Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-01-09/In the news
In the news
New York Times article
The New York Times published an article on 3 January by George Johnson entitled "The Nitpicking of the Masses vs. the Authority of the Experts", comparing Britannica and Wikipedia. It mentions the Nature study and discusses the fluctuations on the Dmitri Mendeleev page at length. The article was syndicated in The Australian Financial Review (the premier business daily in Australia) on 5 January entitled "Rule Britannica, but online rival eyes throne". In the article, the George Johnson noted that the birthdate for Hwang Woo-Suk was different between Wikipedia and Britannica, which was due to the fact that Wikipedia used the lunisolar Korean calendar which gave the date as 15 December, 1952 while the Britannica article used the Gregorian calendar, which uses the date 29 January, 1953. In response to the NYT article a footnote was added to the article. After being informed of this development through an email sent by Ta bu shi da yu, Mr Johnson responded that this was "interesting information indeed. It is fascinating the stories that unfold when one tries to chase down facts" and that his "admiration for the project continues to grow".
Newsweek article
Newsweek featured Wikipedia in an article from its international edition, "The People's Encyclopedia". Unusually for an English-language story, but appropriately for an international audience, it prominently features Wikipedia editions other than English, starting with a profile of Italian editor Frieda Brioschi. The article also reviews some of the recent controversies on the English Wikipedia, although it misidentifies John Seigenthaler as a former aide to John F. Kennedy rather than Robert Kennedy (it also incorrectly credits Wikipedia with a total of 2.6 billion articles). It goes on to cite Jorge Cauz, president of Encyclopædia Britannica, saying that Wikipedia is regularly discussed at editorial meetings.
Wikipedia and advertising
The article "Wikipedia chief considers taking ads" in the The Times (based on a more complete interview at "Identity question for world's encyclopaedia") prompted a flurry of blog examination, but Jimmy Wales rejected the paper's conclusion, saying he had been badly misquoted. He discussed the matter on his Wikipedia talk page, and ClickZ published his clarifications on 3 January, in "No Ads in Wikipedia Says Wales".
The future
Jon Udell writes about "Wikipedia, competition, and the future" in a 4 January article at InfoWorld, touching on Seigenthaler, Digital Universe, and more.
In The Inquirer, Wendy M. Grossman also writes about turning points and changes of perspective about Wikipedia, in "A tempest in a Wikipedia", published on 6 January.
More Nature follow-ups
- Online Wikipedia is not Britannica - but it's close - Christian Science Monitor
- Nature gives thumbs up to Wikipedia - Information World Review
Discuss this story
I have added further information that the reporters may not have been aware of:
Ta bu shi da yu 02:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]