| Wikipedia in the press |
|---|
Please list coverage about Wikipedia itself here, by month.
There are templates at the bottom of the page (commented out in "Edit source").
Last week, the first line of Morgan's Wikipedia page was briefly replaced with an unprintable bit of advice.
In his doctoral research, Teun Lucassen investigated how users go about assessing the reliability of the information they find online. In doing so, he focused primarily on the widely consulted online encyclopaedia Wikipedia. Lucassen believes it is a particularly good place to start because of what he calls the 'Wikipedia Paradox': everyone knows that the information on Wikipedia is generally of high quality, but because of its open structure, you can never be entirely sure of the reliability of individual articles.
Students have often been admonished for citing Wikipedia, the online crowd-sourced encyclopedia, in their term papers. But these days, some college professors are actually publishing their own data and research directly to Wikipedia. Others are using Wikipedia in their classrooms. We'll explore how our perceptions and use of Wikipedia are changing with John Burke, professor of microbiology and molecular genetics at the University of Vermont, and Alison Byerly, professor of English literature at Middlebury College.
...one of about two dozen local history buffs who spent Saturday at the Historical Society of Washington engaged in a Wikipedia "Edit-a-Thon." Their mission: Create, improve, correct and footnote Wikipedia entries related to our fair city.
This page has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
the error about Nabokov has been on the site, uncorrected, for, in Internet terms, ages—two years, two months, and 28 days, to be precise. And it has begun to creep into references to the film elsewhere.
Last week, an Op-Ed in the New York Times by the novelist Amanda Filipacchi revealed that Wikipedia editors had been systematically transferring the names of female novelists from the category "American novelists" and to the category "American women novelists." At the New York Review of Books blog, James Gleick recounts Wikipedia's response to the controversy.
"If it's taking pictures, it's not a cellphone. If it has, um, a McDonalds app, to tell you where McDonalds is, based on your GPS location – that's not a cellphone. If you can get Wikipedia or go to Google, it's not a cellphone. If you can watch YouTube – that's not a cellphone. Or Netflix. Think about it! This device is something new and different."
Things get interesting when they test Siri about some basic science questions. Asked to define the theory of relativity, Siri seeks out the answer on Wolfram Alpha, but for Osmosis, the user asks that Siri specifically get her answer from Wikipedia. In both cases, she complies and — more important — gets it right (although for Wikipedia, she doesn't reply verbally).
If you're a woman looking to learn more about a labiaplasty—an expensive, invasive reconstructive surgery—your first step is probably to just plug the term into Google. That will, almost inevitably, bring you to the Wikipedia article about the procedure.
{{cite news}}: |last= has generic name (help)