Wikipedia talk:Press coverage

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why was the Wired article quotes removed? I dispute the removal so have reverted back. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:27, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The commentary and detailed quotes from the page take up much space and interrupt the flow of the page. Perhaps we could set up a subpage, or bold the entry to signify its importance. Neutralitytalk 01:55, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
That's a good idea. I'll do that. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:51, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Krowne, Aaron

His article is entered twice: in January and March sections. I guess the reason is that its source text is dated 1/3/2005, and it is unclear whether this is European or American date format. Please clarify. The magazine seems to be European. Mikkalai 19:21, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Question about "press"

I wrote a piece about Wikipedia for Mensa's COMSIG. It's in there, but I'm not sure it would qualify as "press coverage". Someone please advise me on this. Additionally, I'd feel weird about adding it myself without asking first since I wrote the article. CryptoDerk 23:09, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

I see this page mostly as a reference for Wikipedians who want to know about our public image (or just bask in the fame.) Since I'm a regular reader here and I'd want to know about the article you mention, I'll say go ahead and add it. Isomorphic 03:13, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Maybe another article to add to the list

On Andy Szybalski's homepage, there's an article called "Why it's not a wiki world (yet)". Although the article is not just about WP, it quite focuses on it. Is it worth an add to the Press coverage page here? (Sorry if my english is not perfect, I'm french native). Cybertooth.

[edit] 6 June 2005 Time article

Moved this comment to discussion and corrected citation:

Ahem. This is not in the version of Time Magazine for this date which came through my mailbox in England this morning.Apwoolrich 18:12, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cite now explains online and print release date differences. Jokestress 19:24, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NBR

PBS's Nightly Business Report just aired a long accolade about Wikipedia, saying that no one should miss it. While the transcripts of the program aren't available yet, they will be later tonight, so I recommend looking at the NBR Transcript Archive and look for the July 21 entry. --Titoxd 01:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Covering Seigenthaler incident in Arabic

I'm sorry for not having the time for a more extensive summary right now (article here). I may do it later if there's not another translator. --Filius Rosadis 00:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discover Magazine Jan 2006

"Few web sites generated as much media buzz in 2005 as Wikipedia..." Bensaccount 23:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Interviewee mentions Wikipedia - help!

New Zealand Listener Feb 4-10 2006 Sarah Barnett interviewing Sir David Attenborough

Is television living up to its potential?
No. The only way to raise money is by advertising. Advertising has very great limitations, because they measure success by the size of the audience. When I started, the BBC got its money from the licence and there was no advertising. You were able to schedule programmes over a range of subjects, on the grounds that you ought to present a comprehensive view of the world around you, and not miss out those bits that were awkward, or that interested some people more than others. At that stage it seemed to me that television offered a huge and democratic way of providing education, interest and knowledge. And that has not been fulfilled because of the demands of advertising.
So, the potential will never be fulfilled?
I think that's so, but I think that there will be other ways now. We're approaching it with things like Wikipedia. So I don't despair, but I think that television hasn't produced the benefits to humanity that it could have done.

Can someone figure out how to add that on to the list? Cheers, --GeLuxe 03:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Searcher article

Wikipedia and Britannica: The Kid’s All Right (And So’s the Old Man), by Paula Berinstein. This is a really great article. The email(?) interview with Jimbo is fantastic, especially the part about time delay, which is the most lucid explaination of that proposal I've seen yet. Paula really did an amazing job. --James S. 18:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Autobiographical mention

Hi, I'd add this myself, but since I'm the subject, per WP:AUTO I'm posting it here to see if anyone else agrees that it's worth adding? --Elonka 22:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Under "current projects" Dunin mentions that she has been spending time on various MediaWiki databases, including Wikipedia [as User:Elonka] and the IGDA wiki. The related discussion in the Slashdot thread also mentions Dunin's Wikipedia bio as a source for further information about her.[1]

[edit] Why is this "Press coverage 2005"?

Why is this page called "Press coverage 2005" when there are comments about 2006 coverage on it? Tamino 09:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Economist article

I've put in The Economist's article "The wiki principle" in the section for April. I'm afraid it's a bit long, but that is because the article on their website is premium content (i.e. you can't read it unless logged in), so I felt I had to summarise it myself. Tamino 09:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IBM research

I added a link to the evolution page image. For other interesting results, look at the site. It would be great to have these tools available for every article (we can dream, can't we?) --ScienceApologist 06:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Podcasts

If Wikipedia is a primary topic on a podcast, should it be mentioned here, at "Wikipedia:Wikipedia on TV and radio", or somewhere else? --Elonka 16:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] template analogous to {{source}}?

Is there a template like {{source}} for marking talk pages when a specific article is cited by the press? It's not exactly "being recommended as a source" if they're criticizing a POV section... I'm thinking of Hawarden, Iowa, if you're curious. -- nae'blis 21:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Read this on Yahoo! news

Blog streakers etc

Do you think this is worth mention or not really?

(Mention wikipediaholism)

Simply south 13:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portland, OR Oregonian article

I'm not sure this is worth mentioning somewhere, but WP was mentioned in an article about 2006 consumer trends in The Oregonian, the major paper here. Its partly because of TIME's Person of the Year. Jason McHuff 07:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Erin O'Brien / Cleveland Free Times article

Her claim that she "tried to edit out the erroneous statements" about her brother John O'Brien "but some Kiss-the-Hem-of-my-Purple-Robe Wikipedian Lord apparently usurped my efforts" [2] doesn't appear to be supported by the page history. The sentence affirming that O'Brien appeared in the film Scrooge has been in the article consistently since its original addition (and Wikipedia is backed here by IMDB). I wonder how many of her other claims will turn out to be false? Grover cleveland 17:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IHT Article of 13 March 2007

--Joel Mc 04:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC) Unedited text for Letter to the Editor of 16 March 2007:

Alex Beam in his piece on Wikipedia in the IHT of 13 March 2007 has got it wrong. The "theoretical underpinning" of Wikipedia is not "crowdsourcing"--a marketing term which Beam misuses (See, i.e. Business Week 13 July 2006). An open source approach whether applied to encyclopedias or programming is about tapping the knowledge and experience of a wide range of people. A major strength is its ability to rapidly correct mistakes, something neither the Encyclopledia Britannica nor Microsoft is able to do.

It is a good place to start to look for information, but like all encyclopedias, it should not be used as the only or primary source. When I was a university teacher, beginning more than forty years ago, we never accepted references from encyclopedias.

Why on earth did Alex Beam spend so much time using old boy channels to correct his entry? He could have corrected it in less than five minutes directly himself. But I expect he reverted to old reporting techniques because he really didn't understand the new way.

Sincerely

[edit] [3]

I'm not sure how I would word this on the page. Morgan Wick 02:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Summaries

Some of the people adding entries here seem inclined to spin them whenever they are critical of Wikipedia. Instead of doing this, perhaps you could just include a short quote from the article. If you don't think the article is credible, don't list it. Gazpacho 07:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I assume that this edit by 67.168.160.168 is you, since it repeats Gazpacho's reverted edit.
This is not in the article space and the NPOV policy does not apply any more than it does to WP:LAME. As long as it is clear what is quotation and what is commentary, I see zero need to censor the thoughts of posters, as long as they don't become little essays. I am one of the "spin doctors" you identify, apparently because I note that the recent NY Times articles strongly implies that there is no way to make a stable reference to a Wikipedia page and further note that this is actually built into the software. This is hardly spin doctoring; if I could, I would just correct the NYTimes article but, since it isn't a wiki, I am forced to make a note of it here. You seem to be conflating correction of misstatements of fact with apologism. - BanyanTree 23:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Fine, I didn't realize that the purpose of this page was to explain why everyone who criticizes Wikipedia is full of it. Gazpacho 07:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I was quite willing to hear out your reasoning, but you don't appear to have one, just the first part of a straw man argument. For someone who decries "internet drama", you appear to be quite good at it. - BanyanTree 16:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
no u Gazpacho 20:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
What are we supposed to do when a piece of journalism includes a false factual claim that could be refuted by a simple link within Wikipedia? Ignore it? It's not about "spinning" the coverage: false positive statements and false negative statements should both be pointed out. If an article claimed, for example, that Wikipedia had a WYSISYG editing interface, or that it was error-free, then that would be refuted as well. It just happens that false negative statements about Wikipedia are more common in press coverage than false positive statements. Grover cleveland 05:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Finnish Wikipedia seminar

The Finnish Wikipedia held a public seminar on March 21, at the Helsinki main post office's library, to celebrate their 100'000th article. I attended part of the seminar and got a few photographs too. Should this be mentioned on this page? JIP | Talk 20:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dokdo requested move in Chosun Ilbo

The requested move of the disputed islands Dokdo just made news here, might it be worth a mention? It's currently on the front page here. --Cheers, Komdori 01:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Negative coverage of Wikipedia

"My impression is" that many of the reviews of Wikipedia (there being one in today's Sunday Times tend towards the negative.

While there is probably a tendency to "pick the bad examples" for newspapers something will have to be done before the whole of Wikipedia is affected.

Jackiespeel 21:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Utter, David. "Anime, Sex Popular At Wikipedia"

I am a bit puzzled. Where do the stix in this article come from. I was under the impression that it was impossible to know what pages get the most hits, etc. Perhaps it is just in general cats which I suppose poses some problems. Can anyone point me towards and explanation Joel Mc 16:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The reseacrh in question was about the number of "searches", not "hits". And the article refers to "Compete" site analysis tool, whatever it is, you may start from here or from their FAQ. `'Miikka 16:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
And judging from this it looks kinda notable. May be someone is willing to write a wikipedia article about it. `'Miikka 16:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Here's one

I didn't know how to add this one as it is an unsigned editorial from the Globe and Mail. It compares the recent (disputed) revelation that the Poe Toaster was a hoax, and suggests it's much easier to pull a hoax on people today by using Wikipedia. So cynical! --Midnightdreary 14:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Done, thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk) —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 17:13, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

[edit] IJsbrand van Veelen film: "Wiki's Waarheid"

There is a 48 min English language movie on YouTube by a Dutch filmmaker. It was shown at the "Next Web Conference"

Dutch article: http://www.vpro.nl/programma/tegenlicht/afleveringen/39405191/

TechCrunch article: The Truth According to Wikipedia

I'm not sure if links to such documentaries are collected somewhere, and if so, on what page.

-- nyenyec ☎ 13:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably should go on Wikipedia:Wikipedia on TV and radio, taking TV to mean web TV not just broadcast TV. Lumos3 (talk) 14:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Concerned Women for America

Their concerns about the smut on Wikipedia put me in mind of the remark attributed to Samuel Johnson when praised for keeping dirty words out of his dictionary "So, you've been looking for them have you?" Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ebony Anpu

So I can't find the article about Ebony Anpu mentioned in 2600. OK, fine. But why can't I find the AFD listing for it? Cholerashot (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The article was deleted three times in February 2007 the first on 16 February and the last on 25 February. For the AfDs see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ebony Anpu, first try and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ebony Anpu the last delete was in response to a recreation after this last AFD--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 08:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for all the links you've provided. After reading the last AFD I have no doubt it was the right decision. It's just that it seemed shady that neither Search nor What links here was turning up anything. Cholerashot (talk) 19:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jim Prentice

I wondered if this CBC article was fair game here. -- Reaper X 03:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely ... is relevant. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)