Wikipedia talk:Press coverage 2004

Mesopotamian plain

Err.. Just a point, but yes, the Mesopotamian plain is known as the Fertile Cresent. The cresent of rivers, you see - Tigris, Euphrates, Jordan etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.77.186.50 (talk • contribs) 09:20, 8 April 2003 (UTC)[reply]

Presentations on WP

Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump

I've seen people mentioning academic studies (conference presentations/ journal papers) of Wikipedia. Is there a page which lists all of them (known to us?)? Tomos 00:26 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I don't know if someone has started a list yet, but here are some starting points: I did an English presentation at the Open Cultures conference in Vienna (which also covered Slashdot and Kuro5hin), and also one on July 1 at the Merz-Akademie (exclusively about Wikipedia). There appears to be no video online for the latter one, even though it was filmed. I also wrote a four-part-series for the German netzine Telepolis about Wikipedia. [1] Lars Aronsson's Operation of a Large Scale, General Purpose Wiki Website may also be of interest.—Eloquence 00:39 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I think it'd very informative (to non-Wikipedians) and fun (to Wikipedians) to see a list of formal or semi-formal oral presentations (academic or not) in which Wikipedia is mentioned (hopefully more than a sentence.) --Menchi 02:41 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Thanks! I tentatively created a list of references on my user page so that others can look or add. Tomos 01:41, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia in the Media

' Wikipedia on TV '

Wikipedia on Free-to-air TV for the first time, maybe. Australian Endemol-produced gameshow 'Deal Or No Deal' on channel 7 cites 'Wikipedia' as a source, including a link to the website. I'll have more info if anybody asks. This could be the first time Wikipedia has, while not been featured, but cited or for that matter mentioned on free-to-air TV anywhere.

Just a short note to let you know that I mentioned Wikipedia in a recent article on CMS for the American Chamber of Commerce in Japan. The piece is available here in PDF format. Keep up the good work! --Laszlo 11:59, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia in Scientific American

Just remembered. There was a link to wikipedia in the article "Chain Letters and Evolutionary History" in the June issue of Scientific American. The exact quote is: "Kolmogorov complexity is discussed at www.wikipedia.org/wiki/kolmogorov_complexity". :)

I couldn't find this on their site so it might just be in the printed version.

This should off course be mentioned somewhere but I can't figure out where to put it on the press coverage page. -- Jniemenmaa 10:22, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Where do we put Wikipedia as source for scientific work?

Hi, where do we put articles like this (found by MAv):

IBM History Flow: Technical experiment on "visualizing dynamic, evolving documents and the interactions of multiple collaborating authors." Uses various Wikipedia articles as example data.

Thanks for help, Fantasy 08:24, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The Articles the Press release resulted in

...will need to be added. I found four of them: Spiegel, de Politiken, da — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sverdrup (talk • contribs) 05:53, 26 February 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Is this one?

I don't know if this counts [2]? By the way, this wasn't found through news in google, but rather through [3]. Dori | Talk 03:44, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

Holy crap! Time.com! Whoa! That probably goes, IMHO, in Wikipedia:Wikipedia as a press source jengod 03:51, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

Kick ASS! Meelar 03:52, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oops, yes wrong talk page...but what I meant is that it doesn't look like a real article. Dori | Talk 03:52, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

It's real enough for us! Check out the other stuff on press source. You'll see. jengod 03:54, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

If it weren't Time.com I wouldn't have bothered, but I have listed it :) Dori | Talk 04:00, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

opposition to press coverage

I oppose all attempts to promote Wikipedia to press outlets. We do not need such promotion. Futhermore, such promotion causes overall slowness of the system and increases the number of vandals - in other words, it becomes a waste of all our time -- and for what? I see nothing valuable to media attention. Kingturtle 00:37, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well OK, but this page is not doing anything to actively "promote" Wikipedia per se. It is a listing of Press Coverage that has happened, regardless whether anyone affiliated with Wikipedia had done anything to actively promote such coverage. older ≠ wiser 00:49, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

See m:Should we promote Wikimedia?. Angela . 01:05, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)

Hear now the GodKing

Tangentially related to the facebook discussion above, it looks like you can now hear the voice of Jimbo Wales. This Newsweek interview has the link, unfortunately I can't check for sure it works where am I right now. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 13:43, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I listened to it yesterday. His interview is the second half of the clip. :) fabiform | talk 15:53, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

For those who do not like proprietary audio, or who have problems playing it, or who want a local copy of this interview, I have created an Ogg Vorbis rip which only includes the Jimbo segment: download this (4 mins, 2 megs). This is on my own server, and I consider it fair use.--Eloquence * 00:31, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

Awesome, I was about to post a request here for someone to do that very thing. Andrewa 01:57, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It's very interesting to hear how he pronounces a name wikipedia. I mean that's certainly not the way I do. -- Taku 04:56, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

I guess talking phonetics is hard (unless we're International Phonetics Alphabet experts, which I'm certainly not) in text.. but I'll give it a go... they pronounce it wi-KA-pedia initially and then it drifts towards wi-key-pedia later on. I pronounce it the latter way. How does someone from Japan pronounce it? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 14:43, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

One thing sure about Japanese pronounciation is you don't make any accent whatsoever. In my understanding, accent is almost always used for gramatical purposes. So, if you say, wi-KA-pedia, you

may make you look trying to fool youself or something. In fact, I think mainly due to accents, many English-speakers think Japanese are not speaking English words when they think they are. Oh, complete off-topic but have you seen Kill Bill? Their Japanese is so bad that I needed to rely on English subtitles to decipher what they are talking. -- Taku 15:53, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)

Should Blogs be Listed (and where)?

I added:

Why Wikipedia sucks. Big time. The Aardvark Speaks, June 2, 2004. "It turns out that the great advantage of the Wikipedia, the wiki format, which allows everybody to add/edit everything, is also its greatest disadvantage."

However it was removed. Why? It is a news article. Several other german and english blogs linked to it. Texture said in the history: Reverted edits by 153.90.199.52 to last version by KF. Does Texture think I'm a bad person? He sent me some message that said I was vandalizing articles and would be block from editing. I didn't mean to vandalize articles. How did I vandalize articles? Why did my edit get removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.90.199.52 (talk • contribs) 12:01, 10 June 2004 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like a news site to me. Most of these stories are found through Google News (or Altavista, or Yahoo News). Dori | Talk 16:03, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. I don't think a personal website qualifies as "press" coverage. →Raul654 16:23, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

Could I create a Blogs to go along with the existing Press, Academic, and Radio news sources? 153.90.199.52 22:05, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What were you thinking? Wikipedia:Wikipedia in blogs and/or Wikipedia:Wikipedia as a blog source? My only concern is I think this lends itself to a lot of self-promotional linking. And it'd be a bitch to keep up with. jengod 22:31, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

On the topic of where oddball items should go, see Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia on TV and radio for some radio shows that use wikipedia as a source (or at least the web sites for the radio shows do). older≠wiser 23:11, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I was thinking Wikipedia:Wikipedia in blogs. I can't see any real use in linking to blogs that use wikipedia as a source (there are probably 100s of mentions a month), but I do think it might be useful to keep links to blogs that discuss wikipedia. They certainly will come up with interesting ideas that might not otherwise be discussed. 153.90.199.52 13:42, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Wrong link?

The link to

Need To Do Research? Go Further Than Google (http://www.investors.com/editorial/tech01.asp?v=6/5) Investors.com, June 7, 2004. "One increasingly popular online tool is wikipedia.org, a collaborative encyclopedia that lets any user edit an entry."

seems to be to an article that doesn't mention Wikipedia. --Fritzlein 06:10, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It seems the article shifted its URL, since even the title doesn't match. --Menchi 08:15, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

On the left side of the Press Coverage page there's a list of links to other languages. The first one, Esperanto (for some reason preceding Dansk) should be removed, as it links merely to the Esperanto Wikipedia Main Page, not to a Press Coverage page. However, when I try to edit it I can't find the link to remove it. What can I do?

06:23, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC) Haruo

Missing link

The section "Veni, Vidi ...Wiki?" which points to this yahoo link gives a "Page not found". Does anyone know where the page has moved to. Else we'll have to keep the text but remove the link. Jay 03:45, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Text

Free Online Encyclopedia May Be the World's Best (http://eogn.typepad.com/eastmans_online_genealogy/2004/08/_free_online_en.html#more)

Can someone email me the text to this? mail at jengod dot com? If I had more than $8 in my bank account, I swear I'd subscribe. jengod 21:44, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

Page order

Somebody reversed the listed items (incompletely, because they only reversed months and not dates) to be in reverse chronological order, apparently to make it more consistent with Wikipedia:Wikipedia as a press source. Besides the fact that it was not actually made consistent, I question whether consistency is necessary, and furthermore whether the chosen order is in fact the better one. For that matter, if you look at the archives from previous years, they are in chronological order, so there's another consistency issue. When the content on this page moves to archive, as it will in only a few weeks, I rather think that straight chronological order will be more useful in that context than reverse. --Michael Snow 06:50, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)