Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Boneyard/Newsroom/Old

Welcome to The Wikipedia Signpost's Tip Line. There are two ways to leave tips:

1. Add a tip on this page
2. Anonymously e-mail us at WikipediaSignpost@Gmail.com (for convenience, you may use this link)

Not every mention of Wikipedia in the media will make it into Signpost. Consider editing Wikipedia:Press coverage or Wikipedia:Wikipedia as a press source so we have a comprehensive record. Template:SignpostNavigation

WikiXRay

Some users are working on software to analyze Wikipedia articles en masse at Wikipedia:WikiXRay. I hardly understand it all. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 10:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Same here. I've asked Felipe Ortega if he'd like to write a short piece for Signpost, explaining this all. -- Zanimum 16:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Citizendium update

It would be nice to see a story about the current state of Citizendium, since they opened up the sign-up process recently so that anyone can browse the pilot wiki and/or edit (after signing up). Of possible note:

• "Unforking": Citizendium deleted all content that had been ported from Wikipedia but not edited since, to encourage the creation of new articles from scratch. There was some discussion of switching to a non-commercial license (e.g., CC-BY-NC) on the forum, but it looks like that probably won't happen.
• Scope: Citizendium is apparently happy with articles like Choosing a dog.
• Approved articles: Thus far, there are six approved articles: Barbara McClintock, Biology, Chiropractic, Horizontal gene transfer, Metabolism, and Wheat. Content from the introduction of the CZ version of Biology was introduced to Biology; after Larry Sanger noted the failure to credit CZ on the talk page, the changes were reverted and purged from the article's history.
• Live articles: There are currently almost 1000 "live articles", though most are copies of Wikipedia articles.
• Activity: By my very rough estimate, CZ is now getting about 300 mainspace edits per day. (By comparison, Uncyclopedia is somewhere around 3000.)

--ragesoss 00:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia "cited" in Norwegian newspaper

A Dagbladet article ([1]) from 25 January about Hugo Chavez contains several links to key terms in the text, in order to provide further insight into those topics. Four of these links point straight to Wikipedia articles. Norway's third largest newspaper links to the Wikipedia articles about Augusto Pinochet, Canal Metropolitano Televisión (alas, with a broken link), axis of good and axis of evil. Punkmorten 22:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Intriguing that they used the English WP, rather than the Norwegian. Ral315 (talk) 23:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The Norwegian Wikipedia is not that developed, so even as a Norwegian I find it more sensible to concentrate my efforts on en:wp. By the way they did it again ([2]), this time linking to our articles about Al Gore and Sheila Watt-Cloutier. I bet one would find numerous examples if one searched. Punkmorten 13:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Citing Wikipedia in patent applications

Following on the NYTimes' investigation into citing Wikipedia as a source in court cases, I decided to see how many times Wikipedia was cited in patent applications, with some help from Google. I got 111 results. Who cited Wikipedia? Top companies such as Adobe, HP, Sony, Microsoft, IBM, Lucent, DaimlerChrysler, Sun Microsystems, Boeing, NVidia, and Nintendo. Also: The United States of America as represented by the Secretary of the Navy, The United States of America as represented by the Secretary of the State (which for some reason cited wikipedia.com), Carnegie Mellon University, the University of California. BuddingJournalist 08:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

OTRS update

How about a regular update as to which areas of Wikipedia are creating most fuss on OTRS, and therefore require more eyeballs? This came up in a discussion on the "Wikipedia-l" mailing list recently. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 17:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd love such a feature; however, I do have concerns about how much information can be revealed; obviously there are potential issues with giving out entire lists of articles with OTRS issues. Ral315 (talk) 02:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, belated response due to forgetting I'd asked the question , but I didn't mean individual articles so much as general areas, like Biography, Science, Software…stuff like that…just so that people could see where their eyeballs could be of most help. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 14:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales interview

The 31 January 2007 issue of New Scientist magazine has interviewed Jimmy Wales, asking him questions on the Wiki Search engine, Chinese censorship etc. They've also offered the opportunity for users to email questions to him, with a Q & A being posted here on 20th February. Laïka 08:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Searches on 'windows vista'

See Microsoft Vista Searches up 53%, Wikipedia Receives Nearly 7% of Vista Search Traffic

"Hitwise Search Term Analysis shows that 58.63% of searches on 'windows vista' ended up at the Microsoft website, while 6.84% ended up at Wikipedia. This underscores the importance of Wikipedia entries, even for large corporations."

It would be interesting to also look to see if there has been much change in the number of edits (and vandalism) to the Windows Vista article. BlankVerse 07:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Story on college WP citation policy from Education Guardian

See here, from yesterday: John Sutherland, well-known academic and communicator writes, about the Middlebury ban mentioned above. FWIW, the errors in the Jay Parini entry bibliography were mine, I think; my modus operandi being to search the abebooks site by author, they will come from inaccurate entries there (sometimes people writing forewords get author credits, sometimes series editors get them, sometimes it is some other data entry problem). Footnote: I see I added the bit about Parini being Gore Vidal's literary executor, and he took it out. Was it one of the 'ridiculous errors'? Well, see blog. Charles Matthews 20:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki Voted Best Wiki Tool

Intranet Journal has awarded MediaWiki the "product of the year".[3] The article includes a couple brief comments from Brion Vibber. –RHolton≡– 22:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:LGBT

WikiProject LGBT studies has just broken the hundred members mark - don't know if that is that remarkable, but we've only been active since mid-November (check out our archives). We also built massive amounts of infrastructure, we've gone from this to this. We also have a unique department, called Jumpaclass, to improve our lower-quality articles. Might be an interesting example of what a wikiproject can do with the right mindset. I am willing to answer any questions. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

We're up to 122 members now. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 05:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Second meta-template a success

As a follow-up to the very successful articlehistory metatemplate, we FA people - especially Kiril Loshokin(sp?), Gimmetrow, Dr. Pda, SandyGeorgia - have created and begun deploying a second metatemplate, Template:WikiProjectBanners. This one is designed to combine multiple wikiproject into a single default-hidden template. They solve the worsening problem of polluted article talk pages. While some people (typically those involved in particular wikiprojects) have been lukewarm on the subject, most people are quite happy about it. Raul654 01:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It'll make it to next week's issue. Nice to see it deployed; I considered doing a similar template when you came out with {{ArticleHistory}}, but was too lazy :) Ral315 (talk) 05:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

And now on TFD! Ral315 » 23:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

And it looks like a pretty heavy landslide towards keep. Raul654 05:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Featured portals

There are now 51 featured portals. The 50th was Portal:Hinduism. — Zaui (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Ted Stevens: Wikipedia is not a series of tubes, but ban it anyway

Well, maybe a little misrepresentative of his feelings, but he's apparently put through a bill banning sites like YouTube and Wikipedia from libraries and schools. See [4] and [5]. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Raul's analysis

(Preface - I am not a lawyer, but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn last night)

The bill in question is indeed very vague. If you read the exact text in section 203, it requires libraries to implement technology that:

(II) protects against access by minors without parental authorization to a commercial social networking website or chat room, and informs parents that sexual predators can use these websites and chat rooms to prey on children; and'.

A commercial networking site is not defined, but requires that it be defined as follows:

`(J) COMMERCIAL SOCIAL NETWORKING WEBSITES; CHAT ROOMS- Within 120 days after the date of enactment of the Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006, the Commission shall by rule define the terms `social networking website' and `chat room' for purposes of this subsection. In determining the definition of a social networking website, the Commission shall take into consideration the extent to which a website--

`(i) is offered by a commercial entity;

`(ii) permits registered users to create an on-line profile that includes detailed personal information;

`(iii) permits registered users to create an on-line journal and share such a journal with other users;

`(iv) elicits highly-personalized information from users; and

`(v) enables communication among users.'.

Wikipedia is clearly not offered by a commercial entity, nor does it elicit personal information. It does enable communication and permit users to create an online journal and profile.

So yes, depending on how the definition of "commercial social networking site", Wikipedia could theoretically be included in this. Raul654 07:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Sheesh. Where does the U.S. get these idiots? - Ta bu shi da yu 08:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, there are a great many wacky Republicans in Congress. At least they don't last forever, but sometimes they come quite close Raul654 08:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that Australia generally takes the lead of the U.S. when it comes to stuff like this. I hope this gets voted down and never sees the light of day again! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm still chuckling over this, only it's *real*. This is REAL LIFE and a REAL US SENATOR (one with a startlingly ignorance about things technological) offering this bill. We aren't however, commercial, and as long as we stay that way, it will be awfully hard to put us in this category. Shame on the reporters for jumping to the obviously incorrect (but salaciously inflammatory) headline.--Brad Patrick 15:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Carfax (company)

Multiple anons removing mention of class action lawsuit. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

An empirical examination of Wikipedia’s credibility (research study)

Chesney, Thomas. An empirical examination of Wikipedia’s credibility. First Monday, volume 11, number 11 (November 2006)

http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_11/chesney/index.html

From the abstract:

“This short study examines Wikipedia’s credibility by asking 258 research staff with a response rate of 21 percent, to read an article and assess its credibility, the credibility of its author and the credibility of Wikipedia as a whole. Staff were either given an article in their own expert domain or a random article. No difference was found between the two group in terms of their perceived credibility of Wikipedia or of the articles’ authors, but a difference was found in the credibility of the articles — the experts found Wikipedia’s articles to be more credible than the non–experts. This suggests that the accuracy of Wikipedia is high. However, the results should not be seen as support for Wikipedia as a totally reliable resource as, according to the experts, 13 percent of the articles contain mistakes.”

--Bookgrrl ^holler/lookee here 14:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Commons Picture of the Year 2006

The results of the POTY are known: commons:Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2006/results and the voting will start tommorow on commons:Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2006 Bryan 22:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You Have New Messages Hoax

Most recently,plenty of users are making use of a hoax whch consists of a false you have new messages bar. Experienced editors are against them while newbies support them (in general); this conflict is similiar to the userbox war.

Discussions on this theme are the following:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/UI_spoofing
• Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Practical_jokes_in_.22new_message.22_boxes

--TomasBat (@)(Sign) 01:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Webcomics AFD hoax results in criticism of AFD process and notability guidelines

Furor over many recent attempts to narrowly apply notability to webcomics lead the author of the Starslip Crisis webcomic, Kristofer Straub, to put the article for his own comic up for deletion. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starslip Crisis) After the AFD passed and the article was deleted, he revealed on his website that he had deliberately manipulated the process by creating ten sockpuppets with no edits to support deletion. A socketpuppet created by another user to support keeping the article was quickly outed, the extra vote discounted, and the account blocked. None of the pro-delete puppets were detected and their accounts were not blocked until the matter was brought to ANI. Straub also criticized Wikipedia's policy of discounting "meat puppet" votes from webcomic fans, sarcastically chiding "if a hundred people who are fans claim a comic is notable, how will the three Wikipedia editors who know it’s not be heard?"

After the ruse became known, a deletion review was held where Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) took the unusual step of invalidating the entire process and reinstating the article. The article was quickly renominated by another editor with few edits. The AFD has fueled the fire in an ongoing conflict over webcomic notability, with some asserting that the so-called primary notability criterion of WP:N trumps the topic-specific criteria of WP:WEB. More discussion is at WT:N, WT:WEB and Straub's blog. – Þ  17:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Factoid

I had to point this little factoid out for all those who complain about AfD processes: 4,983 articles have an old AfD template on them. Given the thousands and thousands of articles that have been Afded, this must mean that editors make the right call about 80% of the time, with the rest being deleted. In't that great? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Where did 80% come from? I only see one number... -Ravedave ^{(Adopt a State)} 21:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, someone go calculate the total number of AfDs ever. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

More like 75%, as of a while ago. Dragons flight 21:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

So a fairly cool accomplishment, eh? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

So "right call" = deletion? -Ravedave ^{(Adopt a State)} 05:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Right call = user is right in believing the article needed to be deleted in the maority of cases. I just thought it was a good point to make in the face of thsoe who claim that admins call AfDs wrongly. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 05:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research to be replaced with Wikipedia:Attribution

As I understand it, there is currently a move to merge Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research into a single page at Wikipedia:Attribution. Discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia talk:Attribution. This is definitely something that the Wikipedia community should be alerted about. --Elonka 22:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

A few questions to ask any investigative Signpost reporter are: where was this announced on the policy VP (a diff would be great), is there going to be a FAQ, and why is this going to happen? For that matter, when did Wikipedia:Attribution become a policy? I don't recall this happening, but I might have missed it... - Ta bu shi da yu 03:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I too would very much like to see diffs of where this was announced/discussed, as well as a link to any discussions about it on the mailing list. The first that I heard of it, was when I saw the banners at the top of WP:V and WP:NOR, with SlimVirgin basically saying, "This is happening, we've been talking about it for a year, get on board with it."[6] I'd like to see an article in the Signpost that provides links to the things that SlimVirgin was talking about. --Elonka 00:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Pedophile policy

I have just created a new proposed policy on pedophiles. Assuming this is not deleted, it is definitely a development that the community needs to know about, especially give the PEDO UBX mess last year. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 05:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

oh god, not again... Raul654 06:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

That might be the best comment I've heard in a while. Ral315 » 22:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The B**** P****** day

Did you feel a draft here a few moments ago? I suppose someone went through the door and went back.

There was apparently this article about... some random guy or something. I don't really know why people got really excited about that or anything or why we had an article about him in the first place. It basically got deleted a year ago, by Jimbo, who said it should be reconsidered today earliest. A moment ago, a bunch of Angry Bloggers and Wikipedia Critics formed a picket queue outside. ...and now, we apparently had a brief discussion in DRV and decided not to undelete the page anyway, or something like that, and keep it protected.

I suppose that is supposed to be, according to some, a giant big anticipated event that is supposed to be documented by a respectable, comprehensive journal like the Wikipedia Signpost, but let's face it, it just doesn't get any less newsworthy than this. I'm wondering why I'm even writing this.

=) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 22:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Ral315 » 22:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Fuzzy Zoeller sues

Golfer Fuzzy Zoeller has filed a lawsuit to identify the author of an allegedly defamatory edit to his article.Sports Illustrated · j e r s y k o talk · 20:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Notable that he is suing the owner of the computer alleged to make the allegedly defamatory edit, rather than Wikipedia. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the revisions with the text have been deleted. -Ravedave ^{(Adopt a State)} 00:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

They were, back in December, by Danny. Fuzzy's people contacted us to let us know the stuff was there, before they decided they'd sue. -- Zanimum 20:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket

As the LGBT people are blowing a trumpet above, I may as well mention that WP:CRIC is trying to work up as many articles as possible for featured status ahead of the 2007 Cricket World Cup. Cricket World Cup (and - unconnectedly - West Indian cricket team in England in 1988) were just promoted, Paul Collingwood is on FAC, and several other articles are in the queue at Template:CWC Advert, with concentration on Indian cricket team, Adam Gilchrist and Harbhajan Singh at the moment. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

CBC Manitoba...

...ran a story on (not) citing Wikipedia, based on the NYT Middlesborough College story. They interviewed a prof, who says "go use Wikipedia, so long as you corroborate the information". The story airs locally in Winnipeg on CBC (channel 2) at 6 pm central time today. -- Zanimum 20:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, it's "Middlebury": See http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/21/education/21wikipedia.html?ei=5087%0A&em=&en=ad418204e5130dd2&ex=1172379600&pagewanted=print --Jerome Potts 09:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Two items: New Arbitrators in; Brandt wheel war headed for ArbCom

On wikien-l, Jimbo announced two appointments to replace Dmcdevit on ArbCom: Mackensen will fill Dmc's slot, Essjay is appointed to the shortest tranche to expand the committee. Hot on the heels of that announcement, Jimbo has desysopped Geni, Yanksox, and Freakofnurture (meta log), and announced a referral of the case to ArbCom at AN/I. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Covering both. Ral315 » 10:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

New record

I believe the 27 newly promoted FAs from this week are a new record (if memory serves, the old record was 25, give or take). Also, if you look at Wikipedia:Featured article statistics (and this graph in particular), I think February 2007 is a turning point. The FA proportion has been dropping monotonically since March 2005. This will be the first month in 2 years that statistic has actually increased. Raul654 19:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me check; I'm not sure it is. I think that you had one week where you went absolutely nuts. Then again, you and I keep different stats, in all likelihood- my week is from Monday-Sunday because of the Signpost publication schedule. Ral315 » 19:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah; 34 in November. But that's because you didn't promote any the week before. But I'll make sure a mention gets in on the FA proportion. Ral315 » 20:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Slate article on notability

Timothy Noah of Slate published an article on Feb. 24th about the notability guideline using the Wikipedia article on himself as an entry point. Both before and after the Slate article appeared, there was a fair amount of activity at Timothy Noah, including an afd (it was kept). At least an "In the News", methinks. http://www.slate.com/id/2160222/ · j e r s y k o talk · 21:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I found this pic to be particularly amusing. Raul654 21:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Amusing it is :-) However, this really highlights that we can be a little... insensitive... when it comes to AFD. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Noah is a strong inclusionist – full disclosure, so am I – though I'm not sure if he's current with all the Wikipedia isms. Might be interesting to slot this material in with the Brandt dustup, which revolves around notability, privacy and inclusion issues.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Casey Abell (talk • contribs).

Speaking of amusing, check out this overly sensational headline, which is currently on Slate's main page and is accompanied by the other picture. · j e r s y k o talk · 19:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

And now a followup article at Slate. · j e r s y k o talk · 01:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• A third follow-up article at Slate. Gzkn 09:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

LA Times: "Wikipedia brought the fastest, most complete Anna Nicole coverage to the Internet"

Full coverage here. Neat story about the tsunami of edits that followed her death, including interviews with various editors. Like most journalists though, the author still doesn't manage to describe our policies correctly. Gzkn 08:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

What the hell is Wiki Defcom? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

He probably meant {{Wdefcon}}. Gzkn 08:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I just saw that Danski14 (talk · contribs) posted at Template_talk:Wdefcon#Interesting_article.... Gzkn 08:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

On the radio

• Moss-Coane, Marty (26 February 2007). "Radio Times". WHYY-FM. Retrieved 2007-02-26. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Why one of the internet's most popular internet encyclopedias is also considered unreliable. We'll talk with NEIL WATERS a professor at Middlebury College, who discovered an obscure but incorrect fact on his students' exams. It turns out they all got it from the same source Wikipedia. Then we'll hear from VIBIANA BOWMAN a librarian at Rutgers University in Camden, New Jersey about how Wikipedia and the internet in general is changing how we get information and we must adopt new standards for vetting it. Bowman is also author of The Plagiarism Plague in which she argues that the internet has made plagiarism an even bigger problem.
First broadcast 26 February 2007 11:00 am UTC-5, Podcast

--evrik ^(talk) 14:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh no! The Internet is evil. Then again, so was Shakespearre. Sorry, rant over, and no, I don't agree with plagiarism. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia anons getting sued by Fuzzy Zoeller

It appears that Fuzzy Zoeller is somehow trying to sue some anonymous editors. See this article for more info. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Already covered this week. Titoxd^(?!?) 08:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

So I see :-) Good article! - Ta bu shi da yu 09:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiCamp in India

An event named WikiCamp India was organized on 25th February, 2007, at Tidel Park, one of the most prestigious IT destinations of India. Jimmy spent a full day with more than 300 participants, including three wikipedia administrators from India, namely, Sundar, Bhadani and Ganeshk and many other Indian wikipedians like Arunram. Participants came from many cities of India including Bangalore, Hyderabad, Mumbai, Delhi, Kolkata, Pondicherry, Vellore, Trichy, Madurai, Thoothukudi, Trivandrum, and Chennai. One of the wikipedians even flew from Chandigarh to Chennai to participate in the unconference. The event was covered by the Indian print and electronic media and was reported in many newspapers of India including the Hindu, one of the most prominent newspapers of India: [7]. The event was an educative exercise with its serious moments though it had lighter moments too: Jimmy loved to mingle freely [8] - [9] with the current and future wikipedians. The event has reportedly generated considerable media attention for Wikipedia and Wikia.

The links to flickr gives an idea of the WikiCamp as it progressed from the preparation stage onwards: [10] - [11] while Kiruba's blog records the arrival of Jimmy to Chennai. --Bhadani 10:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Web 3.0 article restored

The Web 3.0 article has just been restored after several creations and deletions which were followed by a block on editing that was applied on 28 October 2006. The article was eventually restored following lengthy discussions on the topic and the existence of appropriate sources relating to it. --Peter Campbell 01:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Essjay / The New Yorker

The New Yorker editor's correction, and background at places like

• User talk:Jimbo Wales#The New Yorker quotes you
• User talk:Essjay#New Yorker article
• User talk:Essjay#My response

has got to be good for an article, non? --Tagishsimon (talk)

Tax Court Cites Wikipedia 8 Times

Tax Court Cites Wikipedia 8 Times. Ferguson v. Commissioner, T.C. Summ. Op. 2007-30 (2/28/07). (SEWilco 06:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC))