|
|
(5 versioni intermedie di uno stesso utente non sono mostrate) |
Riga 198: |
Riga 198: |
| 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. |--[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 00:57, 23 feb 2009 (CET)|<ref>'''[http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2004/04/27/wikipedia/index.html Everyone is an Editor]''', ''Salon.com'', April 27, 2004.</ref>}} | | 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. |--[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 00:57, 23 feb 2009 (CET)|<ref>'''[http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2004/04/27/wikipedia/index.html Everyone is an Editor]''', ''Salon.com'', April 27, 2004.</ref>}} |
| :Ho forse esagerato con le citazioni, ma l'articolo mi sembra interessante e pieno di spunti. --[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 00:57, 23 feb 2009 (CET) | | :Ho forse esagerato con le citazioni, ma l'articolo mi sembra interessante e pieno di spunti. --[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 00:57, 23 feb 2009 (CET) |
− |
| |
− | ==2004 May==
| |
− | ===Newsweek, May 3, 2004===
| |
− | '''[http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-21136154_ITM Grass-roots guide to everything]''', ''Newsweek'' and ''Newsweek Society'', May 3, 2004.
| |
− | {{Citazione|"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?"|--[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 01:29, 23 feb 2009 (CET)|<ref>'''[http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-21136154_ITM Grass-roots guide to everything]''', ''Newsweek'' and ''Newsweek Society'', May 3, 2004. </ref>}}
| |
− | :Ho letto l'articolo attraverso un account temporaneo, ma non è interessante, se non per la geniale battuta iniziale! --[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 01:29, 23 feb 2009 (CET)
| |
− |
| |
− | *<del>'''[http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=3808 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."</del>
| |
− | ** <del>'''[http://www.thejakartapost.com/detaileditorial.asp?fileid=20040508.F01&irec=1 Anyone may contribute to E-encyclopedia]''', ''Jakarta Post (Indonesia)'', May 8, 2004. ''Syndicated version of above Yale Global article''.</del>
| |
− | ** <del>'''Wikipedia builds 'free market of knowledge' ''', ''The Standard (Hong Kong)'', May 10, 2004. ''Syndicated version of above Yale Global article''.</del>
| |
− | :Non rilevante (e uguale a uno di aprile). --[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 01:29, 23 feb 2009 (CET)
| |
− |
| |
− | *<del>'''[http://journalism.utexas.edu/onlinejournalism/story17.html 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: [http://journalism.utexas.edu/onlinejournalism/wikipedia.pdf]</del>
| |
− | :Non trovato. --[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 01:29, 23 feb 2009 (CET)
| |
− |
| |
− | ===Webby award, 12 maggio 2004===
| |
− | Wikipedia has '''[http://www.webbyawards.com/webbys/current.php?season=8 won a Webby award]''' in the "Community" category.
| |
− | Related coverage links: [http://slashdot.org/articles/04/05/12/2221254.shtml?tid=126&tid=95 Slashdot], [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3707313.stm BBC], [http://macworld.co.uk/news/main_news.cfm?NewsID=8671 Macworld UK], [http://www.investors.com/breakingnews.asp?journalid=21170833&brk=1 Investors.com] <!--[http://www.pcpro.co.uk/?http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/news_story.php?id=57424 PC Pro]-->
| |
− | :Semplicemente quanto detto nel titolo! --[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 01:29, 23 feb 2009 (CET)
| |
− |
| |
− | *<del>'''[http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040514.wfrank15/BNStory/Entertainment 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."</del>
| |
− | :Articolo molto bello, ma non credo rilevante per la storia di Wikipedia. --[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 01:57, 23 feb 2009 (CET)
| |
− |
| |
− | * <del>The [[Australia]]n [[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)</del>
| |
− | :Forse non sufficientemente rilevante (se no non ne usciamo vivi!). --[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 01:57, 23 feb 2009 (CET)
| |
− |
| |
− | ===IDG News Service, May 17, 2004===
| |
− | '''[http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/128099/china_celebrates_10_years_being_connected_internet?pp=4&fp=16&fpid=0 Chinese Internet users work to make knowledge free]''', IDG News Service, May 17, 2004.
| |
− | "Chinese Wikipedia ([http://zh.wikipedia.org/ 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."
| |
− |
| |
− | {{Citazione|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.|--[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 02:05, 23 feb 2009 (CET)|<ref>'''[http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/128099/china_celebrates_10_years_being_connected_internet?pp=4&fp=16&fpid=0 Chinese Internet users work to make knowledge free]''', IDG News Service, May 17, 2004.</ref>}}
| |
− | :Molto interessante la questione cinese. --[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 02:05, 23 feb 2009 (CET)
| |
− |
| |
− | *<del>'''[http://folio.reporterist.com/yasiejko/article/e883de274a2cb0ca10bd6eebf668fd9c 'Janitors' help keep Wikipedia reliable]'''by 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)..."</del>
| |
− | :Ho corretto il link. Io non ci trovo niente di speciale. --[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 01:57, 23 feb 2009 (CET)
| |
− |
| |
− | * <del>'''"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."</del>
| |
− | :Non trovato. --[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 01:57, 23 feb 2009 (CET)
| |
− |
| |
− | *<del>'''[http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_22/b3885044.htm 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.)"</del>
| |
− | :Non rilevante. --[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 01:57, 23 feb 2009 (CET)
| |
− |
| |
− | *<del>'''[http://www.dailykos.com/ 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."</del>
| |
− | :Non rilevante. --[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 01:57, 23 feb 2009 (CET)
| |
− |
| |
− | ==2004 June==
| |
− | *<del>'''[http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0200wales/tm_objectid=14292033&method=full&siteid=50082&headline=-name_page.html David Williamson, The Western Mail]''' WalesOnline.co.uk, June 1, 2004. Wikipedia is "the web's most stunning and exciting site."</del>
| |
− | :Non rilevante. --[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 17:43, 23 feb 2009 (CET)
| |
− |
| |
− | *<del>'''[https://www.socialtext.net/exchange/index.cgi?socialtext_in_forbes 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."</del>
| |
− | :Non rilevante. --[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 17:55, 23 feb 2009 (CET)
| |
− |
| |
− | *<del>'''[http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_23/b3886141.htm 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."</del>
| |
− | :Non rilevante. --[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 02:20, 24 feb 2009 (CET)
| |
− |
| |
− | *<del>'''[http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_23/b3886138.htm 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."</del>
| |
− | :Non rilevante. --[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 02:20, 24 feb 2009 (CET)
| |
− |
| |
− | *<del>'''[http://www.webpronews.com/insiderreports/searchinsider/wpn-49-20040602WikiBackLinkSpamTactic.html 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."</del>
| |
− | :Bah... non troppo rilevante. --[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 02:20, 24 feb 2009 (CET)
| |
− |
| |
− | *<del>'''[http://www.investors.com/editorial/tech01.asp?v=6/5 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."</del>
| |
− | :Non trovato. --[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 02:20, 24 feb 2009 (CET)
| |
− |
| |
− | *<del>'''[http://www.researchictafrica.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=417 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."</del>
| |
− | :Link corretto, ma non rilevante. --[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk: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.
| |
− | Wikipedia is the victim of a cruel hoax: "The online encyclopedia "Wikipedia" created a version of [[Chesapeake, Virginia|Chesapeake]]'s history that was literally a bunch of bull." The edit in question was put in on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Chesapeake%2C_Virginia&diff=3860769&oldid=3414810 May 2] and not removed until June 3.
| |
− | :L'articolo completo non l'ho letto tutto, ma si trova [http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-90772941.html qui] (bisogna iscriversi). Forse è divertente il caso. --[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 02:20, 24 feb 2009 (CET)
| |
− |
| |
− | ===the Inquirer, June 13, 2004===
| |
− | '''[http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=16551 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 [[Iran-Contra Affair|here]], and the one from wordIQ.com is [[Iran-Contra Affair|here]]. Notice any similarities?" UPDATE: [http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=16564]
| |
− | {{Citazione|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.|--[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 02:20, 24 feb 2009 (CET)|<ref>'''[http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=16551 WordIQ's use of Wikipedia content crosses licence line]''' the Inquirer, June 13, 2004.</ref>}}
| |
− | :Interessante per riprendere il discorso su cosa sia possibile fare (e cosa no) con i testi e altro di Wikipedia. --[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 02:20, 24 feb 2009 (CET)
| |
− |
| |
− | ===Wikipedia blocked in China===
| |
− | *'''[http://www.chinatechnews.com/2004/06/14/1434-wikipedia-inaccessible-in-china/ Wikipedia Inaccessible In China]''' ChinaTechNews.com, June 14, 2004.
| |
− | {{Citazione|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.|--[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 02:38, 24 feb 2009 (CET)|<ref>'''[http://www.chinatechnews.com/2004/06/14/1434-wikipedia-inaccessible-in-china/ Wikipedia Inaccessible In China]''' ChinaTechNews.com, June 14, 2004.</ref>}}
| |
− | :Link corretto. --[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 02:38, 24 feb 2009 (CET)
| |
− | *'''[http://archive.thestandard.com/article.php?story=20040614170920673 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."
| |
− | {{Citazione|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.|--[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 02:38, 24 feb 2009 (CET)|<ref>'''[http://www.chinatechnews.com/2004/06/14/1434-wikipedia-inaccessible-in-china/ Wikipedia Inaccessible In China]''' ChinaTechNews.com, June 14, 2004</ref>}}
| |
− |
| |
− | *'''[http://arstechnica.com/news/posts/1087234431.html 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."
| |
− | {{Citazione|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.'"|--[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 02:38, 24 feb 2009 (CET)|<ref>'''[http://arstechnica.com/news/posts/1087234431.html China blocks Wikipedia]''' arstechnica.com, June 14, 2004</ref>}}
| |
− | :Non son sicuro che la fonte sia la stessa di [http://forum.hostony.com/index.php?s=cd6beb205a794acbd64b37adaf7d7c18&showtopic=2637&st=0&p=12925&#entry12925 qui]. --[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 02:38, 24 feb 2009 (CET)
| |
− | *<del>'''[http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/15/0122201 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?"</del>
| |
− | :Niente di particolare. --[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 02:38, 24 feb 2009 (CET)
| |
− | :Il caso è chiaramente interessante. --[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 02:38, 24 feb 2009 (CET)
| |
− |
| |
− | ===Golden Nicas award 2004===
| |
− | * Wikipedia has '''[http://90.146.8.18/de/archives/prix_archive/prix_projekt.asp?iProjectID=12880 won a Golden Nicas award 2004]''' in the "Digital Communities" category.
| |
− | :Si commenta da sé. --[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 02:45, 24 feb 2009 (CET)
| |
− |
| |
− | ===Time Asia/Europe, June 14, 2004===
| |
− | '''[http://www.time.com/time/asia/tga/article/0,13673,501040621-650769,00.html 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.'"
| |
− | * '''[http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/article/0,13005,901040719-653780,00.html 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. --[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 02:45, 24 feb 2009 (CET)
| |
− |
| |
− | * <del>"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."</del>
| |
− | :Non trovato. --[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 02:51, 24 feb 2009 (CET)
| |
− | *<del>'''[http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/biz/archives/2004/06/27/2003176755 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.</del>
| |
− | :Non rilevante. --[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 02:51, 24 feb 2009 (CET)
| |
− | *<del> Even mentioned in a small, central Wisconsin newspaper. [http://www.wisinfo.com/newsherald/mnhlocal/280839343001272.shtml 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."
| |
− | </del>
| |
− | :Non trovato. --[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 02:51, 24 feb 2009 (CET)
| |
− |
| |
− | ==2004 July==
| |
− | *<del>'''[http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/07/0740232&mode=thread&tid=126&tid=188&tid=95 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."</del>
| |
− | :Non rilevante. --[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 03:12, 24 feb 2009 (CET)
| |
− |
| |
− | * <del>'''[http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2004/07/12/one_great_source____if_you_can_trust_it/ 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."</del>
| |
− | :Non rilevante. --[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 03:12, 24 feb 2009 (CET)
| |
− |
| |
− | * <del>'''[http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/181656_msftnotebook12.html?source=rss 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."</del>
| |
− | :Non rilevante. --[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 03:12, 24 feb 2009 (CET)
| |
− |
| |
− | * <del>'''[http://quickstart.clari.net/voa/art/cu/87D7CF64-ACF7-40F7-8CBF67F74E5081CE.html '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."</del>
| |
− | :Non rilevante. --[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 03:12, 24 feb 2009 (CET)
| |
− |
| |
− | * <del>'''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.</del>
| |
− | :Non trovato ma probabilmente non rilevante. --[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 03:12, 24 feb 2009 (CET)
| |
− |
| |
− | * <del>'''[http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1542690.html 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.</del>
| |
− | :Non l'ho letto tutto, ma probabilmente non rilevante. --[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 03:12, 24 feb 2009 (CET)
| |
− |
| |
− | ===The Times (London), July 20, 2004===
| |
− | '''[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7947-1187423,00.html Technobabble]''' The Times (London), July 20, 2004.
| |
− | {{Citazione|"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."|--[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 03:12, 24 feb 2009 (CET)|<ref>'''[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7947-1187423,00.html Technobabble]''' The Times (London), July 20, 2004.</ref>}}
| |
− | :Continua il confronto con la Britannica, su una testata grossa. --[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 03:12, 24 feb 2009 (CET)
| |
− |
| |
− | ===Slate.com, July 22, 2004===
| |
− | '''[http://www.slate.com/id/2104087/ 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."
| |
− | {{Citazione|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.|--[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 03:12, 24 feb 2009 (CET)|<ref>'''[http://www.slate.com/id/2104087/ Art Mobs: Can an online crowd create a poem, a novel, or a painting?]''' Slate.com, July 22, 2004.</ref>}}
| |
− | :Articolo interessante, aldilà di Wikipedia. --[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 03:12, 24 feb 2009 (CET)
| |
− |
| |
− | *<del>'''[http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/memo/2695812 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." "</del>
| |
− | :Non rilevante. --[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 03:55, 24 feb 2009 (CET)
| |
− |
| |
− | ===Asia Times Online, July 22, 2004.===
| |
− | '''[http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/FG22Ad04.html A blogger's tale: The Stainless Steel Mouse]''' Asia Times Online, July 22, 2004.
| |
− | {{Citazione|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." |--[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 03:55, 24 feb 2009 (CET)|<ref>'''[http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/FG22Ad04.html A blogger's tale: The Stainless Steel Mouse]''' Asia Times Online, July 22, 2004. </ref>}}
| |
− | :Aggiornamento sulla durata del blocco di WP in Cina (solo 48 ore?) --[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 03:55, 24 feb 2009 (CET)
| |
− |
| |
− | * <del>'''[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/07/23/wiki_fiddlers_big_book/ 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 [[Wikipedia:Wikipedian|Wikipedian]]s''.</del>
| |
− | :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. --[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 03:55, 24 feb 2009 (CET)
| |
− |
| |
− | *<del>'''[http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1087374027304 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."</del>
| |
− | :Non trovato. --[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 03:55, 24 feb 2009 (CET)
| |
− |
| |
− | ===Slashdot interview with Jimbo], July 28, 2004===
| |
− | '''[http://interviews.slashdot.org/interviews/04/07/28/1351230.shtml?tid=146&tid=95&tid=11 Slashdot interview with Jimbo], July 28, 2004.
| |
− | :Sicuramente rilevante. Va riletto bene. --[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 03:55, 24 feb 2009 (CET)
| |
− |
| |
− | * <del>'''[http://press.jot.com/archives/2004/07/29/wiki-may-alter-how-employees-work-together/ 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.</del>
| |
− | :Link corretto, ma non rilevante. --[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk: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==
| |
− |
| |
− | *<del>'''[http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/computing/personaltech/20040802-9999-mz1b2abpcs.html 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."</del>
| |
− | :Non lo trovo. --[[User:Andrea|Andrea]] ([[User talk:Andrea|discussione]]) 13:34, 24 feb 2009 (CET)
| |
− |
| |
− | ===Thomas Malone's book ''The Future of Work''===
| |
− | '''[http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040804/CABOOKS04/TPBusiness/General 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."
| |
− |
| |
− | {{Citazione|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.|--[[User:Andrea|Andrea]] ([[User talk:Andrea|discussione]]) 13:34, 24 feb 2009 (CET)|<ref>[http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040804/CABOOKS04/TPBusiness/General How to gain power at work in the future: Give it away]</ref>}}
| |
− |
| |
− | {{Citazione|'''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.|--[[User:Andrea|Andrea]] ([[User talk:Andrea|discussione]]) 13:34, 24 feb 2009 (CET)|<ref>[http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040804/CABOOKS04/TPBusiness/General 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). --[[User:Andrea|Andrea]] ([[User talk:Andrea|discussione]]) 13:41, 24 feb 2009 (CET)
| |
− | :Ottima scelta delle citazioni, non ci avevo pensato. --[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 22:32, 24 feb 2009 (CET)
| |
− |
| |
− | *<del>'''[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.</del>
| |
− | :Non lo trovo. --[[User:Andrea|Andrea]] ([[User talk:Andrea|discussione]]) 14:19, 24 feb 2009 (CET)
| |
− |
| |
− | *<del>'''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."</del>
| |
− | :Non trovato. --[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 22:38, 24 feb 2009 (CET)
| |
− |
| |
− | *<del>'''[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."</del>
| |
− | :Non lo trovo. --[[User:Andrea|Andrea]] ([[User talk:Andrea|discussione]]) 14:19, 24 feb 2009 (CET)
| |
− |
| |
− | === ''Smart Mobs: The Next Social Revolution'' by Howard Rheingold ===
| |
− | '''[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."
| |
− | :Wikipedia is mentioned again in a [http://slashdot.org/articles/04/08/17/2138201.shtml?tid=95&tid=1 summary of the interview] on Slashdot.
| |
− |
| |
− | {{Citazione|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.|<ref>[http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/aug2004/nf20040811_1095_db_81.htm Howard Rheingold's Latest Connection]</ref>|--[[User:Andrea|Andrea]] ([[User talk:Andrea|discussione]]) 13:34, 24 feb 2009 (CET)}}
| |
− |
| |
− | :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. --[[User:Andrea|Andrea]] ([[User talk:Andrea|discussione]]) 14:02, 24 feb 2009 (CET)
| |
− |
| |
− | ===Linus Torvalds' Benevolent Dictatorship, August 18, 2004===
| |
− | '''[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)
| |
− |
| |
− | *<del>'''[http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/ptech/generalstories2/081904ccjrptecencyclopedia.8ef833bb.html Grass-roots Encyclopedia]''', ''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]].</del>
| |
− | :Nuovo link. Ma niente di rilevante. --[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 23:38, 24 feb 2009 (CET)
| |
− |
| |
− | *<del>'''[http://www.cbc.ca/next/schedule.html It's All About Change: An annotated interview on the future of design featuring Bruce Mau]''' at [[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation|CBC]] Radio 1, August 20 and 22, 2004 mentions Wikipedia as an example of open-source ideas used outside software development.</del>
| |
− | :Non trovato, ma non mi sembra rilevante. --[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 23:38, 24 feb 2009 (CET)
| |
− |
| |
− | ===Syracuse Post-Standard, August 25, 2004===
| |
− | '''[http://lists.webjunction.org/wjlists/web4lib/2004-August/000980.html 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."
| |
− |
| |
− | {{Citazione|I was amazed at how little I knew about Wikipedia. If you know of other supposedly authoritative Web sites that are untrustworthy, send a note to technology at syracuse.com and let me know about them.
| |
− |
| |
− | The best thing about the Web is also the worst thing: Information is all over the place. You need to be careful about trusting what you read.|--[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 23:45, 24 feb 2009 (CET)|<ref>'''[http://lists.webjunction.org/wjlists/web4lib/2004-August/000980.html Librarian: Don't use Wikipedia as a source]''' Syracuse Post-Standard, August 25, 2004.</ref>}}
| |
− | :Link corretto.
| |
− | :Mi sembra chiaro che il problema non l'attendibilità di Wikipedia, ma l'assoluta mancanza di senso critico di troppe persone. Il giornalista ne é un esempio.
| |
− | :Ma chi garantisce fino in fondo le proprie informazioni? http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/jkbaumga/2004/08/27/more-discussion-about-wikipedias-reliability-as-a-source/
| |
− | :L'articolo sembra abbia sollevato un po' di polemica. È sicuramente un tema da affrontare. --[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 23:38, 24 feb 2009 (CET)
| |
− |
| |
− | *<del>'''First Interview: Dan Gillmor''' ''[http://www.technation.com/ 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.</del>
| |
− | Non trovato. --[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 23:48, 24 feb 2009 (CET)
| |
− |
| |
− | *<del>'''[http://www.dailytrojan.com/news/2004/08/30/Lifestyle/A.CyberUtopia.Is.At.Our.Fingertips-706778.shtml 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."</del>
| |
− | Non trovato. --[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 23:48, 24 feb 2009 (CET)
| |
− |
| |
− | *<del>'''[http://eogn.typepad.com/eastmans_online_genealogy/2004/08/_free_online_en.html 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.</del>
| |
− | Non trovato. --[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 23:48, 24 feb 2009 (CET)
| |
− |
| |
− | == 2004 September ==
| |
− |
| |
− | * <del>'''[http://www.hindu.com/biz/2004/09/06/stories/2004090601011700.htm 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."</del>
| |
− | :Non rilevante. --[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 00:00, 25 feb 2009 (CET)
| |
− |
| |
− | *<del>'''[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3624384.stm 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.</del>
| |
− | :Non rilevante. --[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 00:00, 25 feb 2009 (CET)
| |
− |
| |
− | *<del>'''[http://www.journaltimes.com/articles/2004/09/07/rachel_show/iq_3064453.txt 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 <nowiki>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fascism)</nowiki>." ''(Actually a vandal had redirected the article to [[George W. Bush]] on Friday [[3 September]]. It was reverted after 57 minutes.)''</del>
| |
− | :Non rilevante. --[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 00:49, 25 feb 2009 (CET)
| |
− |
| |
− | *<del>'''[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/09/07/khmer_rouge_in_daipers/ 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.</del>
| |
− | :Un altro articolo critico di Register, ma in fondo, niente di rilevante. --[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 00:49, 25 feb 2009 (CET)
| |
− |
| |
− | ===The News & Observer, September 8, 2004===
| |
− | '''[http://www.newsobserver.com/303/v-print/story/252973.html Wiki meeting of minds]''' [http://www.newsobserver.com/24hour/ 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.
| |
− |
| |
− | {{Citazione|But don't write off the Wikipedia. In many areas, especially technology-related subjects, the Wikipedia is a genuine resource. I use it all the time for quick definitions and discussions of computer terms, and no reference source keeps up with the latest trends as fast as one that is being rewritten on almost a daily basis.
| |
− |
| |
− | So use the Wikipedia, but with a sense of context. Unedited information, even when assembled with the best of intent, should never be your only source on any issue. 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. |--[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 00:49, 25 feb 2009 (CET)|<ref>'''[http://www.newsobserver.com/303/v-print/story/252973.html Wiki meeting of minds]''' [http://www.newsobserver.com/24hour/ The News & Observer] (Raleigh, NC) online news pages, September 8 2004</ref>}}
| |
− |
| |
− | :Link corretto. L'articolo non è rilevante, ma mi sono piaciuti gli ultimi due paragrafi. --[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 00:49, 25 feb 2009 (CET)
| |
− |
| |
− | *'''[http://ojr.org/ojr/glaser/1094678265.php 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?"
| |
− |
| |
− | *'''[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5430-2004Sep8.html 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 [http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/techscience/story/0,4386,272109,00.html], [[The Austin-American Statesman]], Austin, Texas [http://www.statesman.com/money/content/auto/epaper/editions/sunday/business_14243a44a206b1a40041.html]
| |
− |
| |
− | *'''[http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0909/p06s01-woap.html 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."
| |
− |
| |
− | *'''[http://www.iht.com/articles/538271.html 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."
| |
− |
| |
− | *'''[http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,1302435,00.html 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.'' --[[User:Robert Merkel|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.''
| |
− |
| |
− | *'''[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/09/15/emergent_people_fail_to_impress/ 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.
| |
− |
| |
− | *'''[http://media.guardian.co.uk/mediaguardian/story/0,7558,1308105,00.html 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."
| |
− |
| |
− | *'''[http://www2.townonline.com/wakefield/opinion/view.bg?articleid=88940 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."
| |
− |
| |
− | *'''[http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1096108061747&call_pageid=968867495754&col=969483191630 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."
| |
− |
| |
− | *'''[http://www.adtmag.com/article.asp?id=10046 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."
| |
− |
| |
− | *'''[http://southasia.oneworld.net/article/view/94998/1/ 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."
| |
− |
| |
− | *'''[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/09/30/iwan2go_mobile_framework/ 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."
| |
− |
| |
− | *'''[http://www.digitaldividenetwork.org/content/stories/index.cfm?key=286 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").
| |
− |
| |
− | *'''[http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/business/9797685.htm?1c 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 [[m:Wikimedia press releases/One million Wikipedia articles (int'l)|1,000,000-article press release]]:
| |
− | * '''[http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=18576 Wikipedia reaches one million articles]''', The Inquirer, [[September 20]] [[2004]]. "We happen to like it because it saves us time and it mentions [[The Inquirer|us]], and our glorious leader [[Mike Magee (journalist)|Mike Mageek]] with latest [cough] picture."
| |
− | * '''[http://www.webuser.co.uk/news/news.php?id=58275 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."
| |
− | * '''[http://www.dvhardware.net/article3149.html 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."
| |
− | * '''[http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/09/21/0027241 Wikipedia Hits Million-Entry Mark]''', Slashdot, [[September 21]] [[2004]]. "The Wikimedia Foundation announced today the creation of the one millionth article in Wikipedia."
| |
− | * '''[http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/9/19/212133/644 The Little Website that Couldn't]''', [http://www.kuro5hin.org 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."
| |
− | * '''[http://p2pnet.net/story/2498 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."
| |
− | * '''[http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0439/koerner.php 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."
| |
− | * '''[http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/040926/sharing_knowledge_online_3.html '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 [http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/technology/AP-Sharing-Knowledge-Online.html The New York Times] and [http://news.google.com/news?q=%22Taran+Rampersad+didn%27t+complain+when+he+failed+to+find+anything+on+his+hometown+in+the+online+encyclopedia+Wikipedia%22&scoring=d many other news sites].
| |
− | * '''[http://www.mg.co.za/Content/l3.asp?cg=Insight-Online&o=138404&sa=106 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."
| |
− | * '''[http://www.thetriangle.org/news/2004/10/01/SciTech/No.More.Paper-738960.shtml 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.
| |
− |
| |
− | *'''[http://www.thelantern.com/news/2004/10/04/Campus/Larouche.Pac.Group.Sings.Shouts.Argues.With.Bush.Supporters-740977.shtml?page=2 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?
| |
− |
| |
− | * '''[http://www.sacbee.com/content/shopping/on_computers/story/10974230p-11891577c.html 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."
| |
− |
| |
− | ===WIPO development agenda===
| |
− | * The WIPO adopts a development agenda that recognizes collaborative projects to create public goods, in response to the [http://www.cptech.org/ip/wipo/futureofwipodeclaration.html Geneva Declaration on the Future of the World Intellectual Property Organization]:
| |
− | **'''[http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/64118/un-body-promises-greater-recognition-for-open-source-licencing.html 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".
| |
− | **'''[http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/FJ15Dj01.html Putting the brakes on intellectual property rights]''', Asia Times, [[15 October]] [[2004]]. Mentions Wikipedia in a paraphrase of the Geneva Declaration.
| |
− | **'''[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3752354.stm 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."
| |
− |
| |
− | * '''[http://www.redherring.com/Article.aspx?a=10897&hed=Wild+about+wiki§or=Capital&subsector=VentureCapital 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."
| |
− |
| |
− | * '''[http://www.guardian.co.uk/prius/partthree/story/0,,1322071,00.html Always connect],''' [[The Guardian]], ([[United Kingdom|UK]]), [[7 October]] 2004, in a supplement called ''The Spark''. Good paragraph on Wikipedia, in the context of a longer article on [[Open Source]].
| |
− |
| |
− | * '''[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/13/viral_yelp/ 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".
| |
− |
| |
− | ===Red Herring, 14 October 2004===
| |
− | '''[http://www.redherring.com/Article.aspx?a=10909&hed=Wiki+wars 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."
| |
− |
| |
− | * '''[http://www.thetranscript.com/Stories/0,1413,103~9054~2471955,00.html 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.
| |
− |
| |
− | * '''[http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/story/0,,1331525,00.html Public domain],''' [[The Guardian]] Online section, ([[United Kingdom|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".
| |
− |
| |
− | * '''[http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20041025/CHINACYBER25/TPInternational/TopStories 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."
| |
− |
| |
− | * '''[http://www.onlamp.com/pub/wlg/5794 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.
| |
− |
| |
− | * '''[http://www.thestatesman.net/page.news.php?clid=24&theme=&usrsess=1&id=58137 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."
| |
− |
| |
− | * '''[http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/news/0,12597,1335892,00.html 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. " ([[:Image:The Guardian 26-10-04 Wikipedia front page.jpg|Shot of G2 cover]], [[:Image:The Guardian 26-10-04 Wikipedia pages 2-3.jpg|shot of article itself]])
| |
− | **Reprinted in '''[http://www.mg.co.za/Content/l3.asp?cg=Leisure-Online&o=140475&sa=106 The success of Wikipedia]''' , ''Mail & Guardian'' of South Africa, [[October 26]], [[2004]].
| |
− |
| |
− | * '''[http://www.vnunet.com/comment/1158984 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 [http://th.wikipedia.org 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."
| |
− |
| |
− | * '''[http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/31/weekinreview/31schw.html 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 ==
| |
− |
| |
− | * '''[http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6298340/site/newsweek/ 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."
| |
− |
| |
− | * '''[http://www.keepmedia.com/pubs/LegalAffairs/2004/11/01/636321 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."
| |
− |
| |
− | * '''[http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2004-11-05-fifthofnovember_x.htm 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."
| |
− |
| |
− | * '''[http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,118497,00.asp 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".
| |
− |
| |
− | * '''[http://books.guardian.co.uk/reviews/politicsphilosophyandsociety/0,6121,1344544,00.html 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."
| |
− |
| |
− | * '''[http://www.sptimes.com/2004/11/08/Floridian/There_s_no_end_to_it.shtml There's no end to it]''', St Petersburg Times, [[8 November]] [[2004]]. Interview with local resident [[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimmy Wales]], history of Wikipedia, range of articles, editing culture, reliability.
| |
− |
| |
− | * '''[http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/news/0,12597,1346519,00.html 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."
| |
− |
| |
− | * '''[http://www.theonion.com/opinion/index.php?issue=4045&o=2 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]].
| |
− |
| |
− | * '''[http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/10/arts/10wiki.html Mudslinging Weasels Into Online History]''', [[The New York Times]], [[November 10]], [[2004]]. (Also picked up by CNet News.com [http://news.com.com/On+Wikipedia%2C+mudslinging+spatters+Bush/2100-1028_3-5446570.html] 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 [[WP:NPOV|Neutral point-of-view]] policy.
| |
− |
| |
− | * '''[http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1112/p18s03-hfes.html Disambiguating George Romney]''', Christian Science Monitor, [[12 November]] [[2004]]. Essay wondering whether the [[George Romney (painter)|English painter]] is related to the [[George W. Romney|former Michigan governor]] notes finding Wikipedia's [[George Romney|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."
| |
− |
| |
− | * '''[http://www.infotoday.com/newsbreaks/nb041115-3.shtml OCLC and Yahoo! Offer Joint Toolbar]''', Information Today, [[15 November]] [[2004]]. Mentions Wikipedia as one of the partners in Yahoo!'s content acquisition program.
| |
− |
| |
− | * '''[http://www.news-miner.com/Stories/0,1413,113~7244~2536204,00.html 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."
| |
− |
| |
− | * '''[http://www.techcentralstation.com/111504A.html 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 [http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/16/1319242 Slashdot])
| |
− | **A response: '''[http://abcnews.go.com/Business/SiliconInsider/story?id=88655&page=1 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."
| |
− |
| |
− | * '''[http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/stopthepresses_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000724065 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".
| |
− |
| |
− | * '''[http://www.econtentmag.com/Articles/ArticleReader.aspx?ArticleID=7360&ContextSubtypeID=13 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.
| |
− |
| |
− | ===Wired.com, 29 November 2004===
| |
− | '''[http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,65819,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1 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."
| |
− |
| |
− | * '''[http://trends.newsforge.com/trends/04/11/22/1750202.shtml?tid=137 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==
| |
− | *'''[http://www.cornellsun.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/12/02/41ae87066c10f 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."
| |
− | *'''[http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,65890,00.html 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."
| |
− | *'''[http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/internetlife/2004-12-07-online-truth-elusive_x.htm 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)
| |
− |
| |
− | ===San Diego Union-Tribune, 6 December 2004===
| |
− | '''[http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20041206/news_mz1b6encyclo.html Everyone's Encyclopedia]''', San Diego Union-Tribune, 6 December 2004.
| |
− | Detailed article recounting the story of Wikipedia's origins and subsequent developments.
| |
− | : Articolo carino, niente di troppo originale. Pre-Citizendium. --[[User:Andrea|Andrea]] ([[User talk:Andrea|discussione]]) 14:28, 16 feb 2009 (CET)
| |
− | :Link corretto. --[[User:Christian|Christian]] ([[User talk:Christian|discussione]]) 01:45, 25 feb 2009 (CET)
| |
− |
| |
− | *'''[http://www.expresscomputeronline.com/20041213/market06.shtml 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."
| |
− | *'''[http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3880996 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."
| |
− |
| |
− | ===Forbes, 13 December 2004===
| |
− | '''[http://www.forbes.com/best/2004/1213/bow001.html 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]], [[warbler]]s), he admitted, "it looks as if Wikipedia's gotten a lot better, more thorough and more accurate." Even the Wikipedia's [[James II of England|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."
| |
− |
| |
− | *'''[http://www.davisenterprise.com/articles/2004/12/14/features/025fea.txt Davis, at your fingertips]''', Davis (CA) Enterprise, [[14 December]] [[2004]]. Mentions "wikipedia" in an article about a local community wiki.
| |
− | *'''[http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,6109,1374741,00.html 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.
| |
− |
| |
− | ===Syracuse Post-Standard, 22 December 2004===
| |
− | '''[http://www.syracuse.com/news/poststandard/index.ssf?/base/news-0/1103626509270880.xml 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."
| |
− | *'''[http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1745178,00.asp Wikis at work]''', PC Magazine, [[22 December]] [[2004]]. Overview article about wikis mentions Wikipedia as "one of the more robust wikis".
| |
− |
| |
− | ===Larry Sanger, 24 December 2004===
| |
− | '''[http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/05/01/issue/forward30105.asp?trk=nl 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 ([http://slashdot.org/articles/04/12/23/2312227.shtml?tid=95&tid=146])
| |
− |
| |
− | *'''[http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/1226words26.html '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.
| |
− | *'''[http://www.expresscomputeronline.com/20041227/edit02.shtml 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."
| |
− | *'''[http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/newse/20041228wo61.htm 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."
| |
− |
| |
− | ===Indian Ocean earthquake===
| |
− | Coverage of Wikipedia's article on the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake]:
| |
− | *'''[http://www.redherring.com/Article.aspx?a=11098&hed=Information+wave 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.
| |
− | *'''[http://www.eschoolnews.com/eti/2004/12/000426.php 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."
| |
− | *'''[http://news.scotsman.com/scitech.cfm?id=1473372004 Lazy guide to net culture: Tsunami]''', The Scotsman, [[29 December]] [[2004]]. "An invaluable source of information on the disaster"
| |
− | *'''[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,18690-1418771,00.html 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. ([http://www.buzzmachine.com/archives/2004_12_31.html#008763 Reference]) (2:30PM EST on [[December 31]], [[2004]])
| |
− |
| |
− |
| |
− | *'''[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4131793.stm 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]]. <small>[http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/10538681.htm]</small>
| |
− | ::"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.''
| |
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.
Article about origins of Wikipedia and Chinese Wikipedia.
"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."