Editing Incubator escapee wiki:Press coverage 2005 (section)

==February==

*McHugh, Josh. "The Firefox Explosion." ''Wired Magazine''. February 2005, p.97. <small>[http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.02/firefox.html]</small>
::"Firefox's assault on Internet Explorer isn't the only attack Bill Gates is facing. A ragtag coalition of open source projects is steadily chipping away at the Microsoft empire. Here's a look at market share on eight different fronts.&nbsp;&hellip;<br />"Web encylopedias&nbsp;&ndash; Encarta Premium: 68,000 entries; Wikipedia: 431,195 entries" &ndash;&nbsp;Illustration, "Storming Redmond" <small>[http://www.wired.com/wired/images.html?issue=13.02&topic=firefox&img=3]</small>

*Waters, Richard. "In search of more: the "friendly" engines that will manage the data of daily life". ''Financial Times''. February 1, 2005.
::"Already, internet blogs and communal internet pages known as wikis (from the Hawaiian word for "speedy") are pushing the boundaries of what was known as "user-generated content". Results from Wikipedia, a free encyclopaedia maintained over the internet by volunteers, may not match the standards of publications produced by professional editors, but the service still manages to answer many common questions."

*Mahmud, Vishnu K. "Share global information with Wiki encyclopedia". ''The Jakarta Post''. February 1, 2005.
*:Do you know the history of the airship? Or how to make a magnet? 
*:In the "old days" (circa 1998), you would have had to open up a book or an encyclopedia to find the answers. Nowadays, however, you can simply "google" or web-search the answer with your computer and the Internet.
*:The World Wide Web is a massive network of virtual pages and hyperlinks, making it an ideal source of information. But its decentralized nature can also make it extremely difficult to find or upload data towards the advancement of knowledge. Is there a centralized website online where wisdom can be stored and shared? 
*:Enter Wikipedia (www.wikipedia.org). Created by the WikiMedia Foundation (www.wikimediafoundation.org), this free online encyclopedia allows everyone to access, edit and share informational content in a variety of languages.

*McHenry, Robert. "On Getting It: The Faith-Based Encyclopedia and Me". ''Tech Central Station''. February 1, 2005. <small>[http://www.techcentralstation.com/020105C.html]</small>
::Follow-up to the author's previous article from November 2004, "[http://www.techcentralstation.com/111504A.html The Faith-Based Encyclopedia]".

*ElAmin, Ahmed. "Tech Tattle: A 'wiki' way of learning all about Bermuda". ''The Royal Gazette''. February 2, 2005. <small>[http://www.theroyalgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050202/BUSINESS/102020054]</small>
::"One of course should never rely completely on online information and should always check other reference sources for accuracy. However, Wikipedia seems to actually work most of the time because of the amount of users on the lookout for errors."

*Dibbel, Julian. "Choose Your Own Encyclopedia". ''The Village Voice''. February 3, 2005. <small>[http://www.villagevoice.com/screens/0506,dibbell,60773,28.html]</small>
::"Go to any Wikipedia entry you choose&#8212;"Hindu philosophy," "drunk driving," "pataphysics"&#8212;and click on the Edit This Page tab. Bingo: Whatever you write immediately becomes the last word on the subject. And if this sounds like a recipe for mob rule, that's because it is. But mob rule turns out to be a surprisingly good way to write an encyclopedia."

*Cherkoff, James. "What Is Open Source Marketing?" ''WebProNews''. February 4, 2005. <small>[http://www.webpronews.com/enterprise/marketing/wpn-16-20050204WhatIsOpenSourceMarketing.html]</small>
::"Wikipedia is an Open Source encyclopaedia (recently recognised by the Press Association) containing 1.3 million articles in eight different languages, all written, developed and maintained by regular people around the world."

*Green, Graeme. "Net Result - The best sites for... online encyclopaedias" ''London Metro''. February 9, 2005. 
::"[Wikipedia logo; www.wikipedia.org; 5-star rating] Not the most visually striking site but very easy to navigate and you'll struggle to find a subject it can't provide information on. Highlighted keywords guide your search to more detailed information, related subjects or interesting tangents. Subjects can be edited and added to by users, which means the site continues to grow and cover increasingly diverse topics." [Review was on page 31 in the MetroLife feature. The 5-star rating was the best rating (5/5) of the three encyclopaedias reviewed. The others were www.probert-encyclopaedia.co.uk (3/5) and www.iep.utm.edu (4/5). This was typed out from the London Metro edition, though other editions of Metro are published in other UK cities.]

*Menta, Richard (February 9, 2005). "WikiPod, The iPod Encyclopedia". ''MP3Newswire.net'' <small>[http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/5002/wikipod.html]</small>
*:Mainly refers to a new site, [http://www.wikipod.org/index.php/Main_Page WikiPod], however refers to Wikipedia:
*::"I came across this little posting today on PDATrends. A group is looking to start their own encyclopedia specifically for the iPod and they are soliciting articles for it. The site, which they call WikiPod, uses the same look and graphics of Wikipedia. I don't know if there is any direct relation to Wikipedia, which already has its own articles on the iPod and everything related."

*Weiss, Aaron (February 10, 2005). "The Unassociated Press" ''New York Times'', ''Circuits Section'', p.E5.
*:"[[Wikinews]] is ... the latest... in a collection of Wikis under the umbrella of Wikimedia ... The largest Wiki project, Wikipedia, has been online for four years and contains more than 450,000 articles, all written and open to revision by its more than 150,000 users. ... Central to Wikinews is its commitment to neutrality, said Jimmy Wales ... president of the nonprofit Wikimedia Foundation. ... 
*:"Above all, the central question about the Wikinews effort is its credibility. "Making a newspaper is hard," said Robert McHenry, former editor in chief of Encyclopaedia Britannica. "Someone who wants to do it but doesn't really know how hasn't solved the problem by gathering a lot of other people who don't know, either.
*:"Mr. McHenry was skeptical about Wikinews's ability to provide a neutral point of view and its claim to be evenhanded. "The naïveté is stunning," he said."

* Regan, Jim (February 11, 2005). "Wacky Wikipedia". ''The Christian Science Monitor'' <small>[http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0211/p25s01-stin.html]</small>
*:"HALIFAX, NOVA SCOTIA &#8211; If I may take moment to state the patently obvious, there is a great deal of 'unusual' content on the web. From UFOs and Crop Circles to Dancing Hamsters and Headless Chickens, you can find it all online - but for the most part, each site only deals with a single unusual topic, and the sites themselves are spread far and wide. So where can the connoisseur of concentrated eccentricity go for a wide and varied selection of the peculiar in one convenient location? Well, that would be Wikipedia - where a collection of [[Wikipedia:Unusual articles|Unusual Articles]] can take you from [[Bat bomb]]s to the [[Year 10,000 problem]] on a single page."

* "A Problem Shared Is a Problem Solved" (no date). ''Fast Company''. <small>[http://www.fastcompany.com/resources/innovation/watson/011005.html]</small>
*:"Recently the idea has been transferred to all manner of projects ranging from an open source encyclopedia called the Wikipedia and collaborative industrial design such as [[ThinkCycle]] to open source aeroplane design, cola recipes, film scripts, and beer."

* Shliferstein, Jim (February 10, 2005). "Freedom of Excretion". ''The Cornell Daily Sun Online''. <small>[http://www.cornellsun.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/02/10/420ace15114ff]</small>
*:Basically, this guy wrote a piece on Wikipedia about he vandalised to be amusing. He refers to it again in his column ''Arrr!'':
*:"The ferocity of these W.C. warriors, and the furious indigestive indignation with which they defend their ideas, is absolutely astounding. I've never seen such vitriol in such a trivial context -- except, perhaps, on the Internet, where similarly forgettable forums are littered with self-righteous diatribes and counter-diatribes, each thread taken mortally seriously by all of four people. (If you doubt it, consider that my column poking fun at Wikipedia geeks earned several angry, ten-page rebuttals from Wikipedia faithful -- or, as they are technically known, "Wikipedophiles.")"

* "Google lends Wikipedia a hand".''p2pnet.net''. <small>[http://p2pnet.net/story/3867]</small>
*:"...Microsoft ... loosed its own search engine ... Both Google and Yahoo are streets ahead of MSN launch in terms of both popularity and goodwill. ... Google has offered its support to assist Wikipedia by providing much needed storage and hosting services, says TechWhack, going on, &#8220;The deal is still in very early stages. Wikipedia has made it public that Google has not asked for any favors in returns, which includes any ad placement on Wikipedia pages. ... Google with the power and content of Wikipedia might make a lethal combination to empower the extent; knowledge is available to the end user on the Internet. But then considering Wikipedia already is open source, Google would not have needed any tech support from the developers of this online encyclopedia!&#8221;"

* "Google Plans to add Encyclopedia Results to Searches; Wikipedia" (February 11, 2005). ''The Cranky Consumer''. <small>[http://www.crankyconsumer.org/archives/000180google_plans_to_add_encyclopedia_results_to_searches_wikipedia.html]</small>
*:"Google.com, not missing a beat, looks like it is making plans to start using the Wiki Media online Encyclopedia project in its search results. Google has agreed to host some of the Company's wesite using Google Servers."

* "Google may host encyclopedia project" (February 11, 2005). ''Cnet News.com'' <small>[http://news.com.com/Google%20may%20host%20encyclopedia%20project/2100-1038_3-5572744.html?tag=html.alert]</small>
*:"Wiki Media Foundation, the group behind the Wikipedia online encyclopedia project, said Friday that search giant Google has volunteered to host some of its content on company servers."

* "Google Offers to Host Wikipedia" (February 11, 2005). ''BetaNews'' <small>[http://www.betanews.com/article/Google_Offers_to_Host_Wikipedia/1108144572]</small>
*:"From Internet domains to Web browsers, Google seems to have its hands all over the Web these days. But the search giant shows no signs of slowing its reach, and has offered to host the Wikipedia online encyclopedia. Wiki Media Foundation, which runs Wikipedia, says [[m:Google hosting|Google has volunteered]] to supply servers and bandwidth to the project."

* Krevs, Paul (February 11, 2005). "Google Offers Assistance To Wikipedia". ''Neowin.net''. <small>[http://www.neowin.net/comments.php?id=27044&category=main]</small>
*:"Google has offered to assist online encyclopedia Wikipedia, by providing some much needed storage and hosting services to the giant non-profit site. Although terms of the upcoming arrangement have yet to be finalized, Wikimedia commented that any deal will still see Wikipedia remaining ad-free; meaning that the arrangement will not impose Google "AdSense" technology on the popular site."

* "GooglePedia? Google Wants to Help the Wikipedia". ''Search Engine Watch''. <small>[http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/050210-220108]</small>
*:"A post at Dirson kicked off a Slashdot discussion about Google offering to host "some" Wikimedia content. What this precisely means is not spelled out. A post on the Wikimedia wiki says that "terms" of the offer are being discussed and that a private IRC meeting is scheduled for March. It also mentions that Google's offer "does not mean" there will be a requirement to include advertising on Wikimedia sites. Stay tuned."

* "Google & Wikimedia Sitting in a Tree..." (February 11, 2005). ''SearchViews''. <small>[http://searchviews.com/blog/searchviews/archive/2005/02/11/482.aspx]</small>
*:"Wikipedia is going to be getting a much-needed shot in the arm, thanks to a donation of bandwidth and servers from Google. The Wikimedia Foundation (the international non-profit that handles the development of the Wiki encyclopedia and other projects) is expected to announce an agreement with Google sometime soon. Until then they're mostly mum, but you can check out a short statement from Wikipedia here."

* "Google Offers To Host Wikipedia" (February 11, 2005). ''TechNewsWorld''. <small>[http://www.technewsworld.com/story/news/40554.html]</small>
*:"Google searches already access Wikipedia and other Wikimedia resources through the services that host the organization's content, but some have speculated that Google wants the encyclopedia content to compete with MSN Search's Encarta content and Yahoo, which accesses the Columbia Encyclopedia."

* "Wikinews Holds Online Conference with Bloggers" (February 11, 2005). ''Chatmag''. <small>[http://www.chatmag.com/news/020605_wikinews_bloggers.html]</small>
*:Wikinews, a sub project of the Wikimedia Foundation, held an online conference with several prominent 'bloggers on Saturday, Feb. 5th. The purpose of the conference was to introduce bloggers to the concept of Wikinews, and to explore avenues to integrate blogging into the Wikinews sections.

* Shields, Tom, "Sports Diary: Fleeting effect is right on the balls", (Glasgow) ''Sunday Herald'' 13 February 2005. <small>[http://www.sundayherald.com/47762]</small>
*:''In an article on the bigotry between supporters of [[Celtic F.C.|Celtic]] and [[Rangers F.C.|Rangers]] football clubs, he spotted the edit war on 11 February afternoon which resulted in both articles being protected.''
*:"A small indication of how deep-seated is the conflict between the orange and the green could be seen this week on an obscure and verging on the academic encyclopedia website called Wikipedia. It is an anorak-inhabited environment where earnest folk are invited to contribute their knowledge of history, culture, life and everything. The opportunity for browsers to call up and edit entries on the Wikipedia proved too tempting for warriors on the [[Old Firm]] cyber battlefield."
*:"The entry for Rangers FC was adjusted to include the information that the club was founded by [[Adolf Hitler]] and [[Pol Pot]] and that one of their all-time great players was one [[Alvin Stardust]]. There was retaliation when Wikipedia readers were informed that Celtic &#8220;was founded by Brother Walfrid as a way to raise money for terribly thick Irish bogtrotters, mainly in the East of Glasgow. However, for her supporters, Celtic is much more than a football club, it is a great way to meet young boys and abuse them."
*:"The Wikipedia people were bewildered by the fact that the Celtic and Rangers entries were being edited almost by the minute to include a vast array of insult and accusation. They called an end to these &#8220;edit wars&#8221; and peace has broken out. It is unlikely that Cathy Jamieson will have equal success at her summit this week."

* Hines, Matt (February 14, 2005). "Google may host encyclopedia project". ''ZDNet'' (taken from ''CNet news.com''). <small>[http://news.zdnet.co.uk/internet/0,39020369,39187928,00.htm]</small>
*:"Wikipedia.org could soon be hosted on Google's servers, as the search giant looks for ways of supporting the Wikimedia Foundation."

* "Dvorak on Google and Wikipedia" (February 15, 2005). ''[[Slashdot]]''. <small>[http://slashdot.org/articles/05/02/15/1432205.shtml?tid=217&tid=95&tid=98]</small>
*:"cryptoluddite writes 'PC Magazine has an article by John C. Dvorak expanding on the community discussion of Google's offer for free web hosting of Wikipedia. Those against the deal point out that Google may be planning to co-opt the encyclopedia as Googlepedia (by restricting access to the complete database). In a revealing speech given by the Google founders, Larry Page says he would 'like to see a model where you can buy into the world's content. Let's say you pay $20 per month.' Should public domain information be free?' It's a pretty scary scenario painted, but one can hardly take a speech from 2001 as serious evidence these days." (note that it links the ''second'' page of the article).

* [[John C. Dvorak|Dvorak, John C.]] (February 14, 2005). "Googlepedia: The End is Near". ''ZDNet''. <small>[http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1764747,00.asp]</small> <small>[http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1764757,00.asp]</small>
*:"Google has been using Wikipedia to deliver appropriate results in a non-natural-language fashion, but would love to get hold of the entire database in-house so it would not have to continually spider the thing with its legions of Web crawlers. So the debate now begins. Should the Wikipedia folks get cozy with Google, a public company? The big fear seems to be the notion of letting the camel's head into the tent. Pretty soon the whole camel will be inside.
*:...
*:"Unfortunately, when you consistently look to be too generous, people get suspicious. You have to remember that this offer comes on the heels of the offer made to libraries by Google to digitize and host all the great books and documents in the world. Now this. Is Google trying to corner the all the world's information and then, once they have it all under their control, sell it back to us at a high fee?
*:"Or, more interestingly, is it possible that the plan is to control all these resources and then stick it to Microsoft when its search-engine Web crawler comes around? ACCESS DENIED! There is no doubt in my mind that this is a distinct possibility. But can it be accomplished without making a mess?
*:...
*:"But let's say that Google is as honorable as it claims and has no intention of doing anything more than making life better for everyone. I know most of the principals there, and they are as normal and sincere as can be expected. Nice guys, actually. But Google itself is a public corporation. It's its own animal in that regard, with attorneys and bean-counters making the "nice guys" who run the place beholden to the mythical shareholders, who demand results and accountability. Maybe the nice guys do not want to create a situation that locks out the Microsoft crawlers. The needs of the corporate entity, though, demand it. Maybe the nice guys don't want to take over Wikipedia and clean it up, change the way it works&mdash;ruin it&mdash;as per the lawyers' demands. The corporation demands it. Those nice guys are not working for themselves any more. We always have to remember that. They are now guests."

* Farrel, Nick (15 February 2005). "Wikipedia might move to Google". ''the Inquirer''. <small>[http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=21261]</small>

* Gline, Matthew A. (15 February 2005). "Citing Riots". ''The Harvard Crimson''. <small>[http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=505715]</small>
*:"The site is an astounding monument to human knowledge. To spend a few moments browsing its enormous tangle of links is to feel an awesome sense of the breadth and depth of what mankind has accomplished, and is also an opportunity to marvel at incredible human altruism: Apparently, millions of knowledgeable internet-goers have spent hours of their time painstakingly updating articles about poisonous toads and obscure biochemical reactions."
*:...
*:"Wikipedia also contains lies. I know, because I'm responsible for one of them: As of this writing, the year in which Yale University was founded according to the encyclopedia is not 1701 as it rightfully should be but 1702; I've committed my own personal one-year slight against the prestige of our younger sibling in New Haven."
*::''The vandalism edit mentioned in the article is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yale_University&diff=9954879&oldid=9954872]; it was reverted by the same user [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yale_University&diff=9956672&oldid=9954879].''

*Bujold, Shelley. "Kenora Knowledge Could Be Shared." Daily Miner and News ([[Kenora, Ontario]]), February 15, 2005.
::"Wikipedia.org, a website dedicated to all things knowledge, doesn't have very much on the City of Kenora." (Talks about Wikipedia and suggests expanding the Kenora article)

* Damiani, Jean-Philippe (16 February 2005). "Wikipedia : l'encyclopédie dont vous êtes l'auteur". ''Métro''(Montreal). 
*:"Any web surfer can volunteer to collaborate on Wikipedia from their computer. The articles are works in progress that can be modified and improved by anyone. There are rules, though: the content must be accurate and respect 'neutrality' on controversial subjects. Other participants can always correct errors, and a backup system allows users to return to previous versions if necessary. Still, the reader must be able to tell the wheat from the chaff in this bazaar of knowledge." <small>[http://copex.metro.st/ftp/20050216_1000020.pdf] (enormous .pdf file, page 16)</small>
*: Note: the article describes a report on Wikipedia on the Quebec TV show ''La revanche des nerdz,'' to be aired 17 Feb at 7:00 on Canal Z.

* [[Laura Sydell|Sydell, Laura]] (20 February 2005). "Wikipedia's Growth Comes with Concerns". [[National Public Radio]]'s ''[[Weekend Edition]]''. <small>[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4506421]</small>
*:"...as Wikipedia has grown dramatically in popularity, some have begun to question its accuracy.

* "IRC and Internet Chat News and Information" (21 February, 2005). ''Chatmag News''. <small>[http://www.chatmag.com/news/022105_wikipedia.html]</small>
*:"Wikipedia, the popular user edited online encyclopedia, has been shut down by a power outage at their colocation facility.  Wikipedia has been in the news recently, the latest regarding Wikipedia and Google.com Google has offered to host the site, and a meeting is planned for March between the Wikipedia Foundation and Google."

* "Power Outage Knocks Wikipedia Offline" (February 22, 2005). ''[[Netcraft]]''. <small>[http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2005/02/22/power_outage_knocks_wikipedia_offline.html]</small>
*:"The free online encyclopedia Wikipedia has been knocked offline by a power outage in its data center. While the servers hosting the site were down only a short time, much of the site's content remained offline as Wikimedia staff worked on properly restoring data from MySQL databases."

* Lemon, Summer (February 22, 2005). "Power outage pulls plug on Wikipedia". ''The Industry Standard''. <small>[http://www.thestandard.com/internetnews/000998.php]</small>
*:"A power outage inside the facility that hosts Wikipedia's servers has forced the free, community-authored encyclopedia offline, according to a message posted on the Wikipedia Web site."

* Heaton, Terry L. "The Devaluation of Information". ''OhmyNews International''. February 22, 2005. <small>[http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?no=212277&rel_no=1]</small>
*:"The Britannica has weathered many storms in the last 15 years, as technology has rewritten their business. Even now, the online "Wikipedia" -- which is written and edited by the public -- poses a new threat, but the company has faith in its model."

* "FUSION : Web sites of the week". ''[[The South End]]'' ([[Wayne State University]]). February 23, 2005. <small>[http://www.southend.wayne.edu/modules/news/article.php?storyid=996]</small>
*:"wikipedia.org &#8212; The free online encylopedia that anyone can edit. This vast resources of rants and scientific data might surprise you by its collective effort. There is a serious debate in the academic community now as whether or not to consider this amalgam of information as a legitimate resource. Look here for contemporary information that the corporate encyclopedias won&#8217;t touch."

*Quon, Wynn. "The New Know-it-all." ''National Post'', February 26, 2005. <small>[http://www.legadoassociates.com/wikipedi.htm]</small>
*:"It's as if a gang of hardy Amish barn-raisers ended up erecting the tallest skyscraper in the world...but Wikipedia is more than just the raising of a new barn, it's the tearing down of the old ones". [How the traditional encyclopedias face big trouble from Wikipedia: the "leaching factor"]

* Behr, Rafael. "Every blog has its day." ''[[National Observer (Australia)|National Observer]]'', February 27, 2005. <small>[http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,1426405,00.html]</small>
*:"The best example yet of the capacity of the internet to coalesce into self-regulating networks is Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia written by whoever wants to go and edit it. It is not as authoritative as Britannica, and it gives disproportionate weight to transient phenomena. But it does give a reliable steer on most subjects. It is not anarchic, there is a hierarchy of more trusted writers who have earned their privileges over time. Editorial access to controversial entries - 'George Bush', 'Palestine', for example - is restricted to see off vandals. A South Korean online newspaper Ohmynews is compiled along similar principles. At this point journalists and compilers of encyclopedias roll their eyes. Their reaction is justified in so far as professionals hate to see a job done badly. But fear of competition plays a part."

* Clay Shirky, (February 28, 2005). "First Two Laws of [[Commons-Based Peer Production]]". ''Many2Many'' <small>[http://www.corante.com/many/archives/2005/02/28/whos_afraid_of_wikipedia.php]</small>
*:"And I assume I am hardly alone in the academy. Hundreds, if not thousands of us must be getting papers this year with Wikipedia URLs in the footnotes, and despite the moral panic, the Wikipedia is a fine resource on a large number of subjects, and can and should be cited in those cases. There are articles, as danah has pointed out, where it would be far better to go to the primary sources, but that would be as true were a student to cite any encyclopedia. If someone cited the Wikipedia to discuss <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[Walter Benjamin]]&#8217;s] work, I&#8217;d send them back to the trenches, but I would also do that if they cited Encyclopedia Britannica.
*:"To borrow some Hemingway, this is how the academy will get used to Wikipedia &#8212; slowly, then all at once."
** Chin, Brian. "Wikipedia in the footnotes". March 01, 2005. <small>[http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/buzz/archives/004405.html]</small>
** Danah Boyd, (January 8, 2005 - the dates are getting weird...). "On a Vetted Wikipedia, Reflexivity and Investment in Quality (a.k.a. more responses to Clay Shirky)". ''Many2Many'' <small>[http://www.corante.com/many/archives/2005/01/08/on_a_vetted_wikipedia_reflexivity_and_investment_in_quality_aka_more_responses_to_clay.php]</small>
**:"In response to Clay, i definitely do not believe that Wikipedia should be ignored and i definitely do not believe that Britannica is better - just different. When i said that Wikipedia will never be an encyclopedia, i am definitely referencing the current definition (although being flexible on the fact the definition does state book form). Whether the definition will expand, who knows but i don&#8217;t think it matters. Both encyclopedias and Wikipedia are knowledge resources and they will always be different. If legitimacy requires a definitional change, i&#8217;m worried. Why does it have to be an encyclopedia? Why can&#8217;t it simply be Wikipedia?
In this (long) entry, i want to make 3 points:
**:"1) A vetted Wikipedia can have complementary value;
**:"2) Reflexivity would be of great value for entries that interpret (not necessarily for entries that are about empirical facts);
**:"3) Authority has to do with knowledge, investment and risk."