Editing Incubator escapee wiki:Press coverage 2005 (section)

==June==

*MacMillan, Robert. Encyclopedia Immediata, in the ''Washington Post'''s "Random Access" column. 1 June 2005. <small>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/01/AR2005060100491_2.html]</small>
::Wikipedia's many volunteer editors weren't napping on the job as the [[W. Mark Felt]] story broke on Tuesday. A new entry (created yesterday, in fact) on the former associate FBI director and bona fide Deep Throat went up with great dispatch. A glance at the entry shows a clean, dry biography on Felt along with the circumstances of his involvement with Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein on the Watergate series. It is not the first time that Wikipedia has tried to function as a sage tome of encyclopedic knowledge on breaking events, but it almost certainly is one of the most prominent, at least on its English-language site.

::And here's a little something you won't find in editions of the Encyclopaedia Britannica (or on the Britannica Online site which has not updated its Watergate references): A note at the top of the Wikipedia page says: "This article or section contains information about a current or ongoing event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses." The entry on " Deep Throat" also was updated a few hours after the news broke.

*Legat, Michael. Writers' Rostrum, in ''Writing Magazine.'' July 2005 edition.
::"One of the most extraordinary websites on the Internet is that of Wikipedia, an encyclopedia to which anyone can contribute... Since the contributors don't have to prove their competence, the Wikipedia may not be as authoritative as the established encyclopaedias, but you will probably find in it all sorts of interesting things that won't be in the others. As with Creative Commons you don't get any payment, but it sounds much more fun." (Sadly Legat also encouraged writers to add vanity articles about themselves :(

*Gentile, Gary.  "LA Times suspends 'wikitorials'" [http://news.lp.findlaw.com/ap/f/66/06-21-2005/6c910027dd83b756.html AP Business Wire], Mon 20 June 2005.
::"I applaud them for trying a bold experiment," said Steve Outing, senior editor with the journalism think tank Poynter Institute. "That being said, I'm not at all surprised (by the problems). Wikis are pretty new, and we don't entirely understand them and know how they are going to work out yet."

::He said Wikis "are most suited for factual information where the content can become accurate because of the power of the intelligence of the group."

::"Trying to do that with an opinion piece doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense," Outing said. "People with competing views would just try to get their particular viewpoint published and someone would go in and change it."

::In fact, it's one of the chief challenges facing the best-known Wiki, Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia where any visitor can add, change and erase someone else's entry.

::Some contributors have attempted to impose their personal viewpoints - for instance, by replacing an article on abortion with the word "murder" written 143 times.

*"Leaders and readers". 23 June 2005. ''Khaleej Times Online''. 
*:Editorial about the ''LA Times'' pulling Wikitutorials from their website:
*:"This does not mean that the pioneering idea conceived by the newspaper was a failure. If the LA Times initiative was not taken in its right spirit, it’s not the newspaper’s loss. Rather, it’s a loss for its readers who could not benefit from a path-breaking experiment because of some nuts loose out there in cyberspace. Of course, everyone is welcome to his or her views and has every right to share them with others. But any forum to air one’s views is governed by certain ground rules and those interested in making use of such a platform should play by the rules.  A similar interactive experiment, Wikipedia has been remarkably successful because visitors to the site play by the rules. An online encyclopaedia, Wikipedia allows anyone interested to contribute his/her entries and edit those contributed by others, if necessary. The LA Times experiment failed because it might have come before its time."

* [[Carl Bailik|Bailik, Carl]]. "A Korean War Stat Lingers Long After It Was Corrected". ''[[Wall Street Journal]]''. June 23, 2005. <small>[http://online.wsj.com/public/article/0,,SB111937345541365397,00.html?mod=todays_free_feature]</small>
*:Article describing the 54,000 figure commonly stated about Americans who died in the [[Korean War]] (no longer in the article). 
*:"But the higher number lives on today. Olympia J. Snowe, a Republican senator from Maine, said in a press release last month, "Let there be no doubt -- the 54,000 Americans who perished on the Korean peninsula and in the neighboring seas are to be honored and exalted in our time -- and for all time." (A spokesman for Sen. Snowe declined to comment when I contacted her office.) After spotting the news coverage about the numerical error, Encyclopedia Britannica corrected its online entry a few years ago and in print in 2003, senior editor Robert Curley told me. World Book also uses the lower figure, a spokeswoman told me. But Wikipedia, a popular user-edited online encyclopedia, carried the 54,000 figure as of Wednesday in its entry on the [[Korean War|war]]. Most newspaper articles mentioning the Korean War's death toll now cite the lower figure or qualify the higher one.

*O'Farrell, John. "[http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1513272,00.html  Don't read this, write it]". ''[[The Guardian]]''. June 24, 2005.
*:"the value of the evolving online encyclopedia is obvious when it is providing facts".

*Rae, Fiona. ''[[New Zealand Listener]]'', June 25-July 1, 2005, page 67. "website we love: www.wikipedia.org".
*:"The online encyclopedia that is a gorgeous, freelove kind of hippie vision of the Internet, where volunteers write the entries and over 200 languages are catered for. Sure, it's been criticised for bias, lack of accountability and deficiencies, but have you tried searching for ''[[New Zealand Idol]]''? Like, wow."

*[[Glenn Beck|Beck, Glenn]]. "[http://www.glennbeck.com/audio Audio]" (not free). ''Glenn Beck Program''. June 29, 2005. 

::Positive mentioning of Wikipedia on a national radio program (~8 million listeners).

::"Once in a while we'll use Wikipedia, which is an online encyclopedia.  We'll use it for different facts.  We just used it there for [[Scientology]]..."

::"Looking on this online encyclopedia, you can look up just about anything.  [[Steve Burguiere|Stu]] just ran a search on me.  It's the most accurate.  Bizarrely so.  I mean it almost gives the dimensions of my house.  I mean it's weird.  Most accurate bio of me.  I think it's more accurate than the bio that is on my own website...[It definitely has additional] brand new facts."

* "On-line version of civilization chronology published". ''China View'' & ''People's Daily Online''. June 23, 2005. <sup>[http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-06/23/content_3125788.htm]</sup> <sup>[http://english.people.com.cn/200506/23/eng20050623_191976.html]</sup>
*:"A massive on-line chronology of Chinese civilization was initiated here Thursday to allow the public to input and edit all the historical documents dating from ancient times through 1911 when the Republic of China was founded.
*:"'The operation will be similar to the Wikipedia,' a popular Web-based free content encyclopedia written by volunteers, said organizer [[Lu Jun]], president of the [[China Culture Research Society]]."

* Bonnie O'Neil. "Launching a Corporate Glossary". ''Business Intelligence Network''. June 23, 2005. <sup>[http://www.b-eye-network.com/view/1014]</sup>
*:"Wikipedia is an open source encyclopedia on the internet. What’s cool about it is it’s the 'People’s encyclopedia.' anyone can update an existing entry or add a new one. In this way, everyone can participate in it and in a real sense 'own' it.  On the downside, it can be very chaotic, because it lacks governance. We are trying to strike a balance and enable everyone to feel like they can contribute, and therefore only applying minimal governance. Where it gets interesting is when someone wants to update an existing entry; especially someone else’s entry. This is when governance is really needed."

* Sven Krohlas. "KDE and Wikipedia Announce Cooperation". ''KDE.news''. June 23, 2005. <sup>[http://dot.kde.org/1119552379/]</sup>
*:[[Image:Amarok-wikipaedia.png|thumb|Wikipedia in [[Amarok (audio)|Amarok]]]]
*:"Today Jimmy Wales, chairman of the Wikimedia Foundation, announced the beginning of a cooperation between Wikimedia and the KDE project at LinuxTag in Karlsruhe, Germany. As the first applications, like the media player Amarok, start to integrate Wikipedia content the idea is to create a webservice API to access the information from Wikimedia projects such as Wikipedia or Wiktionary. There are also plans for a KDE API.
*:"The API would allow KDE applications to easily embed Wikimedia content, data could even be fetched from a local database depending on your online/offline status. First progress can be seen in Knowledge, a Qt 4 based offline reader for Wikipedia.
*:"Jimmy was also searching for people who want to help with the design of this API, so if you want a good API for your application join the efforts!"

* [[Roy Rosenzweig]], 'Digital archives are a gift of wisdom to be used wisely', in the Information Technology supplement of ''The Chronicle of Higher Education'', 24 June 2005, <sup>[http://chnm.gmu.edu/news/archives/chronicle_20050624.pdf]</sup> [PDF doc]
*:"The same collaborative mechanism of review -- applied more systematically -- have made the collectively produced and open-source encyclopadia Wikipedia a surprisingly credible resource for historial facts." 

* John O'Farrell. "Don't read this, write it". ''[[Guardian Unlimited]]''. June 24, 2005. <sup>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1513568,00.html]</sup>
*:"This week, the Los Angeles Times attempted to allow readers to rewrite its editorial over the internet. The notion comes from the online encyclopedia Wikipedia, which can be written by whoever wishes to contribute articles or amendments [this is more like it].
*:"But the paper's courageous idea was fundamentally flawed, not because democratic debate can never produce universal consensus [this is good stuff], but because the hell-born Prince Charles who murder Lady Di for oil will face Lucifer as Prophets foretold when flood and fire consume Zionist assassins of Bhopal (Isaiah 12, 4) for USA death-heads knew but kill when Bush father CIA tell them for their blood-dollars."

* Edward Cone. "Wikipedia Founder Pitches Openness to Content Managers". June 24, 2005. ''eWeek''. <sup>[http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1831424,00.asp]</sup>
*:Inverview of [[Jimmy Wales]], "Allowing employees to work on sensitive documents without a series of strict controls isn't as dangerous as corporate knowledge managers think, according to Jimmy Wales."

* Joe Light. "Spreadin' the news, 1 volunteer at a time". June 24, 2005. ''[[The Boston Globe]]''. <sup>[http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2005/06/25/spreadin_the_news_1_volunteer_at_a_time/]</sup>
*: Article about [[Wikinews]]. Profiles Brandon Stafford, wiki-newsreporter.

* Gopilal Acharya. "Here comes the Wikipedia". June 27, 2005. ''Kuensel Online''. <sup>[http://www.kuenselonline.com/article.php?sid=5656]</sup>
*:[[Image:Kuenseonline-ss-05june27wiki.jpg|150px|right]] Ever heard of Wikipedia? Presumably most Bhutanese would say, No. Log on to www.wikipedia.org and you are entering into the Internet’s largest encyclopedia that Time recently described as the web encyclopedia “by the people, for the people.”
*:So what?
*:This again, presumably, could be the second remark one might make on hearing about this weird-sounding Wikipedia thing. But listen to what Wikipedians have to say: It is pretty helpful, especially if you want information urgently. Wikipedia is a free open-source encyclopedia, which basically means that anyone can log on and add to or edit it, says Time’s Chris Taylor. Started by Alabama-born Jimmy Wales some four years ago Wikipedia today has 1.5 million entries in 76 languages and is increasing by the day. Wales, whose long-time obsession was to create an online encyclopedia, stumbled on wiki after Nupedia (his first trail on online encyclopedia) failed.

* "250,000 German articles in Wikipedia". 28 June, 2005. ''Heise online''. <sup>[http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/61148]</sup>
*:The [http://de.wikipedia.org German-language version] of the free online encyclopedia Wikipedia is booming: with the entry about Mönchgut, a 29.44 km² long peninsula southeast of Rügen, the milestone of the 250,000th article in German has been added to the Wikipedia. The number of German articles has thus doubled in less than one year, with more than 400 articles being added every day.
*:The German version is thus the second largest in the encyclopedia project after the English edition, which has more than 611,000 articles. Overall, there are some 2 million Wikipedia articles in 200 languages. The threshold of one million was only recently crossed in September 2004.

*Lennon, Sheila. "Personal Technology." 30 June 2005. ''Providence (R.I.) Journal.'' <sup>[http://www.projo.com/cgi-bin/include.pl/blogs/shenews/archives/week164.htm#wic]</sup>
*:Wickerpedia: The parody. Wikipedia is the collaboratively created Web encyclopedia, using software that permits many editors, i.e., a wiki.
*:[http://www.wickerpedia.org Wickerpedia] is not. It's a parody of wikipedia.org, only with more of an emphasis on wicker (which is terribly represented by wikipedia). The site features a more wickercentric view of history, the news, and common wisdom, as well as a much improved searching engine.