Jump to content

Wikipedia:Press coverage 2018: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎May: Nature
→‎May: add "Who's Philip Cross"
Line 486: Line 486:
|deadurl=
|deadurl=
|quote=A nonprofit with grand ambitions of setting up a library on the Moon is planning to send the entire English archive of Wikipedia to the lunar surface sometime within the next couple of years.
|quote=A nonprofit with grand ambitions of setting up a library on the Moon is planning to send the entire English archive of Wikipedia to the lunar surface sometime within the next couple of years.
}}
*{{cite news
|last=Galloway
|first=George
|title=Who's Philip Cross: 'Either a Mad Obsessionist or State Operative' – Galloway
|url=https://sputniknews.com/amp/analysis/201805161064505256-cross-galloway-wikipedia-obsession/
|newspaper=[[ Sputnik (news agency)]]
|date=May 16, 2018
|accessdate=May 17, 2018
|language=
|archiveurl=
|archivedate=
|deadurl=
|quote=British politician George Galloway has offered one thousand pounds for the unmasking of mysterious online figure Philip Cross. Cross has been accused of editing or deleting chunks of information from a certain cluster of Wikipedia accounts. George Galloway told Sputnik that his Wikipedia page was edited 2,000 times by Cross.
}}
}}


Revision as of 19:31, 17 May 2018

Wikipedia in the press
Shortcut

Please list coverage about Wikipedia itself here, by month.

There are templates at the bottom of the page (commented out in "Edit source").

January

  • Benjakob, Omer (10 January 2018). "How Crazy Was Last Year? The 15 Most Controversial Wikipedia Articles Paint a Dark Picture". Haaretz. Retrieved 16 January 2018. While the likes of Game of Thrones and The Crown were among the most viewed Wiki pages last year, the real intrigue lay in the articles that caused the most dispute
  • Rosenberg, Yair (10 January 2018). "How Some Wikipedia Editors Tried—and Failed—To Erase The UK Labour Party's Anti-Semitism Problem". Tablet. Retrieved 12 January 2018. Last month, these enterprising editors attempted to delete the entire "Anti-Semitism in the Labour Party" page from the online encyclopedia.": "Having failed to remove the evidence of Labour's anti-Semitism outright, the activist editors moved instead to obfuscate it. A proposal was put forward to rename the page "Labour party (UK) antisemitism allegations," thus casting doubt on the existence of this well-documented prejudice in the party."; "Tellingly, the word "anti-Semitism" does not appear on Jeremy Corbyn's own extensive Wikipedia page, despite the fact that it has been a defining issue of his leadership tenure.
  • "Okayama Pref. lawmakers copied Wikipedia entries in official reports on US trip". The Mainichi (in English translation). 31 January 2018. Retrieved 31 January 2018. Okayama Prefectural Assembly members submitted reports with ... many of [which] included passages identical to those on Wikipedia, while more than half contained the same typographical error, suggesting the assembly members may have copied and pasted sections of their reports from internet sources...{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)

February

  • Thompson, Luke (8 February 2018). "Review: 'Hellraiser: Judgment' Plays Like The Low-Budget 'Spawn' Reboot We've Been Promised". Forbes. Archived from the original on 9 February 2018. Retrieved 9 February 2018. Once you read the movie's Wikipedia page, which I presume was written by the filmmakers themselves, it's clear Tunnicliffe came up with a much larger mythology than he was able to fully convey onscreen. He himself plays a character named the Auditor, whom you might take for another Cenobite. But you'd be wrong! In fact, "he is part of a faction known as the Stygian Inquisition, who separate from the Order of the Gash (only one of many orders in Hell). He shares the faction with the Assessor, the Jury, the Butcher and the Surgeon. Other members, named the Bone Collectors, the Seamstress, the Sentinel, the Order of Exudation, and the Effluviam were set for introduction but were removed for budgetary reasons." {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  • Benjakob, Omer (16 February 2018). "Judea and Samaria District? Wikipedia in Hebrew Can't Find the West Bank". Haaretz. Retrieved 15 March 2018. In theory, Jewish settlements in the West Bank constitute one of Israel's seven administrative districts. However, the so-called "Judea and Samaria District" may not actually be a district, or at least does not have the official status of one, according to a recent discovery by Hebrew Wikipedia editors.

March

  • "PM Abe's Diet responses lead to Wikipedia article 'editing war'". The Mainichi. 3 March 2018. Retrieved 3 March 2018. it is clear that an "editing war" erupted after Prime Minister Shinzo Abe attempted to explain the rise in the Engel's coefficient for those living in Japan in a Jan. 31 House of Councillors Budget Committee meeting. While one side sought to alter the entry to reflect the prime minister's explanation, the other side tried to block their efforts. The battle went for a total of 19 rounds, according to the editing history log.
  • Brandom, Russell (6 March 2018). "How gun buffs took over Wikipedia's AR-15 page". The Verge. Retrieved 20 March 2018. In the days after the Parkland shooting, users flocked to Wikipedia to learn about guns. When users searched for "AR-15" — the style of gun used during the shooting — they were directed to the page for the "Colt AR-15." The page was viewed more than 200,000 times on the day after Parkland, a hundred times its usual traffic. But those users didn't find much information about mass shootings or political efforts. In fact, the Colt AR-15 page made no mention of gun control at all, instead spending over a thousand words describing the technical details of the gun's various parts.
  • Airhart, Ellen (10 March 2018). "How Wikipedia Portrayed Humanity in a Single Photo". Wired. Retrieved 11 March 2018. The crowdsourced encyclopedia, in theory, offers a solution to the problem of representation; no single writer has control over the way in which a subject is presented. But still: They had to choose a single image to lead the [human] entry. And whatever photo they went with would inevitably leave out most of the diversity and cultural nuance that makes humanity beautiful and interesting. At first, they chose the Pioneer plaque, which stayed in its privileged position for about five years. But the editors weren't satisfied. Hundreds of pages of discussion reveal a group of people desperately trying to understand their own ignorance, and make amends for the known unknowns.
  • Ingram, Mathew (March 14, 2018). "Google offers olive branch to newspapers, YouTube relies on Wikipedia". Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved March 20, 2018. YouTube said Wikipedia links are just the first step in solving the problem and that it plans to do more, but it seems a little unfair to take advantage of a free resource when Google itself could be trying harder to flag or identify disinformation.
  • Mendelsohn, Jennifer; Shulman, Peter A. (15 March 2018). "How social media spread a historical lie". Washington Post. Retrieved 5 April 2018. The truth about the complicated racial legacies of both parties — and the Klan's influence on them in 1924 — has been perniciously contorted by activists deploying digital tricks, abetted (often unwittingly) by good-faith actors such as academics, journalists and volunteer Wikipedia editors. What's left is a fake historical "fact" that has been "verified" by powerful digital properties such as Google, Facebook, Wikipedia and various online publishers without being true. Which reflects one actual truth: Now, not only can partisans and malicious actors manufacture fake news, but they can falsify history as well.
  • Feldman, Brian (16 March 2018). "Why Wikipedia Works". New York Magazine. Retrieved 6 April 2018. But the fact that YouTube sees Wikipedia as a reliable source is also, in a sense, a total validation of Wikipedia's mission. A encyclopedia, open to edits from anyone, could easily have been misused and abused. Instead, it's become the default place to find facts online.
  • Matsakis, Louise (16 March 2018). "Don't Ask Wikipedia to Cure the Internet". Wired. Retrieved 22 March 2018. This week, however, Wikipedia's volunteer editors and the nonprofit that makes its work possible, the Wikimedia Foundation, suddenly found themselves in the news, tasked once again with providing a ground-level truth for a platform unwilling to provide one of its own.
  • Benjakob, Omer (18 March 2018). "Gun Enthusiasts Are Waging a War of Attrition on Wikipedia, and It Looks Like They're Winning". Haaretz. Retrieved 20 March 2018. The online technology magazine The Verge published the results of its investigation last week regarding the Wikipedia article on the AR-15 rifle, a current focus of the gun-control debate in the United States. The story, by Russel Brandom, showed how a small and dedicated group of gun enthusiasts managed to shape the article to fit their agenda, in a case that sheds light on how political interests groups can easily coalesce on Wikipedia.
  • Herrman, John (March 19, 2018). "YouTube May Add to the Burdens of Humble Wikipedia". The New York Times. Retrieved March 20, 2018. ...YouTube's chief executive, Susan Wojcicki, announced that the company she leads would enlist Wikipedia's help to deal with the proliferation of conspiracy theories and misinformation on its platform.
  • Swamy, Madhu V (March 28, 2018). "Do You Actually Need A Wikipedia Page for Your Business?". Customer Think. Retrieved March 29, 2018. From Twitter to Facebook, businesses now have plenty of avenues to drive torrents of traffic, generate tons of sales-ready leads and boost overall revenue. But here's the BIG QUESTION: Should businesses use Wikipedia for driving traffic, leads and sales? The ANSWER is a resounding YES!
  • Bernick, Michael (28 March 2018). "The Power Of The Wikimedia Movement Beyond Wikimedia". Forbes. Retrieved 29 March 2018. We the constituents of Wikimedia, started an ambitious discussion about our collective future. We reflected on our past sixteen years together and imagined the impact we could have in the world in the next decades. Our aim was to identify a common strategic direction that would unite and inspire people across our movement on our way to 2030, and help us make decisions.

April

May

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Press_coverage_2018&oldid=841744115"