For US$1,000 annual fee, new website publishes corrections to coverage on Wikipedia and elsewhere
I listed ICorrect at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.[1] -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I LOLed at the 'David Tang is a creep' one. :) Also, the Ming Pao article was ranked first for 'interesting' in yahoo! news and they didn't even mention this. Kayau VotingISevil 15:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, me too. How dare they exaggerate David Tang's creepiness! ;P -- Ϫ 08:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've actually suspected, even before the signpost article was written, that Tang was testing the site with that one. :P Kayau VotingISevil 15:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So ICorrect "does not set out to police the veracity of people's corrections"? Perhaps someone will start up ICorrectICorrect.com... PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Someone should start iUncorrect: for half the price, they'll vandalise the person's Wikipedia article in creative, unpredictable ways. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, so, "construction management" means something different in the UK than it does in the U.S.? PowersT 15:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see much activity in construction management's history and there are no talk page comments since November. Tempest in an invisible teapot? Rmhermen (talk) 18:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another article about CIOB's concerns, with a quote from Wikimedia UK's Mike Peel: [2] Regards, HaeB (talk) 14:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The mentality these days may be that if you can't afford the expert encyclopedias and their sites' subscriptions, you have to help create your own free encyclopedia. -- Jeandré, 2011-03-15t20:31z
I mentioned in a (yet to be moderated) comment on Paolo's blog, and think it's worth pointing out here as well: there should have been a mention of the "Wikipedia Timelapse" video (alternative version with better quality), from March 2006, which also covers the London bombings. --Waldirtalk 03:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that Quain is touching on a valid truth but that he misextrapolates from it. The costlessness of information will never be either of the extremes, either 0% or 100%. It will always be somewhere in between. Not sure if it's accurately measurable throughout all of human life, and what the exact real numbers are, but if you want to argue qualitatively that we are moving from, say, 5% in 2000 to 30% in 2010 and we'll eventually be back at 20% again someday, well, I would just say, so what? You can't make any grand point about crowdsourcing participation level or cultural impact living or dying off of that. Just fluctuating after a peak. Kind of a nonstory. Oh well, I could be wrong about this, but I doubt it. — ¾-10 03:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Quain: It's hard to take this article seriously as an "opinion" piece when it makes so many claims that are blatantly false. I would, however, like to issue a retort to the last few paragraphs about "basic principles": Freedom of speech and freedom of the press exist (at least in part) to allow people to freely criticize the government, thereby insuring true consent of the governed. How is one supposed to make accurate claims about one's government if one does not have free access to information about that government? While Quain has the luxury of being able to rely on traditional media forms, he doesn't seem to realize that in many developing countries, social media is the only way to get the information one needs. As such, we should make every effort to insure the information available is comprehensive and accurate, regardless of what some overpaid suit has to say about the matter. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kudos to WPians who have been covering the horrific Japanese earthquake and tsunami; great PR to be mentioned in the open press. Tony(talk) 08:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
