This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

According to Raul654, he has been asked to give a couple talks at the NSA some time before Thanksgiving, to help them set up their own (presumably) NSA-wide wiki. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-28 01:39

Just for the record - I was originally asked to have two talks with the NSA -- a small round-table discussion on November 14th and a big one in January. The former was cancelled because of NSA budget issues, but the latter is still going-ahead. →Raul654 01:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, about the topic of the talk - they don't want technical assistance - they just want to know everything there is about Wikipedia. →Raul654 01:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Will do as it gets closer. Ral315 (talk) 06:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd prefer not to discuss it until after the January meeting, so I actually have something to talk about :) →Raul654 21:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

:lol: Why does the NSA want a wiki? THEY ARE A GOVERNMENT SECURITY AGENCY! (of course it might be part of FirstGov or something and the NSA might have been called up to the job cause they know a lot about computers :) . --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 06:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, this engagement has been effectively cancelled. Apparently, the hot thing to do at the NSA is to link a bunch of FAQs together (in HTML) and call it a Wiki. It's still possible they'll ask me to give a talk in the future, but for the time being the talk is a no-go. Raul654 21:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

"I wouldn't be surprised to see Google go after a company like Wikipedia," the online encyclopedia created and edited by its readers, said Beal.

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1903946,00.asp?kc=EWRSS03119TX1K0000594

Oh gosh - how much would you pay for open source? 1 April 2005 all over again. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

http://www.dradio.de/dkultur/sendungen/profil/450738/

22.12.2005 · 10:50 Uhr U-Bahn in Berlin (Bild: Wikipedia) U-Bahn in Berlin (Bild: Wikipedia) Ab in den Untergrund! Wie ein 15-Jähriger den U-Bahnen dieser Welt verfiel Von Ralf Bei der Kellen

Während andere 15-Jährige Gangsta-Rap hören oder Graffitis sprühen, fotografiert Cornelius Kibelka lieber U-Bahnen. Der "metrophile" Schüler hat seine Leidenschaft im Netz veröffentlicht und wurde als Vielschreiber einer der Administratoren der Online-Enzyklopädie Wikipedia.

-- 84.132.182.121 10:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The EBlogger, a weblog run by an Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc. employee and dedicated to news about Britannica and Wikipedia is now dead since November 16. In October 2005, the EBlogger announced a series of postings about "misconceptions" relating to wikipedia and Encyclopaedia Britannica:

Over the coming weeks, I’m going to attempt to address some of these misconceptions in a series of blog posts. As I do, I’ll update this post with links the subsequent entries, so that this post can serve as a sort of index of related entries.

So far, there have been two postings, one relating to Wikipedia as being open source or/or not open source software and one about vandalism. The OSS posting was sometimes considered not to be very helpful in addressing "misconceptions". -- 84.132.182.121 12:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, it would be interesting for some people to have a search-engine for the sidebar with a suggest-function: Wikimedia-search.

Or a complete CategoryTree for the wikipedia.

Or Cat Scan-Tool, where you can scan whole categories with sub-categories and looking for templates.

Sorry, for my bad english.Merry Christmas from germany. Kolossos16:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Different search engines present info in different formats. I like the quality of Teoma. I like the format of Vivisimo but not think their quality is that great. There are many many different kinds of search engine formats out there. Perhaps some more suited than others to what people might like to see on Wikipedia. User:AlMac|^(talk) 18:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

In the December 29, 2005 edition of the Christian Science Monitor [1], website reviewer Jim Regan's "selection of 10 of the best sites from 2005" includes the Wikipedia's Unusual articles. "Wikipedia's website was chosen strictly on the basis of content....Wikipedia doesn't need flashy displays to hold the surfer's attention." ^BlankVerse 02:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Interesting article.

There will be two chapters established in Australia and New Zealand. See here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Australia (so far three people are joining, and there is talk of Wiki-clubs at universities like the University of Sydney, Melbourne University and the Australian National University in Canberra). and http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_New_Zealand. Also there is more talk on the Australian Wikipedian's Notice Board. Especially about how the formation of Wikiclubs will be shaped by Voluntary Student Unionism. --EuropracBHIT 08:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC).

Some Harvard Law Students are taking a class in Cyberlaw in which part of the class is to learn about Wikis by contributing to Wikipedia. Wikipedians may help them via theCyberlaw project, such as checking how they doing, and giving welcome tips on their talk pages (see links to the user accounts at Cyberlaw project. If you follow the links to the Harvard Wiki at Berkman Center for Internet & Society, which incidentally is the site for the next Wikimania, you will see that in addition to contributing to almost 100 Wikipedia articles, they have drafted a set of reccommendations to try to improve Wikipedia. Wikipedians can learn a lot from this group of law students, and perhaps encourage other groups of students to follow in their footsteps. User:AlMac|^(talk) 15:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I was disappointed that the one article listed on the page that I rather randomly picked turned out to be a copyright violation. I expected better from Harvard Law students studying Cyberlaw. I does make me wonder if it is necessary to go through all their edits as if tracing a common Wikipedia vandal. ^BlankVerse 18:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• the first review of the Digital Universe has arrived:

That's a relief, but Digital Universe needs to temporarily disappear into a black hole and re-emerge only when it's been stripped of registration requirements, unnecessarily complex animated graphics and amateurish entries.

• the Washington Post weighs in with "A Universe of Good Intentions, A World of Practical Hurdles" By Leslie Walker: "Rarely do I write about projects that I think are likely to fail -- and this one seems to have the odds stacked against it, judging by my initial tests of its software...."

Apparently. Ha. violet/riga (t) 12:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• Okay, that was really really dumb. Now they have the whole nation looking at a particular piece of information that they did not want published. Radiant_>|< 13:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

AP had an exeptional amount of errors. German language Wikipedia was never shut down. For three days, a court order was ordering Wikimedia Deutschland not to redirect from wikipedia.de to de.wikipedia.org as long as the name "Boris Floricic" can be viewed on de.wikipedia.org --84.132.148.185 19:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to get off-topic, but any publicity is good publicity. The German Wikipedia is better off now because of that fiasco. :-) --unforgettableid | talk to me 21:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

http://www.gcn.com/25_2/interview/38005-1.html

GCN: Speaking of Wiki, is your Wikipedia entry accurate? [Editor’s note: The online collaborative encyclopedia recently came under fire when a contributor admitted he fabricated information.]

Cerf: There are a number of minor factual inaccuracies, and it is both incomplete and out of date. Thanks for reminding me to look at it; I need to update and correct the minor mistakes. One thing in particular: I can’t really be the Father of the Internet because so many people have had key roles to play. Bob Kahn actually started the internetting project at DARPA in late 1972 or early 1973 and then invited me to work with him on it just after I joined the Stanford faculty. So at most I am “one of the fathers” of the Internet.

Might the lameness of the Saugeen Stripper AfD/lame edit war controversy be Signpost material? --OntarioQuizzer 20:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The most popular British radio station, Radio 1, spent a while editing the content of one of their presenters (Edith Bowman) and discussed it live on air, leading to a rash of edits there. See Talk:Edith Bowman and a typically poor article by Orlowski at El Reg. violet/riga (t) 22:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

We should have a policy never to reference Orlowski articles, because rarely is there any bit of neutral reporting in his articles. Ral315 (talk) 17:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Is the lack of neutral reporting something bad? -- 84.176.219.248 11:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think mentioning Orlowski is fine when it comes up, we don't need to avoid it, but there's no point in making a big fuss about it either way. His opinion of Wikipedia is old news by now. If he had something good to say, now that would be newsworthy. --Michael Snow 00:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Aetherometry, a contentious psuedoscientific topic being edited by its advocates, has been deleted via AFD despite having accumulated more than 1100 edits over it's 6 month tenure on Wikipedia.

1. First nomination - No consensus (and a horrible mess), July 1, 2005
2. Second nomination - Deleted, January 14, 2006
3. Deletion review - Presently nearing completion, likely to endorse deletion.

One of the unique aspects of this case is that over the 6 months that this article was fought over, it's advocates wrote two online "books" bashing Wikipedia, its culture and many of the people involved with the case.

1. Wikipedia: A Techno-Cult of Ignorance
2. Wikipedia: The Rise of the Latrines

(The artwork alone is worth a click)

Another largely unique aspect is that one of the reasons for deletion, in addition to concerns about WP:V and WP:NOR, is that many of the people involved were just sick of fighting over such an unimportant topic. See the AFDs and Talk:Aetherometry.

I'm not sure if this is the sort of thing to merit a Signpost article, but it is clearly a very unusual case, and hence I thought I would bring it here for your consideration. Dragons flight 19:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I received this email on the info-en mailing list and sent a message to the paper's website on December 15. After nearly a month and a half, I still haven't heard back from them, Could be a good story to follow up on that plagiarism earlier this month and the China block all in one go.

Hi everyone,

I just read this interview (http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200511/22/eng20051122_223146.html) about Lyndon LaRouche in the People's Daily English website. The author of the article is "Yong Tang, People's Daily Online Washington-based Staff Writer".

Now, after reading the interview, I looked up Mr. LaRouche at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_Larouche), and guess what? The introductory text for the interview seems to be simply copied from Wikipedia. Without any reference.

I just wanted to let you know because I think this is just not fair.

- Mgm|^(talk) 08:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Someone keeps altering James John Parker on an Ohio congressional candidate to make it read like campaign material. My suspicion is that it is someone associated with the campaign. I have semi-protected it as a result. See the note I placed at Talk:James John Parker. I know other incidents like this have been reported on by the Signpost and thought I'd pass this along. PedanticallySpeaking 17:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The candidate himself is rewriting his own article. There was a posting made on the Help Desk e-mail system, as follows.

"From: Jim Parker <parker309@msn.com> Mailed-By: wikimedia.org
To: helpdesk-l@wikimedia.org"

"I would like to have this page unlocked so that I can perform one final edit. Then we can lock it again. Somebody keeps changing it. Thanks."

"Jim Parker"

User:Marudubshinki was kind enough to point this out to me. If you check his official site (linked on the bottom of James John Parker) you'll see that e-mail address is his. Further, on his campaign site he links to us from "Who is Jim Parker?" making it appear that something he's writing is an independent source. PedanticallySpeaking 18:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)