<analytics uacct="UA-6089322-1" ></analytics>

Wikipedia - Press Coverage/2004gen-apr

Da Cantiere.
{{#ifexpr: 0 = 1|
{{#ifexpr: 0 >1|<h{{{livello}}} style="font-size:100%;border:0;margin:0;padding:0;color:inherit;text-align:inherit;font-weight:inherit;">}}WikiGuide{{#ifexpr: 0 >1|</h{{{livello}}}>}}
{{#if:Template:WikiGuide|}}
Copione WikiGuide: Wikipedia · Commons · Wikisource · Wikiquote
Organizzazione: Progetto · Portineria · Gruppo su Facebook
 
{{#if:|
[[|]]
}}
| {{#if:|
[[Immagine:{{{sfondo}}}|center]]
}}
{{#if:Nuvola_apps_help_index.png‎|24px}}}}
WikiGuide
WikiGuide

Copione WikiGuide: Wikipedia · Commons · Wikisource · Wikiquote
Organizzazione: Progetto · Portineria · Gruppo su Facebook

[[|]]
}}
{{#ifexpr: 0 = 1|
{{#ifexpr: 0 >1|<h{{{livello}}} style="font-size:100%;border:0;margin:0;padding:0;color:inherit;text-align:inherit;font-weight:inherit;">}}Press Coverage{{#ifexpr: 0 >1|</h{{{livello}}}>}}
{{#if:Template:Press Coverage|}}
Unsorted: · 2001-2003 · 2004: gen-apr/mag-ago/set-dic · 2005: gen-apr/mag-ago/set-dic · 2006: gen-apr/mag-ago/set-dic ·


2007: gen-apr/mag-ago/set-dic · 2008: gen-apr/mag-ago/set-dic · 2009 · Scientific articles


Sorted: The Register
 
{{#if:|
[[|]]
}}
| {{#if:|
[[Immagine:{{{sfondo}}}|center]]
}}
{{#if:Nuvola_apps_help_index.png‎|24px}}}}
Press Coverage
Press Coverage

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

[[|]]
}}


2004 January

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)
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)
Btn edit.gif
«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."»
Btn edit.gif
«--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>)
}}
Btn edit.gif
«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)
Btn edit.gif
«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.»
Btn edit.gif
«--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>)
}}
Btn edit.gif
«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

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)
Btn edit.gif
«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. »
Btn edit.gif
«<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))
}}
Btn edit.gif
«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)
Btn edit.gif
«Recent research by a team from IBM found that most vandalism suffered by Wikipedia had been repaired within five minutes.»
Btn edit.gif
«<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))
}}
Btn edit.gif
«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)
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)
Btn edit.gif
«The English-language Wikipedia has also revamped the design of its front page and created a community portal to welcome new editors. »
Btn edit.gif
«<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))
}}
Btn edit.gif
«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)
Btn edit.gif
«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. »
Btn edit.gif
«<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))
}}
Btn edit.gif
«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)
Btn edit.gif
«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." »
Btn edit.gif
«<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))
}}
Btn edit.gif
«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)
Btn edit.gif
«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. »
Btn edit.gif
«<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))
}}
Btn edit.gif
«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)
Btn edit.gif
«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.»
Btn edit.gif
«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))
}}
Btn edit.gif
«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

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)
Btn edit.gif
«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.»
Btn edit.gif
«{{{3}}}»
{{#if:--Christian (discussione) 16:18, 22 feb 2009 (CET)|
(--Christian (discussione) 16:18, 22 feb 2009 (CET))
}}
Btn edit.gif
«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)
Btn edit.gif
«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. »
Btn edit.gif
«<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))
}}
Btn edit.gif
«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)
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)
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)
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)
Btn edit.gif
«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.»
Btn edit.gif
«<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))
}}
Btn edit.gif
«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)
Btn edit.gif
«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. »
Btn edit.gif
«<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))
}}
Btn edit.gif
«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)