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

Wikipedia - Press Coverage/2004mag-ago

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

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

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


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


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

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

[[|]]
}}


2004 May

Newsweek, May 3, 2004

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

}}

Ho letto l'articolo attraverso un account temporaneo, ma non è interessante, se non per la geniale battuta iniziale! --Christian (discussione) 01:29, 23 feb 2009 (CET)
  • Build an Encyclopedia: Everybody is Invited, YaleGlobal Online, May 5, 2004. "Wikipedia - the largest example of these collaborative efforts - is a functioning, user-contributed online encyclopedia that has become a popular and highly regarded reference in just three years of existence."
    • Anyone may contribute to E-encyclopedia, Jakarta Post (Indonesia), May 8, 2004. Syndicated version of above Yale Global article.
    • Wikipedia builds 'free market of knowledge' , The Standard (Hong Kong), May 10, 2004. Syndicated version of above Yale Global article.
Non rilevante (e uguale a uno di aprile). --Christian (discussione) 01:29, 23 feb 2009 (CET)
  • Participatory Journalism: The Essence of Wikipedia, International Symposium on Online Journalism (from the University of Texas), May, 2004. "Wiki wiki -- Hawaiian for "quick" -- is at the root of Wikipedia, a encyclopedia website where any page can be edited by users with the simple click of an "edit this page" button." There is also a PDF of a paper from that Symposium by Andrew Lih, of Hong Kong University: [1]
Non trovato. --Christian (discussione) 01:29, 23 feb 2009 (CET)

Webby award, 12 maggio 2004

Wikipedia has won a Webby award in the "Community" category. 

Related coverage links: Slashdot, BBC, Macworld UK, Investors.com

Semplicemente quanto detto nel titolo! --Christian (discussione) 01:29, 23 feb 2009 (CET)
  • FrankenArt: The mix and mash future, The Globe and Mail, May 15, 2004. "Wikipedia is a so-called "open content" on-line encyclopedia where visitors can contribute content to the articles, albeit at the discretion of editors."
Articolo molto bello, ma non credo rilevante per la storia di Wikipedia. --Christian (discussione) 01:57, 23 feb 2009 (CET)
Forse non sufficientemente rilevante (se no non ne usciamo vivi!). --Christian (discussione) 01:57, 23 feb 2009 (CET)

IDG News Service, May 17, 2004

Chinese Internet users work to make knowledge free, IDG News Service, May 17, 2004. 

"Chinese Wikipedia (http://zh.wikipedia.org) is a Chinese-language offshoot of Wikipedia, an online English-language encyclopedia that is also available in a host of other languages."

{{#if:| {{#if:--Christian (discussione) 02:05, 23 feb 2009 (CET)||class="hiddenStructure noprint"}}
(Testo originale) (Traduzione)
Btn edit.gif
«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.»
Btn edit.gif
«{{{3}}}»
{{#if:--Christian (discussione) 02:05, 23 feb 2009 (CET)|
(--Christian (discussione) 02:05, 23 feb 2009 (CET))
}}
Btn edit.gif
«An informal group of Chinese volunteers is working to build an online encyclopedia called Chinese Wikipedia to create a free source of information for Chinese Internet users. [...]

"The instantaneous editability surely is an attractive quality that will impact the future of Chinese cyberspace culture," said Menchi, a regular contributor to Chinese Wikipedia who requested his real name not be used for this story, in an e-mail interview.

Menchi, who was born in Taiwan, said the majority of the 100 regular contributors to Chinese Wikipedia are from Mainland China. As a result, most of the more than 9,000 entries contained in Chinese Wikipedia are written using the simplified Chinese characters used in China, rather than the traditional characters used in Taiwan, he said.

"One would assume and hope the impact (of Chinese Wikipedia) would be positive, 'liberating' the Mainlanders from the restrictive Communist censorship," Menchi said. "But reality often has a funny way of backfiring on us. It is very possible at the first sign of trouble the Communist government will put the Great Firewall up and permanently cut Mainlander Wikipedians off."

So far, that hasn't been a problem.

"Many Westerners are shocked to learn that Chinese Wikipedia has never been 'firewalled' by the Communist government, but many Mainlander Wikipedians actually think it’s not surprising. They consider their government to be reasonable, so long as one does nothing insane to offend the government," Menchi said, noting that some contributors from Mainland China have suggested toning down entries on politically sensitive topics, such as Tibetan independence.

One reason why Chinese Wikipedia has not been blocked by Chinese censors may be the site's insistence that all entries reflect a neutral point of view, a policy that defines all Wikipedia versions in other languages. The neutral point of view is intended to avoid editing wars between contributors competing to impose their interpretation of various subjects on other readers.

"The site is not blocked en masse at the site level because its not obviously pro or against anything because of the neutral point of view policy," said Andrew Lih, an associate professor and director of technology at the University of Hong Kong's Journalism and Media Studies Center.

Another reason Chinese Wikipedia has not been blocked by Chinese censors may be its low profile and relatively small group of regular contributors. As the site gets more attention and attracts more contributors, Chinese censors may decide to block access to the site, giving an indication of how much exposure censors are willing to tolerate for a site like this, Lih said.

"As the profile gets higher and higher it's going to be interesting to measure what threshold these folks have for it," he said.

For now, the site remains accessible in China and makes available information on a range of sensitive topics, including an entry on the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989.

The entry, which includes the famous picture of an anonymous Chinese demonstrator facing off against a column of tanks, describes in detail events leading up to June 4, 1989, when Chinese soldiers used force to clear Tiananmen Square in central Beijing. It notes that the Chinese government reported more than 200 people were killed in that incident, including more than 30 students. But it goes on to note that foreign media reports estimated that more than 1,000 people were killed.

However, the entry also pushes the boundaries of objectivity, noting that some people believe the majority of the students who died on June 4, 1989, were hunger strikers who died of starvation -- a theory that was not widely reported by the official Chinese media or foreign press.

By comparison, the same entry on the English-version of Wikipedia notes that estimates for the number of people killed range as high as 2,600. The English entry makes no specific mention of official Chinese government estimates or the theory that those who died were hunger strikers who succumbed to starvation.

"The fact there is even the picture of the guy standing in front of the tanks in that article (on Chinese Wikipedia) is huge but there's other parts of it where you scratch your head and say, 'Well, I wouldn't put it that way,'" Lih said, noting that the openness of Wikipedia could serve to undermine the quality of information that is contained on the site.

"In the long run, as more Chinese get on to it, the Chinese Wikipedia could actually get worse in quality because you have people contributing to it that are not as enlightened or informed about this stuff as people who know the whole story," Lih said.

"On the other hand, it could open up a real debate. ...This could be a real eye-opener for the folks in China," he said.»
{{#if:--Christian (discussione) 02:05, 23 feb 2009 (CET)|
(--Christian (discussione) 02:05, 23 feb 2009 (CET))
}}

}}

Molto interessante la questione cinese. --Christian (discussione) 02:05, 23 feb 2009 (CET)
  • 'Janitors' help keep Wikipedia reliableby Christopher Yasiejko, The News Journal, May 18, 2004. "If the concept is idealistic, then it also is a bit mad: a bottomless, evolving database of human knowledge, with articles mundane and profound, which anyone with an Internet connection has access to create and edit. That's the notion behind Wikipedia (www.wikipedia.org)..."
Ho corretto il link. Io non ci trovo niente di speciale. --Christian (discussione) 01:57, 23 feb 2009 (CET)
  • "Hit the web as you hit the books: A roundup of reference sites for swamped students" (St. John's Telegram (Newfoundland), May 21, 2004 - article not online) recommends "www.wikipedia.com" (sic): "Wikipedia -- which I hope to write about in detail in an upcoming column -- is an open-ended encyclopedia that is constantly being revised and amended by readers, but which is addictive for surfers."
Non trovato. --Christian (discussione) 01:57, 23 feb 2009 (CET)
  • Out-Googling The Top Search Engine: Online encyclopedias yield more specialized results. BusinessWeek Online, May 31, 2004. "WIKIPEDIA IS ONE of the more remarkable projects on the Web. The online encyclopedia (www.wikipedia.com) is the work of 6,000-odd volunteers covering a huge range of subjects, even though it does better on science and technology than on arts and culture." Even though it incorrectly states, "If you find an error, you are welcome to suggest a correction. And if you find a topic that isn't covered, you are welcome to create a new article. (An editorial group decides which corrections and contributions merit posting.)"
Non rilevante. --Christian (discussione) 01:57, 23 feb 2009 (CET)
  • Daily Kos, one of the largest political blogs, cites us favorably, saying:
"Ahh, this is a cool day in dKos history -- a team of Kosmopolitans has put together the dKosopedia -- a Daily Kos wiki.
I can almost hear you all thinking, "what the heck is a wiki?" It's a collaborative website that will allow this community to build a political encyclopedia (from a liberal standpoint, of course). In short, anyone will be able to contribute encyclopedia entries on a variety of political subjects.
The best example of a wiki is the Wikipedia, which is an open source, collaborative encyclopedia with over 274,000 entries, all of them community submitted.
We hope the dKosopedia will become the progressive-political version of the Wikipedia."
Non rilevante. --Christian (discussione) 01:57, 23 feb 2009 (CET)

2004 June

Non rilevante. --Christian (discussione) 17:43, 23 feb 2009 (CET)
  • Veni, Vidi ...Wiki? Forbes.com, June 3, 2004. "Wikipedia, a Web encyclopedia run by a nonprofit, boasts 274,000 articles written by 'experts' in its English edition."
Non rilevante. --Christian (discussione) 17:55, 23 feb 2009 (CET)
  • Wikis' Winning Ways. BusinessWeek Online, June 7, 2004. "With etiquette out of the way, there's no better place to start a wiki tour than the big kahuna of wikis: Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia with 280,000 articles in English and more than 380,000 more in 49 other languages."
Non rilevante. --Christian (discussione) 02:20, 24 feb 2009 (CET)
  • Something Wiki This Way Comes. BusinessWeek Online, June 7, 2004. "On the site, a free online encyclopedia called Wikipedia, thousands of volunteers had written a breathtaking 500,000 articles in 50 languages since 2001 -- all thanks to the defining feature of wikis."
Non rilevante. --Christian (discussione) 02:20, 24 feb 2009 (CET)
  • Wiki Back Link Spam Tactic. Webpronews.com, June 2004. "Of course wikis emerged not as an SEO tool but as a means of collaborating on content. The Wikipedia is one example of how this can work. For their entry on 'wiki' you simply click edit and see a page similar to a forum posting page where you can alter the text."
Bah... non troppo rilevante. --Christian (discussione) 02:20, 24 feb 2009 (CET)
Non trovato. --Christian (discussione) 02:20, 24 feb 2009 (CET)
  • Open source -- Beyond capitalism? Economist, June 10, 2004 (Subscription only). "The surprisingly good open-source encyclopedia (see Wikipedia.org) is another example [of open source]. Like software, it is modular, which allows different people to work on different bits."
Link corretto, ma non rilevante. --Christian (discussione) 02:20, 24 feb 2009 (CET)

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

Reporter's nose for news discovers foul play, Virginian-Pilot (Norfolk, VA), June 11, 2004. 

Wikipedia is the victim of a cruel hoax: "The online encyclopedia "Wikipedia" created a version of Chesapeake's history that was literally a bunch of bull." The edit in question was put in on May 2 and not removed until June 3.

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

the Inquirer, June 13, 2004

WordIQ's use of Wikipedia content crosses licence line the Inquirer, June 13, 2004. 

"Take for instance a search for the 'Iran-Contra affair', a subject the mass media appears to have forgotten in recent times. The results page from Wikipedia.org for such a search is here, and the one from wordIQ.com is here. Notice any similarities?" UPDATE: [2]

{{#if:| {{#if:--Christian (discussione) 02:20, 24 feb 2009 (CET)||class="hiddenStructure noprint"}}
(Testo originale) (Traduzione)
Btn edit.gif
«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.»
Btn edit.gif
«{{{3}}}»
{{#if:--Christian (discussione) 02:20, 24 feb 2009 (CET)|
(--Christian (discussione) 02:20, 24 feb 2009 (CET))
}}
Btn edit.gif
«Perhaps a bit funnier is the disclaimer you read at the bottom of the wordIQ.com results page. WordIQ says the page "uses material from the Wikipedia article "Iran-Contra Affair". We think that "using material from..." is a bit different from "is a verbatim copy of...", while we reckon that "a verbatim copy of" actually is "using all material from...".

Word games aside, verbatim copies would fall within the Wikipedia licence.

This gets more interesting when you read point number five of WordIQ.com's Terms and Conditions document, reads "The content available through the Site is the sole property of wordIQ or its licensors (sic) and is protected by copyright, trademark and other intellectual property laws".

It goes even further, as point six of the same document reads: "In the case wordIQ uses content from another source, that source will be listed on each page with a URL linking back to the source. Except as provided herein, no portion of the materials on these pages may be reprinted or republished in any form without the express written permission of the firm."

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realise that this appears to contradict the "GNU Free Documentation License" (FDL) from the Free Software Foundation, used by the Wikipedia project. While the FDL allows for verbatim copies to be made (for profit or not), the folks at wordIQ have crossed the line when they claim that they have the authority to issue "reprint permissions" of such material.»
{{#if:--Christian (discussione) 02:20, 24 feb 2009 (CET)|
(--Christian (discussione) 02:20, 24 feb 2009 (CET))
}}

}}

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

Wikipedia blocked in China

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

}}

Link corretto. --Christian (discussione) 02:38, 24 feb 2009 (CET)
  • Chinese censors block access to Wikipedia ITworld.com, June 14, 2004. "Chinese censors have blocked access to an online encyclopedia called Chinese Wikipedia that was created as a free and open source of information for Chinese Internet users, according to several contributors to the site."
{{#if:<ref>Wikipedia Inaccessible In China ChinaTechNews.com, June 14, 2004</ref>| {{#if:--Christian (discussione) 02:38, 24 feb 2009 (CET)||class="hiddenStructure noprint"}}
(Testo originale) (Traduzione)
Btn edit.gif
«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.»
Btn edit.gif
«<ref>Wikipedia Inaccessible In China ChinaTechNews.com, June 14, 2004</ref>»
{{#if:--Christian (discussione) 02:38, 24 feb 2009 (CET)|
(--Christian (discussione) 02:38, 24 feb 2009 (CET))
}}
Btn edit.gif
«That date is politically significant in China, coming one day before the 15th anniversary of the June 4, 1989, Tiananmen Square crackdown, when the Chinese government used force to clear demonstrators from Tiananmen Square in central Beijing. Chinese officials typically crack down on dissidents and heighten censorship efforts each year in the run up to the anniversary.

Another contributor to Wikipedia was not surprised that the Chinese government moved to block access to the site ahead of the June 4th anniversary, noting that the entry regarding the June 4th crackdown had received a greater amount of attention from contributors in advance of the anniversary.

"When the June anniversary was coming, I found out that more and more people got involved in editing the article about the Tiananmen event, I was quite worried at that time," the Chinese contributor said in an online interview. He too requested that his name not be used in this story.

"I had been worrying that this may happen someday, since Chinese Wikipedia contains a lot of sensitive articles which are still taboo in China," the Chinese contributor said.

Another factor that likely contributed to the Chinese decision to block access to Wikipedia was an IDG News Service story published on May 16 about Chinese Wikipedia that included a description of the site's entry on the June 4th crackdown, Menchi said.

"It's quite obvious (the) article had a role in bring us to the attention of the PRC (People's Republic of China) officials and resulted in the block," he said, noting that regardless of the article contributors expected that Chinese censors would eventually decide to block access to Chinese Wikipedia. [See "Chinese Internet users work to make knowledge free," May 17.]

"We knew this day would come. So, we have been mentally prepared for this," Menchi said.

Looking ahead, there are signs that Chinese efforts to block access to Chinese Wikipedia could extend beyond the June 4th anniversary.

On Sunday, efforts to block Chinese Wikipedia were expanded to all other versions of the online encyclopedia, Menchi said.»
{{#if:--Christian (discussione) 02:38, 24 feb 2009 (CET)|
(--Christian (discussione) 02:38, 24 feb 2009 (CET))
}}

}}

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

}}

Non son sicuro che la fonte sia la stessa di qui. --Christian (discussione) 02:38, 24 feb 2009 (CET)
  • China Blocks Wikipedia Slashdot.org, June 14, 2004. "China government is, again, restraining the access to internet. Ars Technica says they are now blocking the Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. How much time will it take for to Slashdot be blocked?"
Niente di particolare. --Christian (discussione) 02:38, 24 feb 2009 (CET)
Il caso è chiaramente interessante. --Christian (discussione) 02:38, 24 feb 2009 (CET)

Golden Nicas award 2004

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

Time Asia/Europe, June 14, 2004

Everyone's an expert Time Asia, June 14, 2004. 

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

  • Everyone's an Expert Time Europe, June 20, 2004. Same as the above article for Time Asia, but with a different picture.
Niente di ché, ma è il Time. --Christian (discussione) 02:45, 24 feb 2009 (CET)
  • "COOL WEB SITE OF THE WEEK" - Albuquerque Journal (New Mexico), June 17, 2004: "Sometimes when you read an online encyclopedia, you know the information is wrong. With that in mind, Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger started Wikipedia in 2001. Three years later, more than 6,000 contributors have written about 600,000 articles."
Non trovato. --Christian (discussione) 02:51, 24 feb 2009 (CET)
  • The jury is still out on open source The Guardian, June 27, 2004, p. 11 (available online with subscriber access, link is to a reprint by The Taipei Times). Mentions Wikipedia as an example of volunteer efforts in contrast with open source business models.
Non rilevante. --Christian (discussione) 02:51, 24 feb 2009 (CET)
  • Even mentioned in a small, central Wisconsin newspaper. Digital or print? Marshfield News Herald, June 28, 2004: "And a mass assembly of expert Uncle Joe's can actually forge an informative, albeit imperfect bond, such as found on wikipedia.com, a free encyclopedia that allows anyone to contribute."

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

2004 July

  • Wikipedia Hits 300,000 Articles slashdot.org, July 7, 2004. "The English Wikipedia has 90.1 million words across 300,000 articles, compared to Britannica's 55 million words across 85,000 articles."
Non rilevante. --Christian (discussione) 03:12, 24 feb 2009 (CET)
  • One great source -- if you can trust it Boston Globe, July 12, 2004 (Boston.com). "The world's biggest encyclopedia resides on the Internet, and anyone can use it for free. It's called Wikipedia."
Non rilevante. --Christian (discussione) 03:12, 24 feb 2009 (CET)
  • Microsoft Notebook: Encyclopedia editor finds his 'Holy Grail' with Encarta seattlepi.com, July 12, 2004. "The Web itself is another source of competition. With free online information sources becoming more pervasive and comprehensive, Encarta could face an increasingly tougher task in appealing to consumers. One competitor is Wikipedia, a free online encyclopedia with articles and information compiled by volunteer contributors."
Non rilevante. --Christian (discussione) 03:12, 24 feb 2009 (CET)
  • 'Open-Content' Web Encyclopedia Encourages User Interactivity Voice of America, July 15, 2004. "Encyclopedias have been around in one form or another for thousands of years. But in recent years competitors have emerged to challenge the traditional printed encyclopedia. First there were versions on compact disks and now they're online. While there may be lots of encyclopedias on the Internet, perhaps one of the most unusual is Wikipedia."
Non rilevante. --Christian (discussione) 03:12, 24 feb 2009 (CET)
  • How the South African revolution destroyed its children The Sunday Times Culture magazine (London), July 18, 2004. Footer: "Read on..." websites: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid Good entry on interactive encyclopedia.
Non trovato ma probabilmente non rilevante. --Christian (discussione) 03:12, 24 feb 2009 (CET)
  • Web encyclopedia lets readers cut through to basics Chicago Sun-Times, July 20, 2004. "Fortunately, the same community (i.e., humans) that ruined the Web is revolutionizing the encyclopedia, with the development of a free, community-based, ever-evolving reference work called the Wikipedia (www.wikipedia.org)." Specifically mentions the Lee Harvey Oswald article and how the writer contributed to it.
Non l'ho letto tutto, ma probabilmente non rilevante. --Christian (discussione) 03:12, 24 feb 2009 (CET)

The Times (London), July 20, 2004

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

}}

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

Slate.com, July 22, 2004

Art Mobs: Can an online crowd create a poem, a novel, or a painting? Slate.com, July 22, 2004. 

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

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

}}

Articolo interessante, aldilà di Wikipedia. --Christian (discussione) 03:12, 24 feb 2009 (CET)
  • Wiki watch. Pi day. Revolution rock. Houston Chronicle, July 22, 2004. "Protest is in the air today, but why not ease into it? Life's too short, and so am I. Besides, I just, very belatedly, encountered the concept of wiki. As opposed to tiki, there are no palms or torches associated with wiki. Wiki involves open, free-form, anarchistic editing of Web sites etc. And here I've used online Wikipedia dozens of times without thinking about what the name might mean. Here's an insanely wonderful story about creation by "mobs." "
Non rilevante. --Christian (discussione) 03:55, 24 feb 2009 (CET)

Asia Times Online, July 22, 2004.

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

}}

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

Boston Globe, July 23, 2004

Surfing the Net with kids Boston Globe, July 23, 2004 (not online). 

Recommends Wikipedia's Ronald Reagan article, citing it as a good educational resource: "I like this detailed, illustrated Reagan biography from Wikipedia because the hyperlinks to other Wikipedia articles make it easy to learn more about Reaganomics, the Cold War, the Strategic Defense Initiative (dubbed "Star Wars" by opponents), and other related topics. Wikipedia is an open-content project with encyclopedia articles contributed and edited by anyone who wants to. As part of this group editorial process, at least one reader disputed the neutrality of this Reagan biography. What do you think? Does this Wikipedia article show an obvious bias?"

L'articolo non l'ho trovato, ma mi ha colpito la motivazione del link a Wikipedia. --Christian (discussione) 03:55, 24 feb 2009 (CET)
  • Wiki-fiddlers defend Clever Big Book The Register, July 23, 2004. "Wiki-fiddlers* may be accused of many things, but having a robust sense of humor is not one of them. In the week that colleague Ashlee Vance pointed out a few failings in the archive that isn't an archive, we took a pop at the encyclopedia that isn't an encyclopedia. Our jibe that the Wikipedia is the world's most useless encyclopedia drew precisely two angry responses. But both illustrate the condition perfectly." -- features two angry letters from Wikipedians.
Link all'articolo originale: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/07/14/buckminster_fuller_stamp/
Mi sembra una polemica abbastanza sterile, ma sono riuscito a trovare una lista di siti critici di Wikipedia. Vedremo. --Christian (discussione) 03:55, 24 feb 2009 (CET)
  • Web of words challenges traditional encyclopedias Financial Times, July 28, 2004. "If you thought open source was only about software, think again. The English-language version of Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia produced by a worldwide community of volunteers, has reached 300,000 articles - three times as many as the Encyclopedia Britannica."
Non trovato. --Christian (discussione) 03:55, 24 feb 2009 (CET)

Slashdot interview with Jimbo], July 28, 2004

Slashdot interview with Jimbo, July 28, 2004.
Sicuramente rilevante. Va riletto bene. --Christian (discussione) 03:55, 24 feb 2009 (CET)
  • Wiki May Alter How Employees Work Together The Wall Street Journal, July 29, 2004, p. B1. "The prospects of moving wikis into the office are good, especially since they are already working well in nonwork situations such as the well-known Wikipedia. This free online encyclopedia, compiled since early 2001 by volunteer writers, now has hundreds of thousands of entries, making it bigger than any other encyclopedia." WSJ, p. B2, Column 6.
Link corretto, ma non rilevante. --Christian (discussione) 03:55, 24 feb 2009 (CET)
  • July 28, 2004 Small article about the existence of the Thai wikipedia in the database section of the Bangkok post

2004 August

  • Learning the AB-PCs San Diego Union-Tribune, August 3, 2004. In article about student computer use, educational technology professor says of his 16-year-old, "If he wants to know something, he just goes to Dictionary.com or Wikipedia.org."
Non lo trovo. --Andrea (discussione) 13:34, 24 feb 2009 (CET)

Thomas Malone's book The Future of Work

How to gain power at work in the future: Give it away The Globe and Mail, August 4, 2004. 

Review of Thomas Malone's book The Future of Work. "The Wikipedia on-line encyclopedia allows anybody to contribute to it, with no centralized quality control. 'Its success so far shows that amazingly loose hierarchies can create impressively large and complex results,' Prof. Malone says."

{{#if:<ref>How to gain power at work in the future: Give it away</ref>| {{#if:--Andrea (discussione) 13:34, 24 feb 2009 (CET)||class="hiddenStructure noprint"}}
(Testo originale) (Traduzione)
Btn edit.gif
«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.»
Btn edit.gif
{{#if:--Andrea (discussione) 13:34, 24 feb 2009 (CET)|
(--Andrea (discussione) 13:34, 24 feb 2009 (CET))
}}
Btn edit.gif
«But in The Future of Work, MIT Sloan School of Management professor Thomas Malone says that, just as we have seen a trend toward democracy in societies around the world, we will see a transition to more decentralized organizations, in which individuals participate in making the decisions that matter to them.

That will increase creativity and motivation, as we feel more in control of our working lives.

To be successful in that new world, we will need a new set of mental models to operate by, beyond command and control, notably the concept of co-ordinating and cultivating.

Co-ordinating and cultivating, he stresses, are not the opposite of commanding and controlling. They complement each other and overlap at points. Together, they cover all the possibilities on the continuum from completely centralized to completely decentralized operations.»
{{#if:--Andrea (discussione) 13:34, 24 feb 2009 (CET)|
(--Andrea (discussione) 13:34, 24 feb 2009 (CET))
}}

}}

{{#if:<ref>How to gain power at work in the future: Give it away</ref>| {{#if:--Andrea (discussione) 13:34, 24 feb 2009 (CET)||class="hiddenStructure noprint"}}
(Testo originale) (Traduzione)
Btn edit.gif
«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.»
Btn edit.gif
{{#if:--Andrea (discussione) 13:34, 24 feb 2009 (CET)|
(--Andrea (discussione) 13:34, 24 feb 2009 (CET))
}}
Btn edit.gif
«Loosening the hierarchy: When Google Inc. starts a major project, it doesn't create a huge new organization with lots of management layers, it sets up a few autonomous engineering teams and sets them loose. The Wikipedia on-line encyclopedia allows anybody to contribute to it, with no centralized quality control. "Its success so far shows that amazingly loose hierarchies can create impressively large and complex results," Prof. Malone says.

Harnessing democracy: At Whole Foods Market, job candidates face a 30-day trial after which every employee in that department votes on whether to hire the individual. At W.L. Gore & Associates, makers of Gore-Tex waterproof fabric, to become a manager you must go out and find other employees who will work for you. Introducing democratic features to organizations will give people a greater say in decisions that influence them and a greater sense of autonomy.

Markets: eBay Inc. estimates that between 130,000 and 150,000 people make their living on the on-line auction site; if they were company employees, that would make eBay a large employer with a decentralized form of operation. Similarly, outsourcing and internal markets can be used in an Internet era to change decision-making patterns in large organizations and decentralize power.»
{{#if:--Andrea (discussione) 13:34, 24 feb 2009 (CET)|
(--Andrea (discussione) 13:34, 24 feb 2009 (CET))
}}

}}

Non ho letto gli articoli precedenti, ma mi sembra che qui si passi ad apprezzare il modello wiki/open source (non è molto chiara la differenza) e ad applicarlo al management. Stesse idee provlamae nel famoso Wikinomics, uscito anche in Italia nel 2007 (ma è del 2006 o giù di lì). --Andrea (discussione) 13:41, 24 feb 2009 (CET)
Ottima scelta delle citazioni, non ci avevo pensato. --Christian (discussione) 22:32, 24 feb 2009 (CET)
  • The world's largest encyclopedia August 6, 2004. Wikipedia was discussed on Chip Talk, a one-minute Dave Ross radio feature about technology which is aired several times during the day on news stations across the United States. The URL was given on air and posted on the Chip Talk website.
Non lo trovo. --Andrea (discussione) 14:19, 24 feb 2009 (CET)
  • The thinker's new best friend ; As the internet overtakes the encyclopedia, the editor of a new dictionary asks if this is the end for the multi-volume reference book London Evening Standard, August 9, 2004 (not online). Jonathon Green, author of the Cassell Dictionary of Slang, reviews Wikipedia's content: "I checked out "slang" and was impressed. A solid overview, with references to cant (underworld slang), rhyming slang, Polari (camp and theatrical), and even French butcher's slang Louchebem (of which I was ignorant). All these topics are covered, some with a specimen vocabulary-and every article offers links within Wikipedia and elsewhere on the net."
Non trovato. --Christian (discussione) 22:38, 24 feb 2009 (CET)
  • Doc corrects record on Apple vs. Microsoft Syracuse Post-Standard, August 10, 2004. "A good source for unbiased information on the case is the Wikipedia encyclopedia at http://en.wikipedia.org. Use the Wikipedia search form and look for Apple vs. Microsoft."
Non lo trovo. --Andrea (discussione) 14:19, 24 feb 2009 (CET)

Smart Mobs: The Next Social Revolution by Howard Rheingold

Howard Rheingold's Latest Connection BusinessWeek Online, August 11 2004. 

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

Wikipedia is mentioned again in a summary of the interview on Slashdot.
{{#if:--Andrea (discussione) 13:34, 24 feb 2009 (CET)| {{#if:<ref>Howard Rheingold's Latest Connection</ref>||class="hiddenStructure noprint"}}
(Testo originale) (Traduzione)
Btn edit.gif
«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.»
Btn edit.gif
«--Andrea (discussione) 13:34, 24 feb 2009 (CET)»
{{#if:<ref>Howard Rheingold's Latest Connection</ref>|}} Btn edit.gif
«Google is based on the emergent choices of people who link. Nobody is really thinking, "I'm now contributing to Google's page rank." What they're thinking is, "This link is something my readers would really be interested in." They're making an individual judgment that, in the aggregate, turns out to be a pretty good indicator of what's the best source.

Then there's open source [software]. Steve Weber, a political economist at UC Berkeley, sees open source as an economic means of production that turns the free-rider problem to its advantage. All the people who use the resource but don't contribute to it just build up a larger user base. And if a very tiny percentage of them do anything at all -- like report a bug -- then those free riders suddenly become an asset.

And maybe this isn't just in software production. There's [the idea of] "open spectrum," coined by [Yale law professor] Yochai Benkler. The dogma is that the two major means of organizing for economic production are the market and the firm. But Benkler uses open source as an example of peer-to-peer production, which he thinks may be pointing toward a third means of organizing for production.

Then you look at Amazon (AMZN ) and its recommendation system, getting users to provide free reviews, users sharing choices with their friends, users who make lists of products. They get a lot of free advice that turns out to be very useful in the aggregate. There's also Wikipedia [the online encyclopedia written by volunteers]. It has 500,000 articles in 50 languages at virtually no cost, vs. Encyclopedia Britannica spending millions of dollars and they have 50,000 articles.»
{{#if:<ref>Howard Rheingold's Latest Connection</ref>|}}

}}

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

Linus Torvalds' Benevolent Dictatorship, August 18, 2004

Linus Torvalds' Benevolent Dictatorship BusinessWeek Online, August 18, 2004. 

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

{{#if:--Andrea (discussione) 14:19, 24 feb 2009 (CET)| {{#if:<ref>Linus Torvalds' Benevolent Dictatorship</ref>||class="hiddenStructure noprint"}}
(Testo originale) (Traduzione)
Btn edit.gif
«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.»
Btn edit.gif
«--Andrea (discussione) 14:19, 24 feb 2009 (CET)»
{{#if:<ref>Linus Torvalds' Benevolent Dictatorship</ref>|}} Btn edit.gif
«Q: Some say Linux and a lot of open-source projects really aren't innovative, that they're copies of commercial products. What's your reaction to that?

A: I disagree. It's an easy argument to make. One reason people make it is that, in open source, they don't see the revolutionary new versions magically appearing. In comparison, look at commercial closed systems. They make a new release every year or three to four years with a huge marketing splash. They make it look very different. But it's a circus to make it look like a sudden innovation.

In open source, you don't have a circus. You don't see a sudden explosion. It's not done that way. All development is very gradual -- whether commercial or open source. Even when you have a big thinker coming along with a new idea, actually getting it working takes a lot of sweat and tears.»
{{#if:<ref>Linus Torvalds' Benevolent Dictatorship</ref>|}}

}}

Non c'entra molto ma mi sembra un concetto interessante, quello dell'aggiornamento continuo, senza uscite in 3 anni nè marketing. E' qualcosa che similmente è accaduto anche con le enciclopedia (gli aggiornamenti, le enciclopedia multimediali, ...) --Andrea (discussione) 14:19, 24 feb 2009 (CET)
Nuovo link. Ma niente di rilevante. --Christian (discussione) 23:38, 24 feb 2009 (CET)
Non trovato, ma non mi sembra rilevante. --Christian (discussione) 23:38, 24 feb 2009 (CET)

Syracuse Post-Standard, August 25, 2004

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."

{{#if:<ref>Librarian: Don't use Wikipedia as a source Syracuse Post-Standard, August 25, 2004.</ref>| {{#if:--Christian (discussione) 23:45, 24 feb 2009 (CET)||class="hiddenStructure noprint"}}
(Testo originale) (Traduzione)
Btn edit.gif
«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.»
Btn edit.gif
«<ref>Librarian: Don't use Wikipedia as a source Syracuse Post-Standard, August 25, 2004.</ref>»
{{#if:--Christian (discussione) 23:45, 24 feb 2009 (CET)|
(--Christian (discussione) 23:45, 24 feb 2009 (CET))
}}
Btn edit.gif
«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.»
{{#if:--Christian (discussione) 23:45, 24 feb 2009 (CET)|
(--Christian (discussione) 23:45, 24 feb 2009 (CET))
}}

}}

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. --Christian (discussione) 23:38, 24 feb 2009 (CET)
  • First Interview: Dan Gillmor Tech Nation, August 24, 2004. Gillmor, technology columnist for San Jose Mercury News and author of We the Media ISBN 0596007337, mentioned wikis as an "experiment that works," and Wikipedia specifically as an "encyclopedia written by its users" with 300000 articles and various language editions. He discussed how wikis defeat vandalism. The Wikipedia part is about 20 minutes into the program.

Non trovato. --Christian (discussione) 23:48, 24 feb 2009 (CET)

  • 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."

Non trovato. --Christian (discussione) 23:48, 24 feb 2009 (CET)

  • 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.

Non trovato. --Christian (discussione) 23:48, 24 feb 2009 (CET)