Non trovato. --Christian (discussione) 01:29, 23 feb 2009 (CET)

Webby award, 12 maggio 2004

Wikipedia has won a Webby award in the "Community" category. Related coverage links: Slashdot, BBC, Macworld UK, Investors.com 

Semplicemente quanto detto nel titolo! --Christian (discussione) 01:29, 23 feb 2009 (CET)

• FrankenArt: The mix and mash future, The Globe and Mail, May 15, 2004. "Wikipedia is a so-called "open content" on-line encyclopedia where visitors can contribute content to the articles, albeit at the discretion of editors."

Articolo molto bello, ma non credo rilevante per la storia di Wikipedia. --Christian (discussione) 01:57, 23 feb 2009 (CET)

• The Australian technology magazine Australian Personal Computer have listed Wikipedia.com [sic] as their chosen site of the month in their Workship section (page 119, June 2004 edition - released in May)

Forse non sufficientemente rilevante (se no non ne usciamo vivi!). --Christian (discussione) 01:57, 23 feb 2009 (CET)

IDG News Service, May 17, 2004

Chinese Internet users work to make knowledge free, IDG News Service, May 17, 2004. "Chinese Wikipedia (http://zh.wikipedia.org) is a Chinese-language offshoot of Wikipedia, an online English-language encyclopedia that is also available in a host of other languages."

{{#if:| {{#if:--Christian (discussione) 02:05, 23 feb 2009 (CET)||class="hiddenStructure noprint"}}

(Testo originale)		(Traduzione)
	«An informal group of Chinese volunteers is working to build an online encyclopedia called Chinese Wikipedia to create a free source of information for Chinese Internet users. [...] "The instantaneous editability surely is an attractive quality that will impact the future of Chinese cyberspace culture," said Menchi, a regular contributor to Chinese Wikipedia who requested his real name not be used for this story, in an e-mail interview. Menchi, who was born in Taiwan, said the majority of the 100 regular contributors to Chinese Wikipedia are from Mainland China. As a result, most of the more than 9,000 entries contained in Chinese Wikipedia are written using the simplified Chinese characters used in China, rather than the traditional characters used in Taiwan, he said. "One would assume and hope the impact (of Chinese Wikipedia) would be positive, 'liberating' the Mainlanders from the restrictive Communist censorship," Menchi said. "But reality often has a funny way of backfiring on us. It is very possible at the first sign of trouble the Communist government will put the Great Firewall up and permanently cut Mainlander Wikipedians off." So far, that hasn't been a problem. "Many Westerners are shocked to learn that Chinese Wikipedia has never been 'firewalled' by the Communist government, but many Mainlander Wikipedians actually think it’s not surprising. They consider their government to be reasonable, so long as one does nothing insane to offend the government," Menchi said, noting that some contributors from Mainland China have suggested toning down entries on politically sensitive topics, such as Tibetan independence. One reason why Chinese Wikipedia has not been blocked by Chinese censors may be the site's insistence that all entries reflect a neutral point of view, a policy that defines all Wikipedia versions in other languages. The neutral point of view is intended to avoid editing wars between contributors competing to impose their interpretation of various subjects on other readers. "The site is not blocked en masse at the site level because its not obviously pro or against anything because of the neutral point of view policy," said Andrew Lih, an associate professor and director of technology at the University of Hong Kong's Journalism and Media Studies Center. Another reason Chinese Wikipedia has not been blocked by Chinese censors may be its low profile and relatively small group of regular contributors. As the site gets more attention and attracts more contributors, Chinese censors may decide to block access to the site, giving an indication of how much exposure censors are willing to tolerate for a site like this, Lih said. "As the profile gets higher and higher it's going to be interesting to measure what threshold these folks have for it," he said. For now, the site remains accessible in China and makes available information on a range of sensitive topics, including an entry on the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. The entry, which includes the famous picture of an anonymous Chinese demonstrator facing off against a column of tanks, describes in detail events leading up to June 4, 1989, when Chinese soldiers used force to clear Tiananmen Square in central Beijing. It notes that the Chinese government reported more than 200 people were killed in that incident, including more than 30 students. But it goes on to note that foreign media reports estimated that more than 1,000 people were killed. However, the entry also pushes the boundaries of objectivity, noting that some people believe the majority of the students who died on June 4, 1989, were hunger strikers who died of starvation -- a theory that was not widely reported by the official Chinese media or foreign press. By comparison, the same entry on the English-version of Wikipedia notes that estimates for the number of people killed range as high as 2,600. The English entry makes no specific mention of official Chinese government estimates or the theory that those who died were hunger strikers who succumbed to starvation. "The fact there is even the picture of the guy standing in front of the tanks in that article (on Chinese Wikipedia) is huge but there's other parts of it where you scratch your head and say, 'Well, I wouldn't put it that way,'" Lih said, noting that the openness of Wikipedia could serve to undermine the quality of information that is contained on the site. "In the long run, as more Chinese get on to it, the Chinese Wikipedia could actually get worse in quality because you have people contributing to it that are not as enlightened or informed about this stuff as people who know the whole story," Lih said. "On the other hand, it could open up a real debate. ...This could be a real eye-opener for the folks in China," he said.»		«{{{3}}}»
{{#if:--Christian (discussione) 02:05, 23 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 02:05, 23 feb 2009 (CET)) }}				«An informal group of Chinese volunteers is working to build an online encyclopedia called Chinese Wikipedia to create a free source of information for Chinese Internet users. [...] "The instantaneous editability surely is an attractive quality that will impact the future of Chinese cyberspace culture," said Menchi, a regular contributor to Chinese Wikipedia who requested his real name not be used for this story, in an e-mail interview. Menchi, who was born in Taiwan, said the majority of the 100 regular contributors to Chinese Wikipedia are from Mainland China. As a result, most of the more than 9,000 entries contained in Chinese Wikipedia are written using the simplified Chinese characters used in China, rather than the traditional characters used in Taiwan, he said. "One would assume and hope the impact (of Chinese Wikipedia) would be positive, 'liberating' the Mainlanders from the restrictive Communist censorship," Menchi said. "But reality often has a funny way of backfiring on us. It is very possible at the first sign of trouble the Communist government will put the Great Firewall up and permanently cut Mainlander Wikipedians off." So far, that hasn't been a problem. "Many Westerners are shocked to learn that Chinese Wikipedia has never been 'firewalled' by the Communist government, but many Mainlander Wikipedians actually think it’s not surprising. They consider their government to be reasonable, so long as one does nothing insane to offend the government," Menchi said, noting that some contributors from Mainland China have suggested toning down entries on politically sensitive topics, such as Tibetan independence. One reason why Chinese Wikipedia has not been blocked by Chinese censors may be the site's insistence that all entries reflect a neutral point of view, a policy that defines all Wikipedia versions in other languages. The neutral point of view is intended to avoid editing wars between contributors competing to impose their interpretation of various subjects on other readers. "The site is not blocked en masse at the site level because its not obviously pro or against anything because of the neutral point of view policy," said Andrew Lih, an associate professor and director of technology at the University of Hong Kong's Journalism and Media Studies Center. Another reason Chinese Wikipedia has not been blocked by Chinese censors may be its low profile and relatively small group of regular contributors. As the site gets more attention and attracts more contributors, Chinese censors may decide to block access to the site, giving an indication of how much exposure censors are willing to tolerate for a site like this, Lih said. "As the profile gets higher and higher it's going to be interesting to measure what threshold these folks have for it," he said. For now, the site remains accessible in China and makes available information on a range of sensitive topics, including an entry on the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. The entry, which includes the famous picture of an anonymous Chinese demonstrator facing off against a column of tanks, describes in detail events leading up to June 4, 1989, when Chinese soldiers used force to clear Tiananmen Square in central Beijing. It notes that the Chinese government reported more than 200 people were killed in that incident, including more than 30 students. But it goes on to note that foreign media reports estimated that more than 1,000 people were killed. However, the entry also pushes the boundaries of objectivity, noting that some people believe the majority of the students who died on June 4, 1989, were hunger strikers who died of starvation -- a theory that was not widely reported by the official Chinese media or foreign press. By comparison, the same entry on the English-version of Wikipedia notes that estimates for the number of people killed range as high as 2,600. The English entry makes no specific mention of official Chinese government estimates or the theory that those who died were hunger strikers who succumbed to starvation. "The fact there is even the picture of the guy standing in front of the tanks in that article (on Chinese Wikipedia) is huge but there's other parts of it where you scratch your head and say, 'Well, I wouldn't put it that way,'" Lih said, noting that the openness of Wikipedia could serve to undermine the quality of information that is contained on the site. "In the long run, as more Chinese get on to it, the Chinese Wikipedia could actually get worse in quality because you have people contributing to it that are not as enlightened or informed about this stuff as people who know the whole story," Lih said. "On the other hand, it could open up a real debate. ...This could be a real eye-opener for the folks in China," he said.»
	{{#if:--Christian (discussione) 02:05, 23 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 02:05, 23 feb 2009 (CET)) }} }}

Molto interessante la questione cinese. --Christian (discussione) 02:05, 23 feb 2009 (CET)

• 'Janitors' help keep Wikipedia reliableby Christopher Yasiejko, The News Journal, May 18, 2004. "If the concept is idealistic, then it also is a bit mad: a bottomless, evolving database of human knowledge, with articles mundane and profound, which anyone with an Internet connection has access to create and edit. That's the notion behind Wikipedia (www.wikipedia.org)..."

Ho corretto il link. Io non ci trovo niente di speciale. --Christian (discussione) 01:57, 23 feb 2009 (CET)

• "Hit the web as you hit the books: A roundup of reference sites for swamped students" (St. John's Telegram (Newfoundland), May 21, 2004 - article not online) recommends "www.wikipedia.com" (sic): "Wikipedia -- which I hope to write about in detail in an upcoming column -- is an open-ended encyclopedia that is constantly being revised and amended by readers, but which is addictive for surfers."

Non trovato. --Christian (discussione) 01:57, 23 feb 2009 (CET)

• Out-Googling The Top Search Engine: Online encyclopedias yield more specialized results. BusinessWeek Online, May 31, 2004. "WIKIPEDIA IS ONE of the more remarkable projects on the Web. The online encyclopedia (www.wikipedia.com) is the work of 6,000-odd volunteers covering a huge range of subjects, even though it does better on science and technology than on arts and culture." Even though it incorrectly states, "If you find an error, you are welcome to suggest a correction. And if you find a topic that isn't covered, you are welcome to create a new article. (An editorial group decides which corrections and contributions merit posting.)"

Non rilevante. --Christian (discussione) 01:57, 23 feb 2009 (CET)

• Daily Kos, one of the largest political blogs, cites us favorably, saying:

"Ahh, this is a cool day in dKos history -- a team of Kosmopolitans has put together the dKosopedia -- a Daily Kos wiki.

I can almost hear you all thinking, "what the heck is a wiki?" It's a collaborative website that will allow this community to build a political encyclopedia (from a liberal standpoint, of course). In short, anyone will be able to contribute encyclopedia entries on a variety of political subjects.

The best example of a wiki is the Wikipedia, which is an open source, collaborative encyclopedia with over 274,000 entries, all of them community submitted.

We hope the dKosopedia will become the progressive-political version of the Wikipedia."

Non rilevante. --Christian (discussione) 01:57, 23 feb 2009 (CET)

2004 June

• David Williamson, The Western Mail WalesOnline.co.uk, June 1, 2004. Wikipedia is "the web's most stunning and exciting site."

Non rilevante. --Christian (discussione) 17:43, 23 feb 2009 (CET)

• Veni, Vidi ...Wiki? Forbes.com, June 3, 2004. "Wikipedia, a Web encyclopedia run by a nonprofit, boasts 274,000 articles written by 'experts' in its English edition."

Non rilevante. --Christian (discussione) 17:55, 23 feb 2009 (CET)

• Wikis' Winning Ways. BusinessWeek Online, June 7, 2004. "With etiquette out of the way, there's no better place to start a wiki tour than the big kahuna of wikis: Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia with 280,000 articles in English and more than 380,000 more in 49 other languages."

Non rilevante. --Christian (discussione) 02:20, 24 feb 2009 (CET)

• Something Wiki This Way Comes. BusinessWeek Online, June 7, 2004. "On the site, a free online encyclopedia called Wikipedia, thousands of volunteers had written a breathtaking 500,000 articles in 50 languages since 2001 -- all thanks to the defining feature of wikis."

Non rilevante. --Christian (discussione) 02:20, 24 feb 2009 (CET)

• Wiki Back Link Spam Tactic. Webpronews.com, June 2004. "Of course wikis emerged not as an SEO tool but as a means of collaborating on content. The Wikipedia is one example of how this can work. For their entry on 'wiki' you simply click edit and see a page similar to a forum posting page where you can alter the text."

Bah... non troppo rilevante. --Christian (discussione) 02:20, 24 feb 2009 (CET)

• Need To Do Research? Go Further Than Google Investors.com, June 7, 2004. "One increasingly popular online tool is wikipedia.org, a collaborative encyclopedia that lets any user edit an entry."

Non trovato. --Christian (discussione) 02:20, 24 feb 2009 (CET)

• Open source -- Beyond capitalism? Economist, June 10, 2004 (Subscription only). "The surprisingly good open-source encyclopedia (see Wikipedia.org) is another example [of open source]. Like software, it is modular, which allows different people to work on different bits."

Link corretto, ma non rilevante. --Christian (discussione) 02:20, 24 feb 2009 (CET)

Virginian-Pilot (Norfolk, VA), June 11, 2004

Reporter's nose for news discovers foul play, Virginian-Pilot (Norfolk, VA), June 11, 2004 (story not online). Wikipedia is the victim of a cruel hoax: "The online encyclopedia "Wikipedia" created a version of Chesapeake's history that was literally a bunch of bull."  The edit in question was put in on May 2 and not removed until June 3.   

L'articolo completo non l'ho letto tutto, ma si trova qui (bisogna iscriversi). Forse è divertente il caso. --Christian (discussione) 02:20, 24 feb 2009 (CET)

the Inquirer, June 13, 2004

WordIQ's use of Wikipedia content crosses licence line the Inquirer, June 13, 2004. "Take for instance a search for the 'Iran-Contra affair', a subject the mass media appears to have forgotten in recent times. The results page from Wikipedia.org for such a search is here, and the one from wordIQ.com is here. Notice any similarities?" UPDATE: [20]

{{#if:| {{#if:--Christian (discussione) 02:20, 24 feb 2009 (CET)||class="hiddenStructure noprint"}}

(Testo originale)		(Traduzione)
	«Perhaps a bit funnier is the disclaimer you read at the bottom of the wordIQ.com results page. WordIQ says the page "uses material from the Wikipedia article "Iran-Contra Affair". We think that "using material from..." is a bit different from "is a verbatim copy of...", while we reckon that "a verbatim copy of" actually is "using all material from...". Word games aside, verbatim copies would fall within the Wikipedia licence. This gets more interesting when you read point number five of WordIQ.com's Terms and Conditions document, reads "The content available through the Site is the sole property of wordIQ or its licensors (sic) and is protected by copyright, trademark and other intellectual property laws". It goes even further, as point six of the same document reads: "In the case wordIQ uses content from another source, that source will be listed on each page with a URL linking back to the source. Except as provided herein, no portion of the materials on these pages may be reprinted or republished in any form without the express written permission of the firm." It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realise that this appears to contradict the "GNU Free Documentation License" (FDL) from the Free Software Foundation, used by the Wikipedia project. While the FDL allows for verbatim copies to be made (for profit or not), the folks at wordIQ have crossed the line when they claim that they have the authority to issue "reprint permissions" of such material.»		«{{{3}}}»
{{#if:--Christian (discussione) 02:20, 24 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 02:20, 24 feb 2009 (CET)) }}				«Perhaps a bit funnier is the disclaimer you read at the bottom of the wordIQ.com results page. WordIQ says the page "uses material from the Wikipedia article "Iran-Contra Affair". We think that "using material from..." is a bit different from "is a verbatim copy of...", while we reckon that "a verbatim copy of" actually is "using all material from...". Word games aside, verbatim copies would fall within the Wikipedia licence. This gets more interesting when you read point number five of WordIQ.com's Terms and Conditions document, reads "The content available through the Site is the sole property of wordIQ or its licensors (sic) and is protected by copyright, trademark and other intellectual property laws". It goes even further, as point six of the same document reads: "In the case wordIQ uses content from another source, that source will be listed on each page with a URL linking back to the source. Except as provided herein, no portion of the materials on these pages may be reprinted or republished in any form without the express written permission of the firm." It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realise that this appears to contradict the "GNU Free Documentation License" (FDL) from the Free Software Foundation, used by the Wikipedia project. While the FDL allows for verbatim copies to be made (for profit or not), the folks at wordIQ have crossed the line when they claim that they have the authority to issue "reprint permissions" of such material.»
	{{#if:--Christian (discussione) 02:20, 24 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 02:20, 24 feb 2009 (CET)) }} }}

Interessante per riprendere il discorso su cosa sia possibile fare (e cosa no) con i testi e altro di Wikipedia. --Christian (discussione) 02:20, 24 feb 2009 (CET)

Wikipedia blocked in China

• Wikipedia Inaccessible In China ChinaTechNews.com, June 14, 2004.

{{#if:<ref>Wikipedia Inaccessible In China ChinaTechNews.com, June 14, 2004.</ref>| {{#if:--Christian (discussione) 02:38, 24 feb 2009 (CET)||class="hiddenStructure noprint"}}

(Testo originale)		(Traduzione)
	«According to several Internet reports both the Chinese and English-language versions of Wikipedia have now been blocked and are inaccessible from the Chinese mainland.»		«<ref>Wikipedia Inaccessible In China ChinaTechNews.com, June 14, 2004.</ref>»
{{#if:--Christian (discussione) 02:38, 24 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 02:38, 24 feb 2009 (CET)) }}				«According to several Internet reports both the Chinese and English-language versions of Wikipedia have now been blocked and are inaccessible from the Chinese mainland.»
	{{#if:--Christian (discussione) 02:38, 24 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 02:38, 24 feb 2009 (CET)) }} }}

Link corretto. --Christian (discussione) 02:38, 24 feb 2009 (CET)

• Chinese censors block access to Wikipedia ITworld.com, June 14, 2004. "Chinese censors have blocked access to an online encyclopedia called Chinese Wikipedia that was created as a free and open source of information for Chinese Internet users, according to several contributors to the site."

{{#if:<ref>Wikipedia Inaccessible In China ChinaTechNews.com, June 14, 2004</ref>| {{#if:--Christian (discussione) 02:38, 24 feb 2009 (CET)||class="hiddenStructure noprint"}}

(Testo originale)		(Traduzione)
	«That date is politically significant in China, coming one day before the 15th anniversary of the June 4, 1989, Tiananmen Square crackdown, when the Chinese government used force to clear demonstrators from Tiananmen Square in central Beijing. Chinese officials typically crack down on dissidents and heighten censorship efforts each year in the run up to the anniversary. Another contributor to Wikipedia was not surprised that the Chinese government moved to block access to the site ahead of the June 4th anniversary, noting that the entry regarding the June 4th crackdown had received a greater amount of attention from contributors in advance of the anniversary. "When the June anniversary was coming, I found out that more and more people got involved in editing the article about the Tiananmen event, I was quite worried at that time," the Chinese contributor said in an online interview. He too requested that his name not be used in this story. "I had been worrying that this may happen someday, since Chinese Wikipedia contains a lot of sensitive articles which are still taboo in China," the Chinese contributor said. Another factor that likely contributed to the Chinese decision to block access to Wikipedia was an IDG News Service story published on May 16 about Chinese Wikipedia that included a description of the site's entry on the June 4th crackdown, Menchi said. "It's quite obvious (the) article had a role in bring us to the attention of the PRC (People's Republic of China) officials and resulted in the block," he said, noting that regardless of the article contributors expected that Chinese censors would eventually decide to block access to Chinese Wikipedia. [See "Chinese Internet users work to make knowledge free," May 17.] "We knew this day would come. So, we have been mentally prepared for this," Menchi said. Looking ahead, there are signs that Chinese efforts to block access to Chinese Wikipedia could extend beyond the June 4th anniversary. On Sunday, efforts to block Chinese Wikipedia were expanded to all other versions of the online encyclopedia, Menchi said.»		«<ref>Wikipedia Inaccessible In China ChinaTechNews.com, June 14, 2004</ref>»
{{#if:--Christian (discussione) 02:38, 24 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 02:38, 24 feb 2009 (CET)) }}				«That date is politically significant in China, coming one day before the 15th anniversary of the June 4, 1989, Tiananmen Square crackdown, when the Chinese government used force to clear demonstrators from Tiananmen Square in central Beijing. Chinese officials typically crack down on dissidents and heighten censorship efforts each year in the run up to the anniversary. Another contributor to Wikipedia was not surprised that the Chinese government moved to block access to the site ahead of the June 4th anniversary, noting that the entry regarding the June 4th crackdown had received a greater amount of attention from contributors in advance of the anniversary. "When the June anniversary was coming, I found out that more and more people got involved in editing the article about the Tiananmen event, I was quite worried at that time," the Chinese contributor said in an online interview. He too requested that his name not be used in this story. "I had been worrying that this may happen someday, since Chinese Wikipedia contains a lot of sensitive articles which are still taboo in China," the Chinese contributor said. Another factor that likely contributed to the Chinese decision to block access to Wikipedia was an IDG News Service story published on May 16 about Chinese Wikipedia that included a description of the site's entry on the June 4th crackdown, Menchi said. "It's quite obvious (the) article had a role in bring us to the attention of the PRC (People's Republic of China) officials and resulted in the block," he said, noting that regardless of the article contributors expected that Chinese censors would eventually decide to block access to Chinese Wikipedia. [See "Chinese Internet users work to make knowledge free," May 17.] "We knew this day would come. So, we have been mentally prepared for this," Menchi said. Looking ahead, there are signs that Chinese efforts to block access to Chinese Wikipedia could extend beyond the June 4th anniversary. On Sunday, efforts to block Chinese Wikipedia were expanded to all other versions of the online encyclopedia, Menchi said.»
	{{#if:--Christian (discussione) 02:38, 24 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 02:38, 24 feb 2009 (CET)) }} }}

• China blocks Wikipedia arstechnica.com, June 14, 2004. "Ten days ago the Chinese government blocked Internet access to the Chinese version of the Wikipedia, a community-built encyclopedia that polices itself with a policy of political neutrality."

{{#if:<ref>China blocks Wikipedia arstechnica.com, June 14, 2004</ref>| {{#if:--Christian (discussione) 02:38, 24 feb 2009 (CET)||class="hiddenStructure noprint"}}

(Testo originale)		(Traduzione)
	«As U.S. Ambassador Richard Williamson prepares to introduce a resolution at the U.N. Human Rights Commission to censure the Chinese Communist Party's (CCP) government for increasing 'repression of its people using the Internet, democratic dialogue, religious expression,' the regime continues to block discourse.On Friday, China began blocking access to Typepad, a paid weblog hosting service in San Mateo, California. The communist regime previously blocked access to BlogSpot, Blogger's free hosting site. Yan Sham-Shackleton filed a report on the Glutter weblog, mentioning China is '...now using blocking software to stop information from leaking into the county via personal sites, an increasingly vibrant China Internet community, and a place where users are slipping in banned information. Some sites in the blogging community are turning black in protest of this event while others are reporting the incident.'"»		«<ref>China blocks Wikipedia arstechnica.com, June 14, 2004</ref>»
{{#if:--Christian (discussione) 02:38, 24 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 02:38, 24 feb 2009 (CET)) }}				«As U.S. Ambassador Richard Williamson prepares to introduce a resolution at the U.N. Human Rights Commission to censure the Chinese Communist Party's (CCP) government for increasing 'repression of its people using the Internet, democratic dialogue, religious expression,' the regime continues to block discourse.On Friday, China began blocking access to Typepad, a paid weblog hosting service in San Mateo, California. The communist regime previously blocked access to BlogSpot, Blogger's free hosting site. Yan Sham-Shackleton filed a report on the Glutter weblog, mentioning China is '...now using blocking software to stop information from leaking into the county via personal sites, an increasingly vibrant China Internet community, and a place where users are slipping in banned information. Some sites in the blogging community are turning black in protest of this event while others are reporting the incident.'"»
	{{#if:--Christian (discussione) 02:38, 24 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 02:38, 24 feb 2009 (CET)) }} }}

Non son sicuro che la fonte sia la stessa di qui. --Christian (discussione) 02:38, 24 feb 2009 (CET)

• China Blocks Wikipedia Slashdot.org, June 14, 2004. "China government is, again, restraining the access to internet. Ars Technica says they are now blocking the Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. How much time will it take for to Slashdot be blocked?"

Niente di particolare. --Christian (discussione) 02:38, 24 feb 2009 (CET)

Il caso è chiaramente interessante. --Christian (discussione) 02:38, 24 feb 2009 (CET)

Golden Nicas award 2004

• Wikipedia has won a Golden Nicas award 2004 in the "Digital Communities" category.

Si commenta da sé. --Christian (discussione) 02:45, 24 feb 2009 (CET)

Time Asia/Europe, June 14, 2004

Everyone's an expert Time Asia, June 14, 2004. "Called Wikipedia.org (wiki means 'superfast' in Hawaiian and is also the name of the collaborative software upon which the site is built), the encyclopedia features more than 700,000 hypertexted articles on everything from 'Anthrax (band)' to 'Zeppelin.'"

• Everyone's an Expert Time Europe, June 20, 2004. Same as the above article for Time Asia, but with a different picture.

Niente di ché, ma è il Time. --Christian (discussione) 02:45, 24 feb 2009 (CET)

• "COOL WEB SITE OF THE WEEK" - Albuquerque Journal (New Mexico), June 17, 2004: "Sometimes when you read an online encyclopedia, you know the information is wrong. With that in mind, Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger started Wikipedia in 2001. Three years later, more than 6,000 contributors have written about 600,000 articles."

Non trovato. --Christian (discussione) 02:51, 24 feb 2009 (CET)

• The jury is still out on open source The Guardian, June 27, 2004, p. 11 (available online with subscriber access, link is to a reprint by The Taipei Times). Mentions Wikipedia as an example of volunteer efforts in contrast with open source business models.

Non rilevante. --Christian (discussione) 02:51, 24 feb 2009 (CET)

• Even mentioned in a small, central Wisconsin newspaper. Digital or print? Marshfield News Herald, June 28, 2004: "And a mass assembly of expert Uncle Joe's can actually forge an informative, albeit imperfect bond, such as found on wikipedia.com, a free encyclopedia that allows anyone to contribute."

Non trovato. --Christian (discussione) 02:51, 24 feb 2009 (CET)

2004 July

• Wikipedia Hits 300,000 Articles slashdot.org, July 7, 2004. "The English Wikipedia has 90.1 million words across 300,000 articles, compared to Britannica's 55 million words across 85,000 articles."

Non rilevante. --Christian (discussione) 03:12, 24 feb 2009 (CET)

• One great source -- if you can trust it Boston Globe, July 12, 2004 (Boston.com). "The world's biggest encyclopedia resides on the Internet, and anyone can use it for free. It's called Wikipedia."

Non rilevante. --Christian (discussione) 03:12, 24 feb 2009 (CET)

• Microsoft Notebook: Encyclopedia editor finds his 'Holy Grail' with Encarta seattlepi.com, July 12, 2004. "The Web itself is another source of competition. With free online information sources becoming more pervasive and comprehensive, Encarta could face an increasingly tougher task in appealing to consumers. One competitor is Wikipedia, a free online encyclopedia with articles and information compiled by volunteer contributors."

Non rilevante. --Christian (discussione) 03:12, 24 feb 2009 (CET)

• 'Open-Content' Web Encyclopedia Encourages User Interactivity Voice of America, July 15, 2004. "Encyclopedias have been around in one form or another for thousands of years. But in recent years competitors have emerged to challenge the traditional printed encyclopedia. First there were versions on compact disks and now they're online. While there may be lots of encyclopedias on the Internet, perhaps one of the most unusual is Wikipedia."

Non rilevante. --Christian (discussione) 03:12, 24 feb 2009 (CET)

• How the South African revolution destroyed its children The Sunday Times Culture magazine (London), July 18, 2004. Footer: "Read on..." websites: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid Good entry on interactive encyclopedia.

Non trovato ma probabilmente non rilevante. --Christian (discussione) 03:12, 24 feb 2009 (CET)

• Web encyclopedia lets readers cut through to basics Chicago Sun-Times, July 20, 2004. "Fortunately, the same community (i.e., humans) that ruined the Web is revolutionizing the encyclopedia, with the development of a free, community-based, ever-evolving reference work called the Wikipedia (www.wikipedia.org)." Specifically mentions the Lee Harvey Oswald article and how the writer contributed to it.

Non l'ho letto tutto, ma probabilmente non rilevante. --Christian (discussione) 03:12, 24 feb 2009 (CET)

The Times (London), July 20, 2004

Technobabble The Times (London), July 20, 2004. 

{{#if:<ref>Technobabble The Times (London), July 20, 2004.</ref>| {{#if:--Christian (discussione) 03:12, 24 feb 2009 (CET)||class="hiddenStructure noprint"}}

(Testo originale)		(Traduzione)
	«"If you still have any old Britannicas clogging your bookshelves, it is time finally to haul them off to Oxfam. Wikipedia, the world's fastest-growing English-language encyclopedia, has just published its 300,000th lucid entry, eclipsing Britannica by a factor of three. It is a scholarly, thorough work of reference that costs nothing to consult apart from an internet connection. Best of all, entries are endlessly updated to keep them relevant, errors are gladly corrected within minutes, and - unlike its stuffier predecessors - it respects the specialist knowledge of you, its user."»		«<ref>Technobabble The Times (London), July 20, 2004.</ref>»
{{#if:--Christian (discussione) 03:12, 24 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 03:12, 24 feb 2009 (CET)) }}				«"If you still have any old Britannicas clogging your bookshelves, it is time finally to haul them off to Oxfam. Wikipedia, the world's fastest-growing English-language encyclopedia, has just published its 300,000th lucid entry, eclipsing Britannica by a factor of three. It is a scholarly, thorough work of reference that costs nothing to consult apart from an internet connection. Best of all, entries are endlessly updated to keep them relevant, errors are gladly corrected within minutes, and - unlike its stuffier predecessors - it respects the specialist knowledge of you, its user."»
	{{#if:--Christian (discussione) 03:12, 24 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 03:12, 24 feb 2009 (CET)) }} }}

Continua il confronto con la Britannica, su una testata grossa. --Christian (discussione) 03:12, 24 feb 2009 (CET)

Slate.com, July 22, 2004

Art Mobs: Can an online crowd create a poem, a novel, or a painting? Slate.com, July 22, 2004. "Mobs have been getting unusually good press these days. . . Now there's evidence they may even be creative. A few weeks ago, Wikipedia—an "open content" encyclopedia where anybody can write or edit an entry—produced its 300,000th article. At 90.1 million words, Wikipedia is larger than any other English-language encyclopedia, including the latest edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, which has only 85,000 articles and 55 million words." 

{{#if:<ref>Art Mobs: Can an online crowd create a poem, a novel, or a painting? Slate.com, July 22, 2004.</ref>| {{#if:--Christian (discussione) 03:12, 24 feb 2009 (CET)||class="hiddenStructure noprint"}}

(Testo originale)		(Traduzione)
	«The Wikipedia people have been discovering this themselves, after launching a project to have people collaboratively write textbooks: Wikibooks. When I spoke to Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia's founder, he noted that while some textbooks are evolving nicely, most aren't experiencing the wild success of the Wikipedia. A textbook requires a consistent sense of style and a linear structure, hallmarks of a single authorial presence. An encyclopedia doesn't.»		«<ref>Art Mobs: Can an online crowd create a poem, a novel, or a painting? Slate.com, July 22, 2004.</ref>»
{{#if:--Christian (discussione) 03:12, 24 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 03:12, 24 feb 2009 (CET)) }}				«The Wikipedia people have been discovering this themselves, after launching a project to have people collaboratively write textbooks: Wikibooks. When I spoke to Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia's founder, he noted that while some textbooks are evolving nicely, most aren't experiencing the wild success of the Wikipedia. A textbook requires a consistent sense of style and a linear structure, hallmarks of a single authorial presence. An encyclopedia doesn't.»
	{{#if:--Christian (discussione) 03:12, 24 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 03:12, 24 feb 2009 (CET)) }} }}

Articolo interessante, aldilà di Wikipedia. --Christian (discussione) 03:12, 24 feb 2009 (CET)

• Wiki watch. Pi day. Revolution rock. Houston Chronicle, July 22, 2004. "Protest is in the air today, but why not ease into it? Life's too short, and so am I. Besides, I just, very belatedly, encountered the concept of wiki. As opposed to tiki, there are no palms or torches associated with wiki. Wiki involves open, free-form, anarchistic editing of Web sites etc. And here I've used online Wikipedia dozens of times without thinking about what the name might mean. Here's an insanely wonderful story about creation by "mobs." "

Non rilevante. --Christian (discussione) 03:55, 24 feb 2009 (CET)

Asia Times Online, July 22, 2004.

A blogger's tale: The Stainless Steel Mouse Asia Times Online, July 22, 2004. 

{{#if:<ref>A blogger's tale: The Stainless Steel Mouse Asia Times Online, July 22, 2004. </ref>| {{#if:--Christian (discussione) 03:55, 24 feb 2009 (CET)||class="hiddenStructure noprint"}}

(Testo originale)		(Traduzione)
	«Although the Chinese site reinforces its neutral point of view, and operates on a small scale, wikipedia.org was inaccessible for about 48 hours in mid-June. During the ban, Wikipedia's founder, James Wales commented on the event to Chinatechnews: " When Wikipedia is blocked, it can not be claimed that only lies or propaganda are blocked, because we are neither. When we are blocked, it is information itself that is being blocked." »		«<ref>A blogger's tale: The Stainless Steel Mouse Asia Times Online, July 22, 2004. </ref>»
{{#if:--Christian (discussione) 03:55, 24 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 03:55, 24 feb 2009 (CET)) }}				«Although the Chinese site reinforces its neutral point of view, and operates on a small scale, wikipedia.org was inaccessible for about 48 hours in mid-June. During the ban, Wikipedia's founder, James Wales commented on the event to Chinatechnews: " When Wikipedia is blocked, it can not be claimed that only lies or propaganda are blocked, because we are neither. When we are blocked, it is information itself that is being blocked." »
	{{#if:--Christian (discussione) 03:55, 24 feb 2009 (CET)| (--Christian (discussione) 03:55, 24 feb 2009 (CET)) }} }}

Aggiornamento sulla durata del blocco di WP in Cina (solo 48 ore?) --Christian (discussione) 03:55, 24 feb 2009 (CET)

Boston Globe, July 23, 2004

Surfing the Net with kids Boston Globe, July 23, 2004 (not online). Recommends Wikipedia's Ronald Reagan article, citing it as a good educational resource: "I like this detailed, illustrated Reagan biography from Wikipedia because the hyperlinks to other Wikipedia articles make it easy to learn more about Reaganomics, the Cold War, the Strategic Defense Initiative (dubbed "Star Wars" by opponents), and other related topics. Wikipedia is an open-content project with encyclopedia articles contributed and edited by anyone who wants to. As part of this group editorial process, at least one reader disputed the neutrality of this Reagan biography. What do you think? Does this Wikipedia article show an obvious bias?" 

L'articolo non l'ho trovato, ma mi ha colpito la motivazione del link a Wikipedia. --Christian (discussione) 03:55, 24 feb 2009 (CET)

• Wiki-fiddlers defend Clever Big Book The Register, July 23, 2004. "Wiki-fiddlers* may be accused of many things, but having a robust sense of humor is not one of them. In the week that colleague Ashlee Vance pointed out a few failings in the archive that isn't an archive, we took a pop at the encyclopedia that isn't an encyclopedia. Our jibe that the Wikipedia is the world's most useless encyclopedia drew precisely two angry responses. But both illustrate the condition perfectly." -- features two angry letters from Wikipedians.

Link all'articolo originale: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/07/14/buckminster_fuller_stamp/

Mi sembra una polemica abbastanza sterile, ma sono riuscito a trovare una lista di siti critici di Wikipedia. Vedremo. --Christian (discussione) 03:55, 24 feb 2009 (CET)

• Web of words challenges traditional encyclopedias Financial Times, July 28, 2004. "If you thought open source was only about software, think again. The English-language version of Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia produced by a worldwide community of volunteers, has reached 300,000 articles - three times as many as the Encyclopedia Britannica."

Non trovato. --Christian (discussione) 03:55, 24 feb 2009 (CET)

Slashdot interview with Jimbo], July 28, 2004

Slashdot interview with Jimbo, July 28, 2004.

Sicuramente rilevante. Va riletto bene. --Christian (discussione) 03:55, 24 feb 2009 (CET)

• Wiki May Alter How Employees Work Together The Wall Street Journal, July 29, 2004, p. B1. "The prospects of moving wikis into the office are good, especially since they are already working well in nonwork situations such as the well-known Wikipedia. This free online encyclopedia, compiled since early 2001 by volunteer writers, now has hundreds of thousands of entries, making it bigger than any other encyclopedia." WSJ, p. B2, Column 6.

Link corretto, ma non rilevante. --Christian (discussione) 03:55, 24 feb 2009 (CET)

• July 28, 2004 Small article about the existence of the Thai wikipedia in the database section of the Bangkok post

2004 August

*Learning the AB-PCs San Diego Union-Tribune, August 3, 2004. In article about student computer use, educational technology professor says of his 16-year-old, "If he wants to know something, he just goes to Dictionary.com or Wikipedia.org."

Non lo trovo. --Andrea (discussione) 13:34, 24 feb 2009 (CET)

• How to gain power at work in the future: Give it away The Globe and Mail, August 4, 2004. Review of Thomas Malone's book The Future of Work. "The Wikipedia on-line encyclopedia allows anybody to contribute to it, with no centralized quality control. 'Its success so far shows that amazingly loose hierarchies can create impressively large and complex results,' Prof. Malone says."

{{#if:--Andrea (discussione) 13:34, 24 feb 2009 (CET)| {{#if:<ref>How to gain power at work in the future: Give it away</ref>||class="hiddenStructure noprint"}}

(Testo originale)		(Traduzione)
	«But in The Future of Work, MIT Sloan School of Management professor Thomas Malone says that, just as we have seen a trend toward democracy in societies around the world, we will see a transition to more decentralized organizations, in which individuals participate in making the decisions that matter to them. That will increase creativity and motivation, as we feel more in control of our working lives. To be successful in that new world, we will need a new set of mental models to operate by, beyond command and control, notably the concept of co-ordinating and cultivating. Co-ordinating and cultivating, he stresses, are not the opposite of commanding and controlling. They complement each other and overlap at points. Together, they cover all the possibilities on the continuum from completely centralized to completely decentralized operations.»		«--Andrea (discussione) 13:34, 24 feb 2009 (CET)»
{{#if:<ref>How to gain power at work in the future: Give it away</ref>| (<ref>How to gain power at work in the future: Give it away</ref>) }}				«But in The Future of Work, MIT Sloan School of Management professor Thomas Malone says that, just as we have seen a trend toward democracy in societies around the world, we will see a transition to more decentralized organizations, in which individuals participate in making the decisions that matter to them. That will increase creativity and motivation, as we feel more in control of our working lives. To be successful in that new world, we will need a new set of mental models to operate by, beyond command and control, notably the concept of co-ordinating and cultivating. Co-ordinating and cultivating, he stresses, are not the opposite of commanding and controlling. They complement each other and overlap at points. Together, they cover all the possibilities on the continuum from completely centralized to completely decentralized operations.»
	{{#if:<ref>How to gain power at work in the future: Give it away</ref>| (<ref>How to gain power at work in the future: Give it away</ref>) }} }}

{{#if:--Andrea (discussione) 13:34, 24 feb 2009 (CET)| {{#if:<ref>How to gain power at work in the future: Give it away</ref>||class="hiddenStructure noprint"}}

(Testo originale)		(Traduzione)
	«Loosening the hierarchy: When Google Inc. starts a major project, it doesn't create a huge new organization with lots of management layers, it sets up a few autonomous engineering teams and sets them loose. The Wikipedia on-line encyclopedia allows anybody to contribute to it, with no centralized quality control. "Its success so far shows that amazingly loose hierarchies can create impressively large and complex results," Prof. Malone says. Harnessing democracy: At Whole Foods Market, job candidates face a 30-day trial after which every employee in that department votes on whether to hire the individual. At W.L. Gore & Associates, makers of Gore-Tex waterproof fabric, to become a manager you must go out and find other employees who will work for you. Introducing democratic features to organizations will give people a greater say in decisions that influence them and a greater sense of autonomy. Markets: eBay Inc. estimates that between 130,000 and 150,000 people make their living on the on-line auction site; if they were company employees, that would make eBay a large employer with a decentralized form of operation. Similarly, outsourcing and internal markets can be used in an Internet era to change decision-making patterns in large organizations and decentralize power.»		«--Andrea (discussione) 13:34, 24 feb 2009 (CET)»
{{#if:<ref>How to gain power at work in the future: Give it away</ref>| (<ref>How to gain power at work in the future: Give it away</ref>) }}				«Loosening the hierarchy: When Google Inc. starts a major project, it doesn't create a huge new organization with lots of management layers, it sets up a few autonomous engineering teams and sets them loose. The Wikipedia on-line encyclopedia allows anybody to contribute to it, with no centralized quality control. "Its success so far shows that amazingly loose hierarchies can create impressively large and complex results," Prof. Malone says. Harnessing democracy: At Whole Foods Market, job candidates face a 30-day trial after which every employee in that department votes on whether to hire the individual. At W.L. Gore & Associates, makers of Gore-Tex waterproof fabric, to become a manager you must go out and find other employees who will work for you. Introducing democratic features to organizations will give people a greater say in decisions that influence them and a greater sense of autonomy. Markets: eBay Inc. estimates that between 130,000 and 150,000 people make their living on the on-line auction site; if they were company employees, that would make eBay a large employer with a decentralized form of operation. Similarly, outsourcing and internal markets can be used in an Internet era to change decision-making patterns in large organizations and decentralize power.»
	{{#if:<ref>How to gain power at work in the future: Give it away</ref>| (<ref>How to gain power at work in the future: Give it away</ref>) }} }}

Non ho letto gli articoli precedenti, ma mi sembra che qui si passi ad apprezzare il modello wiki/open source (non è molto chiara la differenza) e ad applicarlo al management. Stesse idee provlamae nel famoso Wikinomics, uscito anche in Italia nel 2007 (ma è del 2006 o giù di lì). --Andrea (discussione) 13:41, 24 feb 2009 (CET)

• The world's largest encyclopedia August 6, 2004. Wikipedia was discussed on Chip Talk, a one-minute Dave Ross radio feature about technology which is aired several times during the day on news stations across the United States. The URL was given on air and posted on the Chip Talk website.

Non lo trovo. --Andrea (discussione) 14:19, 24 feb 2009 (CET)

• The thinker's new best friend ; As the internet overtakes the encyclopedia, the editor of a new dictionary asks if this is the end for the multi-volume reference book London Evening Standard, August 9, 2004 (not online). Jonathon Green, author of the Cassell Dictionary of Slang, reviews Wikipedia's content: "I checked out "slang" and was impressed. A solid overview, with references to cant (underworld slang), rhyming slang, Polari (camp and theatrical), and even French butcher's slang Louchebem (of which I was ignorant). All these topics are covered, some with a specimen vocabulary-and every article offers links within Wikipedia and elsewhere on the net."

• Doc corrects record on Apple vs. Microsoft Syracuse Post-Standard, August 10, 2004. "A good source for unbiased information on the case is the Wikipedia encyclopedia at http://en.wikipedia.org. Use the Wikipedia search form and look for Apple vs. Microsoft."

Non lo trovo. --Andrea (discussione) 14:19, 24 feb 2009 (CET)

• Howard Rheingold's Latest Connection BusinessWeek Online, August 11 2004. Q&A with Howard Rheingold, author of Smart Mobs: The Next Social Revolution. "There's also Wikipedia [the online encyclopedia written by volunteers]. It has 500,000 articles in 50 languages at virtually no cost, vs. Encyclopedia Britannica spending millions of dollars and they have 50,000 articles." At the end of the session, he says, "Here's where Wikipedia fits in. It used to be if you were a kid in a village in India or a village in northern Canada in the winter, maybe you could get to a place where they have a few books once in a while. Now, if you have a telephone, you can get a free encyclopedia. You have access to the world's knowledge. Knowing how to use that is a barrier. The divide increasingly is not so much between those who have and those who don't, but those who know how to use what they have and those who don't."
  • Wikipedia is mentioned again in a summary of the interview on Slashdot.

{{#if:--Andrea (discussione) 13:34, 24 feb 2009 (CET)| {{#if:<ref>Howard Rheingold's Latest Connection</ref>||class="hiddenStructure noprint"}}

(Testo originale)		(Traduzione)
	«Google is based on the emergent choices of people who link. Nobody is really thinking, "I'm now contributing to Google's page rank." What they're thinking is, "This link is something my readers would really be interested in." They're making an individual judgment that, in the aggregate, turns out to be a pretty good indicator of what's the best source. Then there's open source [software]. Steve Weber, a political economist at UC Berkeley, sees open source as an economic means of production that turns the free-rider problem to its advantage. All the people who use the resource but don't contribute to it just build up a larger user base. And if a very tiny percentage of them do anything at all -- like report a bug -- then those free riders suddenly become an asset. And maybe this isn't just in software production. There's [the idea of] "open spectrum," coined by [Yale law professor] Yochai Benkler. The dogma is that the two major means of organizing for economic production are the market and the firm. But Benkler uses open source as an example of peer-to-peer production, which he thinks may be pointing toward a third means of organizing for production. Then you look at Amazon (AMZN ) and its recommendation system, getting users to provide free reviews, users sharing choices with their friends, users who make lists of products. They get a lot of free advice that turns out to be very useful in the aggregate. There's also Wikipedia [the online encyclopedia written by volunteers]. It has 500,000 articles in 50 languages at virtually no cost, vs. Encyclopedia Britannica spending millions of dollars and they have 50,000 articles.»		«--Andrea (discussione) 13:34, 24 feb 2009 (CET)»
{{#if:<ref>Howard Rheingold's Latest Connection</ref>| (<ref>Howard Rheingold's Latest Connection</ref>) }}				«Google is based on the emergent choices of people who link. Nobody is really thinking, "I'm now contributing to Google's page rank." What they're thinking is, "This link is something my readers would really be interested in." They're making an individual judgment that, in the aggregate, turns out to be a pretty good indicator of what's the best source. Then there's open source [software]. Steve Weber, a political economist at UC Berkeley, sees open source as an economic means of production that turns the free-rider problem to its advantage. All the people who use the resource but don't contribute to it just build up a larger user base. And if a very tiny percentage of them do anything at all -- like report a bug -- then those free riders suddenly become an asset. And maybe this isn't just in software production. There's [the idea of] "open spectrum," coined by [Yale law professor] Yochai Benkler. The dogma is that the two major means of organizing for economic production are the market and the firm. But Benkler uses open source as an example of peer-to-peer production, which he thinks may be pointing toward a third means of organizing for production. Then you look at Amazon (AMZN ) and its recommendation system, getting users to provide free reviews, users sharing choices with their friends, users who make lists of products. They get a lot of free advice that turns out to be very useful in the aggregate. There's also Wikipedia [the online encyclopedia written by volunteers]. It has 500,000 articles in 50 languages at virtually no cost, vs. Encyclopedia Britannica spending millions of dollars and they have 50,000 articles.»
	{{#if:<ref>Howard Rheingold's Latest Connection</ref>| (<ref>Howard Rheingold's Latest Connection</ref>) }} }}

Carino, il libro deve essere interessante: i soliti cambiamenti del mondo e del modo di fare produzione ecc. Ma era il 2004. Wikipedia è ovviamente citata come esempio, vedere cit. --Andrea (discussione) 14:02, 24 feb 2009 (CET)

• Linus Torvalds' Benevolent Dictatorship BusinessWeek Online, August 18, 2004. Q&A with Linux creator Linus Torvalds. In discussing the application of open-source methods outside of software, he mentions, "There are encyclopedias -- a collection of a lot of information that's neutral. One project on the Web is Wikipedia."

{{#if:--Andrea (discussione) 14:19, 24 feb 2009 (CET)| {{#if:<ref>Linus Torvalds' Benevolent Dictatorship</ref>||class="hiddenStructure noprint"}}

(Testo originale)		(Traduzione)
	«Q: Some say Linux and a lot of open-source projects really aren't innovative, that they're copies of commercial products. What's your reaction to that? A: I disagree. It's an easy argument to make. One reason people make it is that, in open source, they don't see the revolutionary new versions magically appearing. In comparison, look at commercial closed systems. They make a new release every year or three to four years with a huge marketing splash. They make it look very different. But it's a circus to make it look like a sudden innovation. In open source, you don't have a circus. You don't see a sudden explosion. It's not done that way. All development is very gradual -- whether commercial or open source. Even when you have a big thinker coming along with a new idea, actually getting it working takes a lot of sweat and tears.»		«--Andrea (discussione) 14:19, 24 feb 2009 (CET)»
{{#if:<ref>Linus Torvalds' Benevolent Dictatorship</ref>| (<ref>Linus Torvalds' Benevolent Dictatorship</ref>) }}				«Q: Some say Linux and a lot of open-source projects really aren't innovative, that they're copies of commercial products. What's your reaction to that? A: I disagree. It's an easy argument to make. One reason people make it is that, in open source, they don't see the revolutionary new versions magically appearing. In comparison, look at commercial closed systems. They make a new release every year or three to four years with a huge marketing splash. They make it look very different. But it's a circus to make it look like a sudden innovation. In open source, you don't have a circus. You don't see a sudden explosion. It's not done that way. All development is very gradual -- whether commercial or open source. Even when you have a big thinker coming along with a new idea, actually getting it working takes a lot of sweat and tears.»
	{{#if:<ref>Linus Torvalds' Benevolent Dictatorship</ref>| (<ref>Linus Torvalds' Benevolent Dictatorship</ref>) }} }}

Non c'entra molto ma mi sembra un concetto interessante, quello dell'aggiornamento continuo, senza uscite in 3 anni nè marketing. E' qualcosa che similmente è accaduto anche con le enciclopedia (gli aggiornamenti, le enciclopedia multimediali, ...) --Andrea (discussione) 14:19, 24 feb 2009 (CET)

• Grass-roots Encyclopedia (reg. required) Dallas Morning News, August 18, 2004. Overview article about Wikipedia in personal technology section including quotes from Jimbo Wales and Ben Dyer. (For a free version, use this reprint from the Springfield (MO) News-Leader.)

• It's All About Change: An annotated interview on the future of design featuring Bruce Mau at CBC Radio 1, August 20 and 22, 2004 mentions Wikipedia as an example of open-source ideas used outside software development.

• Librarian: Don't use Wikipedia as a source Syracuse Post-Standard, August 25, 2004. (Users outside the US may bypass the annoying form by clicking on the Outside The US? Click Here link.) Questions the reliability of Wikipedia based on the fact that anyone can edit a page: "Anyone can change the content of an article in the Wikipedia, and there is no editorial review of the content. I use this Web site as a learning experience for my students. Many of them have used it in the past for research and were very surprised when we investigated the authority of the site."

• First Interview: Dan Gillmor Tech Nation, August 24, 2004. Gillmor, technology columnist for San Jose Mercury News and author of We the Media ISBN 0596007337, mentioned wikis as an "experiment that works," and Wikipedia specifically as an "encyclopedia written by its users" with 300000 articles and various language editions. He discussed how wikis defeat vandalism. The Wikipedia part is about 20 minutes into the program.

• A cyber-utopia is at our fingertips Daily Trojan (University of Southern California student newspaper), August 29, 2004. Article about open source movement. "One of my favorite open source projects is called Wikipedia, from the Hawaiian term "wiki wiki," meaning "quick" or "super fast." And it's just that: an encyclopedia with super fast navigation and development."

• Free Online Encyclopedia May Be the World's Best August 29, 2004 Eastman's Online Genealogy Newsletter, one of the most widely distributed, includes the above in its paid version, with but a teaser in the free. He takes heat for that in the feedback, but does enough Britannica bashing to make even the free version worth a read.

2004 September

• Collaborative projects galore, The Hindu, September 5, 2004, Compare Wikipedia to Javapedia: "The project, which has been created along the lines of the famous free on-line encyclopedia project Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org/), hosts lots of materials on Java."

• From Aaan to ZZ Top BBC online news pages, September 6 2004. BBC News Dot.Life article entitled : "From Aaan to ZZ Top: An online enclyopaedia which can be edited by all and sundry aims to make finding information on the web easier, and more fun". By Jo Twist and BBC News Online science and technology staff. The BBC headlined this article on their main News page and on their Science/nature and Technology pages.

• Scouring the Web for political facts, The Journal Times (Racine, WI), September 7 2004. "Up until last Saturday, a search for "fascism" on Wikipedia, a widely used and otherwise reputable online encyclopedia, resulted in a page about George W. Bush (a comment about which you can read at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fascism)." (Actually a vandal had redirected the article to George W. Bush on Friday 3 September. It was reverted after 57 minutes.)

• Wikipedia 'to make universities obsolete', The Register, September 7 2004. Taking its cue from blog comments about Wikipedia, the author describes Wikipedia as "the Khmer Rouge in diapers" and gives a tongue-in-cheek look at Wikipedia replacing traditional universities.

• Wiki meeting of minds The News & Observer (Raleigh, NC) online news pages, September 8 2004. An article by Paul Gilster, on the front page of the "Connect" section, introduces readers to the Wiki concept, and Wikipedia in particular, with a balanced synopsis. "The Wikipedia reminds us that comparing sources and double-checking facts with other references is sound policy no matter how the text was put together. Taken with caution, it can be a useful and surprisingly resilient tool."

• Collaborative Conundrum: Do Wikis Have a Place in the Newsroom?, USC Online Journalism Review, September 8 2004. Article abstract: "Wikipedia has more than 340,000 articles, written by a sprawling online community. Researchers are testing its veracity, while plans proceed for fact-checking it formally. Can journalists trust Wikipedia, and can collaboration software such as wikis improve newsgathering?"

• Spreading Knowledge, The Wiki Way, Washington Post, September 9 2004, by Leslie Walker. Compares and contrasts Wikipedia with Encyclopedia Britannica. "The free Wikipedia also features a publicly authored current-events page recapping the day's top news, and it is rapidly expanding into other languages -- more than 10,000 articles have been created in each of roughly a dozen languages besides English." Reprinted in The Straits Times, Singapore [21], The Austin-American Statesman, Austin, Texas [22]

• Internet prods Asia to open up, Christian Science Monitor, September 9 2004. "China's massive firewall is already showing cracks under the weight of the Internet's expansion. The pressure has come from innumerable sources, including an onslaught of weblogs, open-source directories, and projects like Wikipedia, an "open-content" encyclopedia."

• Recognizing art in virtual worlds, International Herald Tribune, September 11 2004. Article about the upcoming Ars Electronica festival focusing on the new Digital Communities award won by Wikipedia, but incorrectly identifies Howard Rheingold as Wikipedia's founder. "As for Wikipedia, its community aspect lies both above and below its surface. A quick visit to Wikipedia reveals only its encyclopedia articles. But alongside each of them lie discussions that help shape the content while bringing together both the readers and the writers of the articles, a distinction that is obviated by the project's design in the first place."

• Wiki's wacky, but it really does work , Observer, September 12 2004. Very enthusiastic with comparisons with Britannica and CIA Factbook. "Yet here is something that is entirely malleable - whose entries can be changed by any Tom, Dick or Harry. How could it possibly be any good? Yet it is. I use Wikipedia regularly, and it's often very good indeed. I've just compared its entry on Iraq with that in the CIA Factbook (possibly the only unambiguously useful service ever provided by that agency). The entries are comparable in their scope and coverage: the CIA publication is better on statistics; Wikipedia is better on history and culture. The other day I looked up 'TCP/IP' (the core protocols of the internet) on Wikipedia and Britannica Online. The Wikipedia entry was much more comprehensive."

  Wikipedian's note: The Wikipedia's country articles have used the CIA world factbook as a source. Some have now been improved beyond recognition, others are little changed. --Robert Merkel 08:42, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  It should also be noted that The Observer makes a serious error by stating that all of Wikipedia's content is in the public domain. Most of Wikipedia's content is under the GFDL; portions are distributed under various other licenses and circumstances, including the public domain.

• Wikipedia's Emergent People fail to impress readers, The Register, September 15 2004. Comments on letters from readers reacting to The Register's earlier articles about Wikipedia.

• Meet Mr Rights, The Guardian, 20 September 2004. "Lawrence Lessig first became interested in the public value of the internet when he noticed that, by letting anybody plug a computer into the ends of the network and instantly serve up their own opinions and media tools to the world, the net was fostering a new and expansive intellectual commons. This commons was producing rapid innovations, grassroots tools such as faxyourmp.com, ambitious collaborative endeavours such as wikipedia.org, Alexandrian archive projects like archive.org and the many blogs which are starting to change our ideas about the independent press."

• When the printed page beats the Internet, Wakefield (MA) Observer, 23 September 2004. Editorial written by librarian recommends that people keep printed reference works at home (almanacs, atlases, dictionaries, etc.) except for encyclopedias, for which CD-ROM or online versions are preferable. "Also online are several free encyclopedias, including Britannica, which offers free access to their concise version, and Wikipedia, an open-content encyclopedia that's been getting a lot of attention lately for its open, contributor-based approach."

• Trivia: It's 'who we are', Toronto Star, 26 September 2004. Quotes a pop-culture critic on sources for information about trivia: "But if (your information) is coming from Wikipedia (an Internet encyclopedia where people post their own articles), where everything is evolving, some of that information is good and some of that is misinformation."

• Vandals at the wiki, ADT Magazine, 28 September 2004. Article about anti-Microsoft vandalism at the newly announced FlexWiki. Starts with a brief overview of the wiki concept: "Wikipedia, a free encyclopedia, has over 350,000 pages as I write this."

• Journalism Third Most Dangerous Career in China, OneWorld.net, 29 September 2004. "On September 23, the authorities blocked access to the Chinese version of the Wikipedia online encyclopaedia that relies on contributions from Internet-users and carries a number of articles about human rights abuses in China. The site has been blocked on several previous occasions too."

• Free info for London visitors, The Register, 30 September 2004. "So the most useful thing the Wikipedia project could do is not write another adoring 20,000 word article on our good friend Joi Ito (the spiritual leader), or 'memes', but nail down a simple lightweight framework that librarians, schools, churches and small businesses could use as an annotation and broadcast channel."

• Tim Berners-Lee: Weaving a Semantic Web, Digital Divide Network, 30 September 2004. Quote from Tim Berners-Lee giving the keynote address at an MIT conference: "The tricky thing is that when you try to put down things like encyclopedia articles, like Wikipedia" (which he earlier referred to as "The Font of All Knowledge").

• Vivisimo receives another makeover, San Jose Mercury News, 30 September 2004. Article about Vivisimo's metasearch site Clusty.com. "Clusty is also one of the first search sites to index and display results from the sometimes controversial Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia being compiled from contributions by Internet users." Not sure what the basis for this statement is, as Wikipedia has been available through Google and Yahoo! searches for a long time.

1,000,000 Articles

Coverage resulting from Wikipedia's 1,000,000-article press release:

• Wikipedia reaches one million articles, The Inquirer, September 20 2004. "We happen to like it because it saves us time and it mentions us, and our glorious leader Mike Mageek with latest [cough] picture."
• Wikipedia hits one million, Web User, September 20 2004. "Wikipedia, a free online encyclopaedia, now has more than a million articles in its database, which web users can access for free."
• Online encyclopedia Wikipedia reaches milestone: 1 million articles, DV Hardware, Netherlands, September 20 2004. "Wikipedia's rate of growth has continued to increase in recent months, and at its current pace Wikipedia will double in size again by next spring."
• Wikipedia Hits Million-Entry Mark, Slashdot, September 21 2004. "The Wikimedia Foundation announced today the creation of the one millionth article in Wikipedia."
• The Little Website that Couldn't, Kuro5hin.org, September 21 2004. Notes million-article milestone and discusses how Wikipedia defies conventional wisdom. "According to the canon of academic orthodoxy, Wikipedia has no right to be as well written, professional, and accurate as it is. Not to say it is perfect, it isn't, but the vast majority of the articles are well written and many are comparable or better than their encyclopedia Britannica equivalents. This from a website where any person can write or change any article at any time, with no one paid to do quality control and no real punishments to those who vandalize the system other than being banned from the site itself."
• Wikipedia's millionth article, p2pnet.net, September 21 2004. "'Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing. And we need your help.' No chance, not with Corporate Greed in full bloom. But it's a noble ambition and it's expressed by the Wiki Foundation which yesterday announced the creation of the one millionth article in Wikipedia, its free, open-content, online encyclopedia project."
• At Your Service Pack, The Village Voice, 23 September 2004. Note at the end of the TechLove With Mr. Roboto column: "Congrats to Wikipedia (wikipedia.org), the world's largest encyclopedia, for garnering its millionth entry. It's an all-volunteer affair, you realize, and they don't accept ads, either. Won't you be a saint and kick them over a few bucks during their pledge drive? Visit wikimediafoundation.org for the details; pledge enforcement vans are standing by to shake you by the ankles."
• 'Wikis' Offer Knowledge-Sharing Online, Associated Press, 26 September 2004. "Wikipedia is unique for an encyclopedia because anybody can add, edit and even erase. And the Wikipedia is just one — albeit the best known — of a growing breed of Internet knowledge-sharing communities called Wikis"; "Try finding that in the Britannica"; "This month, it surpassed 1 million articles, including 350,000 in English — three times that of the online Encyclopedia Britannica. More than 25,000 people have written or edited at least 10 articles each."
  • This wire story was reprinted in The New York Times and many other news sites.
• Wikipedia gets a million entries, Mail & Guardian, 30 September 2004. "Regardless of whether you think it is a credible source or not, the Wikipedia, and other projects like it, give a voice to many people who would not have been able to contribute their own knowledge to the creation of an encyclopedia."
• No more paper: Wikipedia, evolving open-source online encyclopedia, reaches one million hits, The Triangle (Drexel University student newspaper), 1 October 2004. "Wikipedia is the modern day encyclopedia, updated almost as quickly and as often as news happens. Gone are the days of sifting through massive volumes of encyclopedias to find the one piece of information you need. Now it's all on the web in one accurate, constantly expanding database."

2004 October

• "Internet encyclopedia has stamp-collecting links" is the "Stamps on the Internet" column by William F. Sharpe in Linn's Stamp News for October 4, 2004. "Did you know that Michael Dell, founder of Dell Computers, advertised stamps for sale in Linn's classified section at age 12? That's one of the unusual facts you can discover by browsing the Wikipedia site at http://en.wikipedia.org. [...] The stamp collecting page is relatively short, but the links it provides take you to other areas. The page called Philatelic Investment, for example, goes into great detail on how to invest in stamps. [...] I find Wikipedia fascinating, not only from the stamp-collecting aspect but also for the overall approach of providing free knowledge in many areas as a collaborative effort. As far as I'm concerned, this is what the Internet was intended for. [...]" He also discusses some of the community pages, and has a screenshot of the main page and what was supposed to be a image of the stamp collecting article, but a production snafu seems to have resulted in an Excel chart or something. Reading between the lines of his experience, it looks as though he didn't click deep enough to see the bulk of WP's philatelic info, and probably only saw unillustrated articles. So the takeaway is to improve the appearance and appeal of the top-level articles on a subject, and make sure to highlight routes into the depth of the content.

• LaRouche PAC group sings, shouts, argues with Bush supporters, The Lantern (Ohio State University student newspaper), 4 October 2004. Article makes bizarre claim that LaRouche "started Wikipedia.com, a Web site functioning as both a free encyclopedia and a wiki community, which allows users to add information to posted articles." Howard Rheingold is one thing, but Lyndon LaRouche? Where do they get this stuff?

• Hiking, boating, and powerline maps, Sacramento Bee, 4 October 2004. Mentioned in an internet and computer shopping column: "A collection of articles written and edited by anyone. Despite the chaos this might bring to mind, the articles tend to be learned, though unchecked unless through subsequent editing."

• The WIPO adopts a development agenda that recognizes collaborative projects to create public goods, in response to the Geneva Declaration on the Future of the World Intellectual Property Organization:
  • UN body promises greater recognition for open source licencing, PC Pro, 5 October 2004. Quoting the Geneva Declaration: "We are witnessing ... hundreds of innovative collaborative efforts to create public goods, including the Internet, the World Wide Web, Wikipedia, the Creative Commons, GNU Linux and other free and open software projects".
  • Putting the brakes on intellectual property rights, Asia Times, 15 October 2004. Mentions Wikipedia in a paraphrase of the Geneva Declaration.
  • The fight for your right to share, BBC News 18 October 2004. "The net's open source movement, which revolves around Linux, and its collaborative encyclopaedia, the Wikipedia, also shows how well alternative creative systems can work when rights and access are almost unlimited."

• Wild about wiki, Red Herring, 7 October 2004. "One of the best-known wikis is wikipedia.com, a free encyclopedia where the information is uploaded by users. Though generally known to contain an enormous amount of information on an endless variety of topics, the listed facts are edited by readers, and may not be as reliable as those in more official and less-pliable sources of information."

• Always connect, The Guardian, (UK), 7 October 2004, in a supplement called The Spark. Good paragraph on Wikipedia, in the context of a longer article on Open Source.

• Yelp! A viral recommendation system you can't resist?, The Register, 13 October 2004. "As we've seen with Google and the Wikipedia, there's an incentive to rig any system".

• Wiki wars: Think this year's presidential debates have been rough? Check out Wikipedia. Red Herring, 14 October 2004. "Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry have created even more debate than entries for sex and religion. As of October 8, Wikipedia’s President Bush entry had been tweaked 3,953 times. Its entry for Senator Kerry had been modified 3,230 times. By contrast, Wikipedia’s article on Jesus has only been edited 1,855 times since the site’s inception in 2001."

• Megabits & Pieces, North Adams (MA) Transcript, 16 October 2004. Article about the wiki concept. "There is a movement about to use Wikis in order to transform research and Wikipedia (www.wikipedia.org), an open source encyclopedia available in numerous languages, including Esperanto, is certainly the leader." Also discusses several other wikis, including Wiktionary and Wikibooks.

• Public domain, The Guardian Online section, (UK), 21 October 2004, in a article on the UK's Digital Divide. Uses Wikipedia as an example to suggest the UK's Digital Inclusion Panel is sighting a war long ago won: "My bet is that quite soon, we will notice that the web has been taken over by oldies. Wikipedia isn't being compiled by teenagers".

• Human rights at risk, group tells Ottawa, The Globe and Mail, 25 October 2004. "Reporters Without Borders says that in September the authorities blocked access to the Chinese version of the Wikipedia on-line encyclopedia, which relies on contributions and carries articles about human-rights abuses in China."

• Where's the Movable Type of the Wiki World?, Scot Hacker, 25 October 2004, discussing the end-user experience of setting up and customizing a wiki. Hacker chose MediaWiki as the best available option to run a course project wiki, noting that Wikipedia had inspired the course to begin with. Still he found the software's documentation "scattered and obtuse", its customizations difficult, and its attempts at a user manual lacking, and suggests the time is ripe for someone to provide a coherent, actively-developed, well-supported wiki solution.

• Tap in, get smart, Swarat Chaudhury, The Statesman, 25 October 2004 - A passionate article in one of India's oldest papers disscusses the dictionaries and encyclopedias the author uses.

"Wikipedia has spawned a sister project called Wiktionary (http://www.wiktionary.org), a collaborative multilingual dictionary with pronunciations, etymology and quotations. The grand ambition of these projects is nothing short of letting the demos beat the experts at their own game..."

"Personally, I still rely on the OED most of the time, but I also look forward to a day when Wiktionary beats it hands down."

• Who knows?, The Guardian, October 26, 2004, lead article in "G2" supplement about the 4-year-wonder that is Wikipedia. Broad article, that includes details about Wikipedia policies, an interview with Jimmy Wales, comments from librarians and from the executive staff of Encyclopaedia Britannica. "The truth is that Wikipedia reveals what is normally hidden in an encyclopedia: the countless decisions that lie behind each entry. The only difference is that in Wikipedia, the decision-making never stops and the debates are often robust to say the least. " (Shot of G2 cover, shot of article itself)
  • Reprinted in The success of Wikipedia , Mail & Guardian of South Africa, October 26, 2004.

• Get set for the wiki revolution, Lem Bingley, IT Week, October 26, 2004. Bingley suggests wikis will be important for business in the near future. "[I]t's tempting to say that wikis have no relevance for business. But I fully expect that view to be invalidated." Article mentions Zuckerman's September analysis of WP (and the then-lacking Congo civil war coverage).

• Internet site of the week, Bangkok Post, October 27, 2004 (in English) encourages Thais to contribute to the Thai Wikipedia: "Everyone here agrees that more web content in the Thai language is needed to encourage more young Thais to access the Internet and to benefit from it. So, if you feel you can contribute some knowledge in your domain of expertise in Thai, please pitch in, or you could visit just to read the free content about Thailand."

• When No Fact Goes Unchecked, New York Times, 31 October 2004. "The current presidential race has even roiled forums built on cooperation and fairness. At Wikipedia, a sprawling, online encyclopedia written and researched by its users, the Bush-Kerry conflict has spilled over into the wording of the candidates' biographies, with each set of partisans editing the other's facts thousands of times in an escalating tit-for-tat."

2004 November

• It's Like a Blog, But It's a Wiki, Newsweek, 1 November 2004. "Wales has registered the Wikipedia Foundation as a nonprofit in Florida. He has no full-time employees and no formal funding like venture capital, but this year he's raised $100,000 in small donations from Wikipedia's fans that will pay for the servers that host the site. He's also expanding into projects like the Wiktionary (a dictionary and thesaurus), Wikibooks (textbooks and manuals) and Wikiquote (quotations). The goal: to give "every single person free access to the sum of all human knowledge." To achieve that, he doesn't even have to send out stickers."

• Marxist-Lessigism, Legal Affairs, 1 November 2004. "Another example is the Wikipedia, an open source, online encyclopedia that is entirely written, edited, and rewritten by anyone who cares to contribute to it. Even though there is no control structure—there are no editors, nor is there a publisher—it rivals commercial encyclopedias in scope and quality of coverage."

• Today's best encyclopedia might surprise you, USA Today, 5 November 2004. "Few parents today would settle for something like that Compton's. They might look to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, the World Book Encyclopedia, or Encarta – either in print on or on CD. But they're all posers compared to the Big Gun of the encyclopedia world – the one that boasts the titles of largest, fastest growing, and most up-to-date. That would be the Wikipedia."

• A Sneak Peek at Trillian 3.0, PCWorld, 5 November 2004. A preview of a new Trillian instant messaging application mentions that it will feature "integration with the Wikipedia online encyclopedia".

• All the news that's fit to blog, The Guardian, 6 November 2004. Book review of Dan Gillmor's We the Media. "He tells us ... of wikipedia, the online encyclopedia where anyone can write or edit an article, which now has more than one million articles in more than 100 languages."

• There's no end to it, St Petersburg Times, 8 November 2004. Interview with local resident Jimmy Wales, history of Wikipedia, range of articles, editing culture, reliability.

• Hunting with Firefox, The Guardian, November 9, 2004. A leader congratulating the whole open source movement on Mozilla Firefox's 1.0 release, it states that "Firefox deserves to succeed, but even if it does not it will have highlighted the astonishing success of open source, well known inside the web community but not outside. Among other services, it has its own operating system (Linux), an acclaimed alternative to Microsoft Office (OpenOffice.org), and its own encyclopedia (Wikipedia) with a million entries. The open source movement has become one of globalisation's unexpected treasures."

• I Must Take Issue With the Wikipedia Entry for "Weird Al" Yankovic, The Onion, November 10, 2004. A parodic op-ed piece by a fictional "banned Wikipedia editor" (for being overzealous on Talk:Admiral Ackbar), in which he complains about the inadequate length of "Weird Al" Yankovic.

• Mudslinging Weasels Into Online History, The New York Times, November 10, 2004. (Also picked up by CNet News.com [23] and the International Herald Tribune.) Takes a detailed look at the (still ongoing) shenanigans over Wikipedia's articles on George W. Bush and John Kerry and Wikipedians' attempts to keep the articles in compliance with the Neutral point-of-view policy.

• Disambiguating George Romney, Christian Science Monitor, 12 November 2004. Essay wondering whether the English painter is related to the former Michigan governor notes finding Wikipedia's disambiguation page through a Google search. "The point of the Wikipedia page was to separate out Web pages referring to the painterly Romney from those referring to the political Romneys - the assumption being that one would be interested in one or the other, not both."

• OCLC and Yahoo! Offer Joint Toolbar, Information Today, 15 November 2004. Mentions Wikipedia as one of the partners in Yahoo!'s content acquisition program.

• Farther-reaching, faster ignorance thanks to Web, Fairbanks (AK) Daily News-Miner, 15 November 2004. Director of Fairbanks library system writes: "Librarians abhor using reference sources that don't have established credibility editorial rigor, and while Wikipedia is an interesting social experiment and "includes information more often associated with almanacs, gazetteers and specialist magazines," it's too untrustworthy to be used as a secondary source."

• The Faith-Based Encyclopedia, Tech Central Station, 15 November 2004. Article critical about the quality of Wikipedia. The reviewer (a former editor-in-chief of Encyclopedia Britannica) illustrates his point with the article on Alexander Hamilton. "The user who visits Wikipedia [...] is rather in the position of a visitor to a public restroom. It may be obviously dirty, so that he knows to exercise great care, or it may seem fairly clean, so that he may be lulled into a false sense of security. What he certainly does not know is who has used the facilities before him." (Linked to from Slashdot)
  • A response: Digital Democratization: The Digital World and Its Rulers Are Undergoing Some Growing Pains, ABC News Silicon Insider, 18 November 2004. "Could the Wikipedia do with more oversight on matters of accuracy? Absolutely; and it will only survive the test of the marketplace over time if it does so. But let's not forget, as McHenry seemed to, that the Wikipedia is also only three years old. It and the Web are only now groping their way toward new models of collaboration and valuation — models that I suspect will include greater peer review, Olympics-type grading systems that eliminate the highs and lows, and even, perhaps something like the King James Bible translators, small teams that police themselves for the highest levels of accuracy and quality."

• How to Integrate Citizen Journalism Into Mainstream News Sites, Editor & Publisher, 19 November 2004. Journalism professor refers to the premise of having the audience determine site content as "the Wikipedia argument".

• Would You Trust Joe Isuzu’s Blog?, EContentMag.com, 23 November 2004 (the time stamp is the 1 December! I've emailed them about this problem). Talks about how journalists should deal with websites and Wikipedia content and how the author believes that new ways of referencing information need to be developed due to sites like Wikipedia.

• Wikipedia Creators Move Into News, Wired.com, 29 November 2004. Describes Wikinews project and compares it to the existing Wikipedia. "After doing much in recent years to revolutionize the way an encyclopedia can be built and maintained, the team behind Wikipedia is attempting to apply its collaborative information-gathering model to journalism."

• The open source wiki behind Wikipedia, NewsForge, November 30, 2004. Article on how to install MediaWiki.

• The Wikipedia Wars, School Librarian Journal, November, 2004. subtitle: School librarian sparks fight over free online resource. "The ensuing conflict between techies and librarians and open content versus traditional resources underscores the challenges facing information specialists in the Digital Age, particularly those who work with young people."

2004 December

• Arrr!, The Cornell Daily Sun, Jim Shliferstein, December 2 2004. Details deliberate vandalism on Wikipedia by the author of the piece (Jim Shliferstein) and his mate. "I never fully understood the sheer awfulness of the human condition until last Tuesday. In the course of a debate about mammalian intelligence, my friend Harlan and I discovered an online encyclopedia called Wikipedia.org, a depressingly successful effort to harness the elusive Power of Loser."
• Her So-Called Digital Life, Wired News, December 2, 2004. A new usage of the word Wikipedia: "She isn't an aberration. On the contrary, she's a trend. Most of her friends -- many of them geeks and übergeeks -- live this way, the internet at the center of their relationships. Hodder is one of a growing number of technophiles whose lives are one big Wikipedia (a web-based encyclopedia that anyone can edit). And the life she leads may foreshadow yours."
• With information access so easy, truth can be elusive, Associated Press, 6 December 2004. "The credentials of the people authoring grassroots Web journals and a committee-written encyclopedia called Wikipedia are often unclear. Nevertheless, some Internet users believe that such resources can collectively portray events more accurately than any single gatekeeper." (widely reprinted, link is to USA Today)
• Everyone's Encyclopedia, San Diego Union-Tribune, 6 December 2004. Detailed article recounting the story of Wikipedia's origins and subsequent developments.
• My Reference Desk, Express Computer, 13 December 2004. "In that case you’d definitely be turning to resources like the Wikipedia, free of any charge since it has been written collaboratively by contributors from all over the world. Why not then throw in the Wiktionary, Wikiquote and Wikibooks as well."
• The Internet Column: Looking back at 2004, The Scotsman, 13 December 2004. "Interest in wiki has soared in the last year and sites like Wikipedia (www.wikipedia.org) and Wikitravel (wwww.wikitravel.org) have captured headlines around the world. Watch out for more wiki; this is one idea that has only just started to show its potential."
• Extreme Blogging, Forbes, 13 December 2004. Article about wikis as "the next big thing" has a detailed discussion of Wikipedia. "We asked Frederick Allen, Managing Editor of American Heritage [published by Forbes], to compare entries from Britannica Online and the Wikipedia. He was skeptical about the Wikipedia, but after throwing several queries at the two encyclopedias (Haydn, Millard Fillmore, warblers), he admitted, "it looks as if Wikipedia's gotten a lot better, more thorough and more accurate." Even the Wikipedia's James II of Britain article beat Britannica in size, reach and outside references. But Allen cautioned that there's "still the underlying problem that you can't be sure of the accuracy of what it presents, because of the fact that it's open to contributions from the public.""
• Davis, at your fingertips, Davis (CA) Enterprise, 14 December 2004. Mentions "wikipedia" in an article about a local community wiki.
• Collins launches online dictionary to debate new words, The Guardian, 16 December 2004. In launching its new Living Dictionary, Collins cites Wikipedia as a model.
• Spam filters search for patterns in words, Syracuse Post-Standard, 22 December 2004. From Dr. Gizmo's Q&A: "Q. I am happy that I could find one person who has had the guts to criticize Wikipedia. - T.H., freenet.de (Germany) A. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that allows anyone, regardless of qualifications, to write an entry or revise what someone else wrote. The doctor finds this ridiculous. That's not an encyclopedia; it's graffiti. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is easily accessed on the Internet, which makes it an easy source of misinformation for kids doing homework."
• Wikis at work, PC Magazine, 22 December 2004. Overview article about wikis mentions Wikipedia as "one of the more robust wikis".
• Larry Sanger's Knowledge Free-for-All, Wade Roush, MIT Technology Review. "There’s a second complaint against Wikipedia that bothers Sanger more deeply—the fractiousness among Wikipedians themselves. Sanger says participants often become embroiled in “revert wars” in which overprotective authors undo the changes others try to make to their articles. He says he’s afraid that this kind of behavior drives away academics and other experts whose contributions would otherwise raise Wikipedia’s quality." Referenced on slashdot 24 December 2004 ([24])
• '04 crunk with clear and cream, Arizona Republic, 26 December 2004. Article about "words that rose to prominence in 2004" includes wiki and mentions Wikipedia, Wiktionary, and Wikinews as examples.
• Gettin' wiki with it, Express Computer, 27 December 2004. " If you’re dabbling with the Wikipedia for the first time, it comes as quite a shock that you have the power to edit any of the existing content, deleting or modifying what others have written and adding in your own two-bit wisdom."
• Favorite Web sites for 2004, Yomiuri Shimbun, 27 December 2004. "The Wikipedia, still in its relative infancy, is also a really fun resource for random learning. Each day, a different article is featured on the main page, and you can use the random page feature to take you directly to unexpected topics."
• Coverage of Wikipedia's article on the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake:
  • Information wave, Red Herring, 27 December 2004. Discusses the spread of information on the internet about earthquake and tsunami, and mentions Wikipedia articles as examples.
  • The Future of News Right Now, Will Richardson, eSchool News, 28 December 2004. "And when I do want a more complete picture of the story, I still don't go to the (NY) Times. Instead, I go to Wikipedia. Now I know there is some debate about the veracity of the information there. But take a minute to check out the Wikipedia entry on the tsunami event and tell me you aren't amazed. I know I am."
  • Lazy guide to net culture: Tsunami, The Scotsman, 29 December 2004. "An invaluable source of information on the disaster"
  • Tsunami weblinks guide, The Times, 29 December 2004. "The tsunami already has its own exhaustive entry on Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, including an animation from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, casualty updates and details on the relief operation."
  • MSNBC television ran a live segment called "Cyberspace Collaboration". Guest Jeff Jarvis of Buzzmachine.com mentioned Wikipedia as a starting point for background information and links to collaborative and blog-based information on the earthquake and tsunami. (Reference) (2:30PM EST on December 31, 2004)
• Why the web is often woeful, BBC News, 29 December 2004. Commenting on the state of search engine technology: "I am making a lot more use of specific searches on places like Wikipedia and subscription database services."
• Bazeley, Michael. "Blogs, message boards draw world closer after (tsunami) tragedy." The Mercury News. December 31, 2004. [25]

"You can get a really good consensus picture of what's going on that's stronger than any one news organization could offer," said Jimmy Wales, founder of the online encyclopedia Wikipedia. "So many people are on the ground in different places. And people pick up very quickly which are the bloggers to read, and they bring that information to the forefront and amplify it."

"Volunteers at Wikipedia, a collaborative site that can be edited by virtually anyone, quickly created a Web page dedicated to the earthquake and tsunamis. Users have posted photos, graphics and a robust list of links to other sources of information. As of Thursday, the page had been edited 1,500 times, Wales said."

"It's a place for people to synthesize all of the information and sort through it," Wales said.

Please note that Wikipedia:Wikipedia as a press source is where to view or add articles in which the media uses Wikipedia as a source, but doesn't explicitly talk about the project itself.