Wikipedia:Wikipedia in blogs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This page is for blogs where Wikipedia is discussed. Merely using Wikipedia as a source is not sufficient.

English[edit]

Continuous[edit]

2004[edit]

August[edit]

  • Joi Ito: Wikipedia attacked by ignorant reporter The fact that anyone can edit the pages appears to be why people like Mr. Fasoldt question its authority, but that is that exact reason that it has authority.
  • And an awful lot more blogs, mainly about the authority issue. Anyway, more blogs than can be listed here carried it

September[edit]

October[edit]

November[edit]

2005[edit]

January[edit]

February[edit]

March[edit]

  • Clay (pseudonym). "One World, Two Maps (thoughts on the Wikipedia debate)". March 9, 2005. Many-to-Many. [2]
    "You can see the differences in the two worldviews most clearly when we argue across that gap. I literally cannot understand danah’s complaints; I read “The problem that i’m having with the Wikipedia hype is the assumption that it is the panacea for it too has its problems”, and I wonder who she’s talking about. The radialists praising the Wikipedia are not saying it’s perfect, or even good in any absolute sense — we don’t ever talk about absolute quality.
    "Wikipedia interests us because it’s better, and sustainably better, than what went before — it’s a move from a simple product (“Pay us and we’ll write an encyclopedia”) to a complex system, where a million differing, internal motivations of the users and contributors are causing an encyclopedia to coalesce. How cool is that? (The radialist motto…)
    "But danah and Matt cannot understand our enthusiasm. From the Cartesian point of view, the thing that would excite you would be dramatic change to a new state. Radialists never say things like ‘panacea’ or ‘utopia’, but the Cartesians hear us saying those things, or think they do, because otherwise what would the fuss be about? Mere incrementalism is nothing more than a Panglossian fetishization of reality, and excitement about a technological change that doesn’t create a dramatic new equilibrium is simply hype, from the Cartesian point of view.
    "And so, when they see us high-fiving over Wikipedia, the Cartesians think we’ve taken leave of our senses, and, more to the point, they think we’ve misunderstood what is happening. They then launch a corrective set of arguments, pointing out, for example, that Wikipedia still leaves unanswered questions about social exclusion. But this, from a radialist point of view, is no more meaningful than pointing out that Wikipedia doesn’t cure skin cancer — no one ever said it would. Anything that was bad at Point A and is still bad at Point B gets factored out of the radialist critique. Any change where most of the bad things are still bad but a few of the bad things are somewhat less bad seems like a good thing to us, and if it can happen in a way that requires less energy, or better harnesses individual motivation, that seems like a great thing."
  • German Spiegel Copied Wikipedia. Oops.
  • THIS IS NOT A PAID ENDORSEMENT Wherein I plug Wikipedia on my woefully under-read blog.
  • Million Person Search: Wikipedia is the next Google - A well written treatise on the role of Wikipedia in the internet ecosystem

May[edit]

June[edit]

July[edit]

  • Wikipedia - "How many small pleasures there are even in a crummy day; lately Wikipedia is somewhere near the top of that list."
  • Connecting wikis - "WikiPedia at the top of the knowledge foodchain?"
  • Wikimania 2005 - "how useful the Wikimedia Wikipedia site was to me"
  • Independent Variables and the Fourier Transform - "Wikipedia is my online brain"
  • Wikipedia, as we all know is brilliant
  • ZDNet: Is Wikipedia ripe for PR? - "Companies that want to tell their story (ie, any company that wants to stay in business…) would do well to make sure their voice is heard on Wikipedia entries about their products [...] If the PR folks can leave behind the marketing-speak and contribute just the facts about their company and/or products, it might actually be a benefit to Wikipedia instead of just another form of spam."
  • About London Bombings:
    • Londinist (Did key realtime blogging during the aftermath) "Very useful Wikipedia page"
    • Dan Olsen's Weblog - "We are now just over 24 hours since the devastating bombings in London and there is already an article on Wikipedia about the bombings. It is amazing how the internet has become a real time source of information."
    • Nik Cubrilovic Weblog "7 July 2005 London bombings from Wikipedia is another great source of news and information about the event. It is amazing how quickly a page detailing every aspect of the attack forms together on Wikipedia - they have more information than any of the major news providers."
    • O'Reilly Radar (Marc) "I found much better information about today's terrorist attacks in London by looking at the Wikipedia news page and the Flickr photo group than I did by looking at The New York Times and watching CNN."
    • michael parekh on IT "Within minutes, I learned several things that I did not get after almost an hour of watching the news through the TV news channels, and the web-sites of traditional media outlets."
    • Digg blog - just a link, but interesting exchange in comments section
    • Tasty Popsicle "a true testament of the power of independent yet collective jounalism."
    • Gadgetopia "The Wikipedia article on today’s bombings in London is already huge. The bit at the top with the hotline numbers is just evidence of how much of a fantastic resource Wikipedia has become." -- and from the comments on that page: "Xeni Jardin is on CNN right now talking about this exact page. She says it’s been updated 2,800 times. To CNN’s credit, they have run stories today about how bloggers have covered this event better than mainstream news."
    • Rhodarian - library news blog "The power of Wikipedia for documenting current news event is evident in 2005 London bombings. Resources, information and links to news sources are included. I discovered this link to Wikipedia via the NY Times International News, which to my mind gives some indication of the authority this particular entry carries."
    • SFGate.com Culture Blog "I don't know why, but I find it strange that Wikipedia already has an extensive entry on today's London bombings. Doesn't it take more than a few hours for something like a terrorist attack to become history? Not that the entry is in any way offensive; it's thorough and respectful and still a work-in-progress. It's just the notion of an "encyclopedia" article being written on the same day as the event -- no time for the past."
    • eSchool News: Why Wikipedia...or Not
    • Chicken foot stew "This online collaborative encyclopedia has given me the information I've been trying to understand by watching network and cable news for the last three hours."
    • Minimal "I’m impressed. Though I’ve not used it much in the past, I think I’ll be turning to Wikipedia a lot more in the future."
  • Wikipedia - " As a librarian I am skeptical."
  • The power of Wikipedia - "I must say that I’m impressed."
  • Wikipedia vs. Google - "Wikipedia is an open source attack on Google".
  • The Wikipedia Question - "As a librarian and a faculty member, I would not recommend preventing people from using Wikipedia"
  • Andy Carvin: Turning Wikipedia into an Asset for Schools "the more I think about it, the more I think Wikipedia's flaws actually make it an ideal learning tool for students."
  • Wiki Contributions Breakdown - "about the proportions and distributions of contributions to the WikiPedia"
  • Progressive Bloggers Wikipedia Victory - "Helping build Wikipedia is addictive."
  • Cruising Wikipedia - "a number of approaches to developing trust that will allow for interesting extrusions of the wikipedia."
  • Trusting Wikipedia
  • A Wiki Way To Waste Time - "My only criticism is the search engine; it’s not quite up to Google standard."
  • Pumpkinification - "I love Wikipedia so hard it hurts me sometimes."
  • Wikipedia - "This site probably contains more information than any other site on the web. It's astounding, really. "
  • About Roberts' nomination to Supreme Court:
    • The Observer blog "A good one stop shop for background on John Roberts Jr, nominee for the Supreme Court, is the fast-changing Wikipedia entry under his name. It has all the key data, although there is a delicate liberal tilt in the way some facts are presented in juxtaposition with the man's record on court judgements."
  • Wikipedia, Prices, and Hayek - "Wikipedia does aggregate dispersed information -- amazingly so"
  • Wikipedia improves Britannica - "Encyclopedia Britannica's response to Wikipedia and other online resources. It seems to be primarily a PR effort"
  • Forking Wikipedia - "how forking is going to play out around Wikipedia content "
  • Should You Trust the Wikipedia? - "Many academics dismiss the Wikipedia as a prank perpetuated by amateurs and geeks."
  • wikipedia interlude - "Go ahead, ask it a question. It will answer it in astonishing depth."
  • Encyclopedia Britannica Fights Back? - "The folk putting together Wikipedia don’t sit around making stuff up "
  • Fast Fixes. - " A few minutes later, the page was fixed back again by a random stranger"
  • Wandering Wikipedia - " Wikipedia (which in my opinion is one of the greatest Internet resources out there)"
  • Old vs New - "wikis have the potential to substantially transform the way we produce reference tools"
  • Dangerous waters - "Wikipedia. The word that makes many librarians (and teachers and academics) tremble, or snort, or turn up their noses."

August[edit]

  • Wikipedia... sucks - "There are far more editors who "excel" at correcting spelling and deleting articles. . . So you have more destroyers than creators. Hence, the problem."

September[edit]

  • Wiki-whacked - "Wikipedia users make thousands of changes to entries every hour. While most of these are constructive, others (...) are anything but. This requires Wikipedia’s volunteer gatekeepers to constantly seek out and fix violated entries—purging them of bad grammar, unsubstantiated claims, outright bias, and references to gerbils in the bum."
  • Make the Largest Encyclopedia in the World Better. - " It relies partly on the "wisdom of crowds": we all, together, probably know more than even the best individual scholar."
  • Wikipedia...Wikiwhatia? - "Not since the advent of AskJeeves has an Internet reference source been so popular"
  • Wikimedia Foundation Vows to “Slaughter” Textbook Companies - "Finally some fire power in the favor of students in the battle ground of textbooks"
  • Wikipedia - "Most teachers do NOT trust it as a source and I am uncomfortable with it being the ONLY source"
  • The New Cliche: "It's the Wikipedia of..." - "You know something [i.e. Wikipedia] has arrived when it’s used to describe a phenomenon"

October[edit]

November[edit]

December[edit]

2006[edit]

January[edit]

February[edit]

March[edit]

April[edit]

May[edit]

  • Wikipedia grows up - "How can we devote ourselves to making information accessible to all, and then scorn these devoted amateurs who delight in building with the bricks we give them?"
  • [blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=68901344&blogID=119354085 Wikivolution] - "And as a general reference source in practice, Wikipedia is actually substantially superior to any other general reference."

June[edit]

  • [5] - Warren Kinsella, whose article has been the source of problems in the past (including, apparently, a lawsuit that was settled), is apparently planning a piece on Wikipedia and its shortcomings. He's asked for stories to be e-mailed to him, and in the most recent update says there's a lot more "Wiki-hate" going on than he thought.

July[edit]

August[edit]

The MondoGlobo Network, a podcast, not a blog ; there is no clear catagory for podcasts, yet.
"Our gang of three contemplates Virtual Reality legend Jaron Lanier’s critique of Wikipedia as “Digital Maoism.” "

September[edit]

October[edit]

2007[edit]

January[edit]

February[edit]

March[edit]

May[edit]

June[edit]

August[edit]

September[edit]

2008[edit]

January[edit]

March[edit]

April[edit]

  • Sacha Baron Cohen Wikipedia Entry Creates Circular References Slashdot posting notes: "An anonymous user added information about to Wikipedia's entry on Sacha Baron Cohen three days before the now-referenced external article was written. The Independent wrote the referenced article apparently using Wikipedia as the source establishing his 'Goldman Sachs' career. Now Wikipedia uses as a references the article that came after the initial modification to Wikipedia itself." April 19, 2008.

July[edit]

2009[edit]

2010[edit]

2011[edit]

  • The blogger Infothought pointed out that Google's new algorithm for its search engine, which intends to reduce search results pointing to content farms, has , as a consequence, increased the rank of Wikipedia. Infothought blog February 28, 2011.

2012[edit]

  • The New York Times' "Media Decoder" blog states: "After 244 Years, Encyclopaedia Britannica Stops the Presses" declaring that: "Since it was started 11 years ago, Wikipedia has moved a long way toward replacing the authority of experts with the wisdom of the crowds. The site is now written and edited by tens of thousands of contributors around the world, and it has been gradually accepted as a largely accurate and comprehensive source, even by many scholars and academics. Wikipedia also regularly meets the 21st-century mandate of providing instantly updated material. And it has nearly four million articles in English, including some on pop culture topics that would not be considered worthy of a mention in the Encyclopaedia Britannica." March 13, 2012.

See also[edit]