In the news

Pakistan blocks Wikipedia for seven hours

"Pakistan Blocks Wikipedia", Blogcritics

More coverage of Britannica and Nature

Nature has published an editorial, titled "Britannica attacks... and we respond.", commenting on last week's dispute between Encyclopædia Britannica and Nature over the accuracy of their December comparison of Britannica and Wikipedia. The debate continued to receive some coverage in the media:

"Encyclopedia Wars Heat Up", CBS News
"Britannica lashes back at comparison to Wikipedia", Rocky Mountain News, Colorado, USA
"Britannica bites back in Wikipedia row", Silicon.com

Overviews

"Wikipedia world: Popular online site is used by everyone — but how accurate are the articles?", Home News Tribune, New Jersey, USA
"Wikipedia hits million articles", The Black & White, Maryland, USA (mentions longstanding vandalism of Walker, Texas Ranger article)
"Enter at your own risk: We put Wikipedia to the test", Grand Forks Herald, North Dakota/Minnesota, USA (intentional vandalism, some caught, some not)
"Is it possible to tell who wrote certain articles in the Wikipedia?", Inside Bay Area

Wikia finds investors

Wikia (formerly Wikicities), a for-profit company founded by Jimbo Wales and Angela Beesley but completely separate from Wikipedia, has acquired over $4 million in venture capital from various investors. See "Wikipedia founder goes commercial", MarketWatch.

Also this week: Bureaucrats resign — April Fools' — News and notes — Press coverage — Features and admins — B.R.I.O.N. — T.R.O.L.L.

In this issue

3 April 2006

+ Add a comment

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.

Ha - the report at "Enter at your own risk: We put Wikipedia to the test" says that intentional vandalism to Edna Ferber and Sigmatism was not corrected "within a week". The vandalism was added by an anon 68.91.32.213 (talk · contribs) at around 06:00 on Thursday 9 March, and the vandalism that was not reverted already was removed by the same anon about 4 days and 17 hours later, at around 23:00 on 13 March. Nice of them to remove the vandalism, but what funny short weeks they have in Grand Forks... -- ALoan (Talk) 11:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikia finds investors should not be on this page

Given that Wikia is completely separate from Wikipedia, and there is a conflict of interest here between the not for-profit Wikipedia and the for-profit Wikia, I believe the paragraph should be removed. PeterGrecian 13:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Au contraire, my friend. The community absolutely must be informed of this, so we can watch out for conflicts of interest. – gpvos (talk) 19:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Not really for conflicts of interest or anything; it's there because it's notable in the eyes of most users here. Just because we're on Wikipedia doesn't mean that we don't pay attention to other wikis. I'm sure we'd cover if Ward's Wiki were to gain investors, or be sold, or something. Ral315 (talk) 17:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, I'm reassured PeterGrecian 08:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding the article from the New Jersey paper: it's worse than I thought! Apparently they have astrology teachers in American schools! :-) – gpvos (talk) 19:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The Signpost needs your help putting together the next issue.

Home

About