Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-05-11/In the news
"upholding accuracy ... Wikipedia passed. Journalism flunked." http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/web/2009/05/12/1241893953955.html Wikipedia's gaining a reputability for reliability. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- The first-mentioned matter and general reliability of Wikipedia was discussed on the Culture Shock show last Saturday on Newstalk, where I was a panellist. Stifle (talk) 09:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Excellent[edit]
Excellent "In the news" this week. Good job. Badagnani (talk) 04:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
contradiction[edit]
The article here says that Fitzgerald "hadn't expected it to be picked up beyond blogs and minor news sources," but then Fitzgerald is quoted here as saying "My aim was to show that an undergraduate university student in Ireland can influence what newspapers are doing around the world (italics added)." That quote sounds like either he did expect it to be picked up by newspapers around the world or he revised his intentions when the story got bigger than he thought it would. Kingturtle (talk) 13:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm not sure what's up with that; I noticed it too, and figured it was probably something along the lines of what you suggest, that he was making it up as he went along.--ragesoss (talk) 15:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
No newspapers had caught the fake quote...?!?[edit]
- "No newspapers had caught the fake quote before Fitzgerald contacted publishers."
Where is the verifiable evidence for such an assertion? How many reputable newspapers would I have to cite that simply gave this person a deservedly short and careful obit? Do they not count for newspapers that are careful, have professional editors and actually do their homework because their superior training and seriousness about their professional reputations and careers informs them to do so?--76.202.117.126 (talk) 02:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)