Wikipedia in the press |
---|
Among the members of this emerging online oligopoly, none is more intriguing than Wikipedia. An outlandish experiment in communitarian action when it was launched in 2001, the user-generated encyclopaedia has become the world's fifth most visited website and the first reference source for schoolchildren and adults alike - even if most swear a half-hearted oath to double-check anything they read there.
Perhaps you've heard some news reports that say Wikipedia is fading? Don't tell that to Ken Gallager.
The Wikimedia Foundation announced on Tuesday that its annual fundraiser this year raised just over $8 million, exceeding its goal of $7.5 million, with a record more than 230,000 individuals giving donations, up from 125,000 a year ago.
In the age of social media, you can use Wikipedia -- the world's online encyclopedia –- as a marketing tool. Small businesses are find that getting a listing in Wikipedia can help validate their existence and more.
Ofqual said putting keywords into internet search engines was a "good starting point" when researching pieces of coursework and dissertations. But guidance sent out to schoolchildren in England warns pupils to be extremely wary when using other websites such as Wikipedia. The on-line encyclopaedia – created using contributions from readers – was not "authoritative or accurate" and in some cases "may be completely untrue", said Ofqual.
And there it is, Bix Beiderbecke explained in great detail on Wikipedia. Perhaps, as Wolfe hopes, it will spark interest in the musician that might lead people to his forthcoming book. Equally likely, sadly, is that it will scare other scholars off from investing their time in creating well-rounded Wikipedia entries.
The overarching question for Wikipedia - its central riddle, really - is this: How can a source be reliable when anyone can edit it? One favorite answer from Wikipedia's defenders is, "The problem with Wikipedia is that it only works in practice. In theory, it can never work."
So can a vibrant vernacular Wikipedia transform the language of the Web in India? Given the resounding success of this collective, and an army of Indian wiki foot soldiers to back it, it is indeed possible.
The second most successful collective knowledge system is Wikipedia. Back in 2001, most people thought Wikipedia was a wacky project that would at best end up being a quirky "toy" encyclopedia. Instead it has become a remarkably comprehensive and accurate resource that most internet users access every day.
But last October, Microsoft pulled the plug on Encarta. Wikipedia, meanwhile, flourishes. The economic incentives may have favoured Encarta, but when it comes to motivation, as Wikipedia's success demonstrates, other factors - such as autonomy, a feeling of mastery in our work, and meaning - can be even more important.
A number of Israel's leading "Wikipedes" came to the Knesset on Tuesday, where they reaped the laurels of their efforts, but also leveled a certain amount of criticism toward a lack of government cooperation with their efforts to compile a free online Hebrew-language encyclopedia.
The World's largest online encyclopedia Wikipedia plans to launch an Indian edition of the website as part of its strategy to expand its footprint in the lucrative internet markets of India and China. The non-profit foundation is considering a proposal to launch Wikipedia.in, a local India chapter, similar to its country-specific portals in China, Germany, US and UK
Former Today Tonight host Naomi Robson is at the centre of a "Wiki war" as her manager, Max Markson, puts his own spin on her past.
A study looking into which UK websites attract the highest proportion of ABC1 consumers has ranked the BBC top in this regard. The UK Online Measurement Company (UKOM) and Nielsen examined the ten top online brands in Britain and found that 64 per cent of the BBC's unique visitors could be classed as falling into this demographic. Other top sites for this metric included Amazon and Wikipedia at 62 per cent and Google at 60 per cent.
Wikipedia, like any socially or collaboratively structured entity, requires a virtuous spiral to thrive. People have to enjoy and value working on it, which makes a good product that people like working on, which attracts more people who like it, which makes it better, and so on.
Google co-founder Sergey Brin, in a statement, called Wikipedia "one of the greatest triumphs of the Internet…this vast repository of community-generated content is an invaluable resource to anyone who is online."
Wikipedia has become an important part of a company's profile: the Wikipedia website regularly appears second or third in a list of search engine results and for many people will be the most accessible way of learning about a business. Yet companies fight shy of interfering with what is said about them on Wikipedia – a global online encyclopedia written and edited by its users – following high-profile incidents in which organisations have amended their entries to be more favourable. Reputations were damaged once the changes were discovered and made public.
We found that all-round contributors dominated the best-quality entries. In the entries with the lowest quality, starters and casual contributors dominated.
More than half of college students frequently or always consult Wikipedia for course-related research, according to a report published in First Monday, an online, peer-reviewed journal. Only 22 percent of respondents to the survey said they rarely or never use Wikipedia. The study is based on responses from 2,318 students and qualitative data from 86 who participated in focus groups.
Much public art is done as temporary installations, and when they are gone there is little for scholars to work with. To solve this problem, Ms. Mikulay, an assistant professor and public scholar of visual culture at Indiana-Purdue, started the project, Wikipedia Saves Public Art, with Richard S. McCoy, an associate conservator at the Indianapolis Museum of Art.
If Wikipedia's almost unstoppable momentum continues, critics say, it threatens to quickly reverse centuries of progress in the sharing of verifiable knowledge with its highest aspiration being genuine fact. In its place would be a constant cacophony of fact and falsity that Wikipedia's critics call a "law of the jungle."
Wikipedia has beaten YouTube, Facebook and Twitter to be voted the best website launched in the last decade, according to a poll of Netimperative readers.
...the web is dominated by the original, all-purpose Wikipedia...Perhaps the key constraint of Wikipedia is the time (and inclination) of those of us who "know": we...should be the ones filling in the gaps.
The parent company of Wikipedia is knowingly distributing child pornography, the co-founder of the online encyclopedia says, and he's imploring the FBI to investigate.
Anyone can post or edit an entry, but that doesn't stop it being a great source for fact checking and an excellent teaching resource, argues Andrew Dalby
MPs who were embarrassed in the parliamentary expenses scandal have been accused of a "cover up" after details of their spending were deleted from their Wikipedia entries.
![]() | This page has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
Alan Keen has denied involvement in an alleged expenses "cover-up" after details of his parliamentary claims were deleted from his Wikipedia page.
Apparently we've got our own Wikipedia page...
After years of spectacular growth, frequent derision and bitter controversy, Wikipedia may have found its ultimate challenge: success and public acceptance.
BANBURY MP Tony Baldry has strongly defended his decision to make changes to his Wikipedia biography, saying information posted on the web-based encyclopedia was inaccurate and libellous.
The film's central question, Glosserman explained, is this: "Should you and I be charged with canonizing the sum of human knowledge for everyone, or should we be leaving that to the experts?"
Jimmy Wales is the co-founder and driving force behind Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that is edited by everyone. Well, potentially everyone, and only if you have an internet connection....Wikipedia democratised [sic] knowledge like nothing before it, creating an organic Encyclopedia Britannica.
The bureau wrote a letter in July to the Wikimedia Foundation, the parent organization of Wikipedia, demanding that it take down an image of the F.B.I. seal accompanying an article on the bureau, and threatened litigation: 'Failure to comply may result in further legal action. We appreciate your timely attention to this matter.'
Open review more closely resembles Wikipedia behind the scenes, where anyone with an interest can post a comment. This open-door policy has made Wikipedia, on balance, a crucial reference resource.
My small-time, local, perhaps pathetic story has me wondering where else in our universe 0f information other more important holes exist.
Over the following days, they added information, photos and footnotes, building up a solid, useful account
Of course, it's perfectly possible that I'm seeing a conspiracy where there really is none. The language and actions of people who lived two and a half thousand years ago are always going to be open to differing interpretations, and every Wikipedia page is a haphazard jumble of diverse thoughts from unconnected people, isn't it? But how to explain the sudden and radical reversal in the consensus of Wikipedia editors? I can't help but wonder whether, just maybe, this could be the much more deliberate product of a specific interest group attempting to denigrate all things Iranian, however tangential their relationship to the present Islamic Republic.
On Sunday night, and again Monday morning, someone identified only as "Pensacolian" edited Judge Vinson's Wikipedia entry to include the invented material. The prankster footnoted the entry to a supposed story in The Pensacola News Journal. The article — like its stated publication date of June 31, 2003 — does not exist. The same person who posted the information removed it on Tuesday afternoon, Wikipedia logs show.
"Public good provision" is the economists' name for installing a solar hot water system for the sake of the planet, or endowing a library, or contributing a paragraph to Wikipedia. The trouble is not that economics has no explanation for such contributions, but that it has too many.
![]() | This page has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
As far as Wikipedia is concerned, you don't even exist.
The author does concede that the number of KJV phrases still echoing today isn't definitive, and I won't give it away. The enterprise is murky because 'not everyone will share my intuition about what counts as an idiom'. I don't. [David] Crystal gives up on Exodus as a source for tags without considering 'bricks without straw'. So I Googled 'bricks without straw' and found it listed in on-line idiom catalogues. The phrase has a Wikipedia entry to itself. Isn't Wikipedia marvellous? It's almost as good as the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations.
The credibility of the International Baccalaureate (IB) was badly undermined this week as it emerged that it has plagiarised large chunks of its marking guides from Wikipedia.
A Swiss organization has awarded Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales 100,000 Swiss francs ($104,000) for 'democratizing the access to knowledge.'
There has recently been concern expressed by booksellers in both the new and secondhand fields regarding print on demand (POD) books. ... I discovered this week that a POD publisher in the United States was offering for about $15 a book that appears to be copied from four articles on Wikipedia which are largely my work, and which I contributed to the website so readers could use them without charge. When I signed up to the Wikipedia copyright agreement, I did not envisage my altruism stretching as far as other people making a profit from my work. The firm offers other POD 'study guides', which may also be lifted from Wikipedia or other free sources.
The head teacher of a school in New York is facing calls to resign after he sent out an error-strewn letter claiming that children did not need books, while he also recommended Wikipedia.
Traditionally, the Supreme Court has been very sensitive in placing its reliance on jurisprudence created outside the Indian legal system. Its judgments and their core values are a reflection of either the author judge's original thinking or his effort to improve upon an earlier precedent to bring it in sync with the social dynamics. In contrast, Justice Markandey Katju created history on Thursday in his judgment in the case D Velusamy vs D Patchaimmal. He made information available on Wikipedia the basis for formulating a four-point guideline and ruled that a live-in relationships must satisfy this to be categorized as relationship in the nature of marriage under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
'I was notable for about a year, but I haven't been notable since Oct.5,' Diaz joked.
I read up on the mechanics and science of flight on the internet, downloading about 2GB of information. Mostly I used Wikipedia – it gives you all the specs, that's the good thing.
Wikimedia, the non-profit that runs the free online encyclopedia Wikipedia as well as a number of sister sites, has kicked off its 2010 "contribution campaign" and aims to raise double what it did last year.
![]() | This page has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
Most Tuesdays, a group of scientists at the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute in Hinxton, UK, meets over lunch to edit Wikipedia pages. But there is no obsessing over the minutiae of Britney Spears's career to be found here — instead, they are building the next generation of global biological databases.
Sorry, Anna Tse ..., you cannot have the red poppy as a symbol for your anti-colonial diatribes. ... Wikipedia's article on the European red poppy Papaver rhoeas, which is by the way a different species from the opium poppy, Papaver somniferum, is particularly enlightening.
I'm asking everyone interested to write something up that meets Wikipedia's guidelines and help bring the APCO Worldwide entry up to date.
An influential report for the US Congress that questioned the validity of climate change research appears to have been partly derived from Wikipedia and textbooks.
Seeing Jimmy Wales makes people donate more to Wikipedia, which he co-founded. .... Now the concept is ostensibly being taken to its logical conclusion by a Chrome browser extension - a Jimmy Wales banner upon every single page you visit!
Rusty Smith might have the shortest Wikipedia page of any starting quarterback in Wikipedia history. Seven sentences.
Shopping-enabled Wikipedia pages are a new introduction on Amazon.com," Amazon spokeswoman Anya Waring told CNET when asked via e-mail. "As of November, we have rolled [the feature] out in the books category; however, [it] will be expanding to new categories in 2011.Also at Znet
To thousands of Wikipedia users, he is an unnamed and unpaid volunteer scribe whose voluminous articles on Capital Region history are credited only to his Internet handle: UpstateNYer.
How Wikipedia spots vandalism on its pages by looking for dirty words inserted by teenagers.
"The lesson is not to rely heavily on Wikipedia," says Moran, who is also ABC's Supreme Court correspondent.
The Cuban government is launching its own online encyclopaedia, similar to Wikipedia, with the goal of presenting its view of the world and history.
You'll have noticed Jimmy Wales looking ruggedly handsome at the top of every Wikipedia page. But have you clicked? Probably not, because the promo is in the wrong place.
"I think journalists should be banned from checking Wikipedia," he [Taio Cruz] says, referring to a host of inaccuracies that have now been corrected.
If Wikipedia – which some estimates have valued at $5 billion - were not a non-profit venture, shunning advertisers and overseen by a charitable foundation (of which he is emeritus chairman), Wales would possess unimaginable wealth. He is making his annual appeal to Wikipedia users for added funding, this year seeking $16m, in order to maintain independence by avoiding dependence on major benefactors.
We also read 16 Wikipedia pages every month, which are tops in the world and only one more than German users.
{{cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(help)