In the news

Legislation's relationship with Wikipedia misconstrued

A recent piece of legislation introduced in the United States Senate would force libraries and schools to block access to "social networking sites". Because the term "social networking" was not defined in the text of the bill, blogs surmised that the bill might force public institutions to ban Wikipedia. In response to the posts, Wikimedia Foundation general counsel Brad Patrick said, "I'm still chuckling over this, only it's *real*. This is REAL LIFE and a REAL US SENATOR (one with a startling 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."

Patents increasingly cite Wikipedia

Wikipedia is being cited more and more often by patent authors. A Google patent search shows that 111 patents cite Wikipedia, including patents filed by Adobe, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Microsoft, Samsung, the University of Illinois, the United States Secretary of the Navy, Lucent, Boeing, Epson, NVIDIA, the United States Secretary of State, Texas Instruments, Lenovo, Nintendo, Airbus, DaimlerChrysler, Carnegie Mellon University, Sony, Sun Microsystems, and the University of California.

Norwegian newspaper linking to Wikipedia

The Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet has begun to occasionally add contextual links to Wikipedia within their articles. The links go to articles on persons and concepts mentioned in the article; for example, an article about nominees for the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize linked to the articles on Al Gore and Sheila Watt-Cloutier. Another article on Hugo Chávez links to Augusto Pinochet, Canal Metropolitano Televisión, axis of good and axis of evil.

Also this week: From the editor — Arbitrator resigns — Is Wikipedia Failing? — Google traffic — WikiWorld — News and notes — Press coverage — Features and admins — Technology — Arbitration

In this issue

In the news

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

S.49

FYI: I was just reading through the bill myself and here is § 203 (c):

“

(c) Definitions- Section 254(h)(7) of such Act (47 U.S.C. 254(h)(7)) is amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

`(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.'.

”

Now, as far as (i), (iii), and (iv), everything is under control in WP. As far as (ii), it will be iffy as to the extent to which the "detailed personal information" part is construed. Yes, user pages can be made, but really, policy states that it's really meant to be just for the project and other people look down upon making the page into a blog-like atmosphere. And (v) is obviously there, but communication is to better the project, not to solicit other people's personal lives (although it could potentially be used to do that). _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐ 03:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

professor arrested because of a Wikipedia article

The Minneapolis StarTribune reported yesterday (Thursday the 22nd) that a visting professor at the University of Minnesota, Taner Akçam, was arrested when he entered Canada because of allegations against him in a Wikipedia article. I'll see if I can gather together the details. Michael Hardy 00:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the link---it was easier to find than I expected. Michael Hardy 00:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that doesn't seem to be working. Try this one. Michael Hardy 00:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That link no longer works, but instead points to an article on a different topic. Michael Hardy 22:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure we cover what matters to you — leave a suggestion.

Home

About