In the news

Wikipedia in the news

Wikipedia quality initiative tested on German Wikipedia

Related articles
In the news

Predicting admin elections; studying flagged revision debates; classifying editor interactions; and collecting the Wikipedia literature
26 March 2012

Studying German flagged revisions, French library agreement, German court case
12 April 2010

Financial statements, discussions, milestones
8 March 2010

BLP deletions cause uproar
25 January 2010

Flagged revisions petitions, image donations, brief news
28 December 2009

Vibber resigns, Staff office hours, Flagged Revs, new research and more
28 September 2009

WikiTrust, Azerbaijan-Armenia edit wars
31 August 2009

An extended look at how we got to flagged protection and patrolled revisions
31 August 2009

Misleading media storm over flagged revisions
31 August 2009

Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
24 August 2009

New board member, flagged revisions, Eurovision interviews
25 May 2009

End of Encarta, flagged revisions poll, new image donation, and more
30 March 2009

Commons, conferences, and more
9 March 2009

Flagged Revisions, historical image discovery, and more
16 February 2009

Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's future, WikiDashboard, and "wiki-snobs"
8 February 2009

Wikipedia in the news: Flagged Revisions, Internet Explorer add-on
31 January 2009

Jimbo requests that developers turn on Flagged Revisions
24 January 2009

News and notes: Flagged Revisions and permissions proposals, hoax, milestones
10 January 2009

Sighted revisions introduced on the German Wikipedia
12 May 2008

Page creation for unregistered users likely to be reenabled
29 October 2007

Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
2 April 2007

The Seigenthaler incident: One year later
4 December 2006

Wikipedia in the news
2 October 2006

Single-user login, stable versioning planned soon
7 August 2006


More articles

Predicting admin elections; studying flagged revision debates; classifying editor interactions; and collecting the Wikipedia literature
26 March 2012

Studying German flagged revisions, French library agreement, German court case
12 April 2010

Financial statements, discussions, milestones
8 March 2010

BLP deletions cause uproar
25 January 2010

Flagged revisions petitions, image donations, brief news
28 December 2009

Vibber resigns, Staff office hours, Flagged Revs, new research and more
28 September 2009

WikiTrust, Azerbaijan-Armenia edit wars
31 August 2009

An extended look at how we got to flagged protection and patrolled revisions
31 August 2009

Misleading media storm over flagged revisions
31 August 2009

Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
24 August 2009

New board member, flagged revisions, Eurovision interviews
25 May 2009

End of Encarta, flagged revisions poll, new image donation, and more
30 March 2009

Commons, conferences, and more
9 March 2009

Flagged Revisions, historical image discovery, and more
16 February 2009

Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's future, WikiDashboard, and "wiki-snobs"
8 February 2009

Wikipedia in the news: Flagged Revisions, Internet Explorer add-on
31 January 2009

Jimbo requests that developers turn on Flagged Revisions
24 January 2009

News and notes: Flagged Revisions and permissions proposals, hoax, milestones
10 January 2009

Sighted revisions introduced on the German Wikipedia
12 May 2008

Page creation for unregistered users likely to be reenabled
29 October 2007

Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
2 April 2007

The Seigenthaler incident: One year later
4 December 2006

Wikipedia in the news
2 October 2006

Single-user login, stable versioning planned soon
7 August 2006

+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

I chose not to cover the The End User: A wiki way to profit from the International Herald Tribune as it is mostly about Wikia not Wikipedia. It does however, mention the relative strength of the Polish Wikipedia given its high articles to speakers ratio and also the implementation of the flagging system on the German Wikipedia. --Trödel 22:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks to those that proofread and corrected the article!!! --Trödel 15:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Local Media Report About Wikipedia

I was interviewed for the article in our local newspaper, The News, The World According to Wiki that appeared this morning. The article is an example of local press coverage about Wikipedia. It stresses the immediacy of the information. I am not sure if it is useful for ITN and I am also not sure of the process for the production of ITN, so I thought I would mention it here. KenWalker | Talk 20:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Links and info on 'stable versions'

In case anyone is interested in the details of this, as I was... I dusted off my German skills and wandered through their 'Cafe' and 'Community Portal' until I found a link to it at 'looked at versions'. There is apparently a 'two tiered' approach with the higher level being called 'closely examined versions'. From what I gather, a particular edit is classified as a 'looked at' version if any 'trusted user' (which is defined as 30 days + 30 edits on the German page, but 4 days in the news article) created it, updated it from what was previously a 'looked at' version, or specifically clicks a box to mark it as having been looked at... which is supposed to be done any time there is no vandalism in the article. The 'closely examined' version is going to be limited to some more select group and would indicate that all of the facts in the article are properly referenced. Logged in users apparently see the current version and it can be set up so that anons see either the 'looked at' or 'closely examined' version by default (or the current version if none are tagged) with buttons to view the other two types. The 'automatic updating' of the 'looked at' version makes a big difference, but I'd see potential problems with defaulting anons to the 'closely examined' version. Hopefully it will also not be possible to edit the 'tagged' versions to avoid confusion where people add information to the 'closely examined' copy which was already in the current page (and simultaneously remove other improvements) or click to edit the 'looked at' version and are taken to the current and find that the text they were going to change isn't there at all. Presumably in most cases they'd have to view the current version first and make changes to that, but I didn't see anything about it in the text. --CBD 13:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NYTimes piece about AfD

Giving the Heave-Ho in an Online Who’s Who -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 21:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]




       

The Signpost · written by many · served by Sinepost V0.9 · 🄯 CC-BY-SA 4.0