Published by rwatstein October 25th, 2008
in Wikipedia.
Why the online encyclopedia’s epistemology should worry those who care about traditional notions of accuracy. With little notice from the outside world, the community-written encyclopedia Wikipedia has redefined the commonly accepted use of the word “truth.” Why should we care? Because В¬Wikipedia’s articles are the first- or second-ranked results for most Internet searches. Type “iron” into Google, and Wikipedia’s article on the element is the top-ranked result; likewise, its article on the Iron Cross is first when the search words are “iron cross.” Google’s search algorithms rank a story in part by how many times it has been linked to; people are linking to Wikipedia articles a lot. This means that the content of these articles really matters.
Read the full article here
Share This
Lauren Pressley and Carolyn J. McCallum write: “The presence of librarians in Wikipedia as content contributors would assist with the creation and maintenance of a more scholarly environment. Their involvement could change academicians’ minds about Wikipedia. What is currently shunned by many in academia as a flawed information resource would become regarded as a good place to begin their research. When following an external link to a library’s website, nonlibrary users may want to explore their local libraries to discover what other valuable information and resources can be found.”
Read the full article here
Share This
Information might want to be free, but that doesn’t mean the editors at Encyclopedia Britannica plan to let it run roughshod. While acknowledging its need to step into modern times, Britannica also is holding fast to the idea that experts make it better. You may not know this, but Albert Einstein wore an editor’s hat at Encyclopedia Britannica, as did George Bernard Shaw and more than 80 Nobel laureates and Pulitzer Prize winners. But it’s that other encyclopedia, the online one, where vandals and anonymous editors allegedly run rampant, that’s been getting all the attention lately. As hyped as Wikipedia may be, it’s hard to deny that an open source information repository that gets updated several thousand times a second is well suited to present times. I’m talking about an era defined by two phrases: instant gratification and user-generated. So where does a 240-year-old encyclopedia like Britannica fit in today? How does it face up to the criticism that it is expensive to access, closed and outdated? For starters, by being accessible, collaborative and continuously updated.
Read the full article here
Share This
Published by rwatstein June 21st, 2008
in Wikipedia.
According to Nielsen//NetRatings, a service of The Nielsen Company, from April 2003 to April 2008 Web traffic to Wikipedia skyrocketed, increasing nearly 8,000 percent. The surge was driven by search engines led by Google. In April, 61 percent of visitors from home and 66 percent of visitors from work to en.wikipedia.org were referred from Google. Yahoo! Search was the second most common referring site to English-language Wikipedia, referring 19 percent and 16 percent of visitors from home and work, respectively. “Search providers dominate Wikipedia’s referring traffic because of its scope and value as an information resource,” said Michael Pond, Media Analyst, Nielsen Online. “The site’s rapid ascent, with audience levels comparable to popular brands, such as eBay and MySpace, demonstrates the success of its collaborative nature—readers can edit entries and add information. This consumer involvement has led to an increase in blog mentions of Wikipedia, which builds the site’s relevance and credibility.”
Read the full article here
Share This
Published by rwatstein June 1st, 2008
in social sites and Wikipedia.
Wired takes a look at a handful of fascinating “-pedias,” including Lostpedia (beware of spoilers!), Uncyclopedia, Chickipedia (borderline NSFW), Dickipedia (mostly SFW, believe it or not), Wookieepedia, Dealipedia, Congresspedia, and Pedialyte. If not for Wookieepedia, how would you know that the Codex of Karness Muur was translated into Basic by Naga Sadow.
Read the full article here
Share This
Published by rwatstein May 26th, 2008
in Wikipedia.
A literary agent has sued the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikipedia contributors over negative remarks, but Wikimedia argues it’s not liable for user-generated content. Barbara Bauer recently filed a lawsuit in New Jersey Superior Court claiming that the Wikimedia Foundation is liable for postings that called her one of the “Dumbest of the twenty worst” agents, who has “no documented sales at all.” Wikimedia filed for a motion to dismiss the case, saying that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and state free speech laws, gives it immunity against such lawsuits. The federal communications law states that owners and operators of interactive sites cannot be held liable for user comments
Read the full article here
Share This
Published by rwatstein March 29th, 2008
in economics and Wikipedia.
Scroll the list of the 10 most popular Web sites in the U.S., and you’ll encounter the Internet’s richest corporate players — names like Yahoo, Amazon, News Corp., Microsoft and Google. Except for No. 7: Wikipedia. And there lies a delicate situation. With 2 million articles in English alone, the Internet encyclopedia “anyone can edit” stormed the Web’s top ranks through the work of unpaid volunteers and the assistance of donors. But that gives Wikipedia far less financial clout than its Web peers, and doing almost anything to improve that situation invites scrutiny from the same community that proudly generates the content.
Read the full article here
Share This
Published by rwatstein March 29th, 2008
in demographics, MySpace and Wikipedia.
When we think of social networking Web sites like MySpace and Facebook, which have created a phenomenon of sorts over the years, we think their traditional competitors have no chance against them. With the younger generation finding its identity in these web 2.0 applications, one can easily think that they define and shape the thoughts of the users in every way. Not necessarily; the youngsters still prefer to use Wikipedia over MySpace when they want to search about their favorite music or band. While the artists and the bands think that a major share of their online popularity should be attributed to MySpace, there is another traditional web site, which is providing great services, probably even a tad better than that of MySpace.
Read the full article here
Share This
All those hours spent watching videos about cats with 1000 faces have obviously paid off, with YouTube now the most popular social networking site in Britain, knocking Wikipedia off the prestigious perch. During the month of January, YouTube had a 56% increase in traffic compared to January 2007, with 10.4 million unique users from the UK, and Wikipedia managing to attract a paltry 9.6 million. Nielsen Online claims that Facebook had 8.5 million from the UK, as well.
Read the full article here
Share This
Published by rwatstein December 16th, 2007
in Google and Wikipedia.
Google Inc. is working on a new Internet encyclopedia that will consist of material submitted by people who want to be identified as experts and possibly profit from their knowledge. The concept, outlined recently in a posting on Google’s Web site, poses a potential challenge to the nonprofit Wikipedia, which has drawn upon the collective wisdom of unpaid, anonymous contributors to emerge as a widely used reference tool.
Read the full article here
Share This
Published by rwatstein December 1st, 2007
in Google, mapping and Wikipedia.
Google Inc., striving to sell more local advertising online, will allow users to add and adjust information in its Internet mapping service and share the changes with viewers.Users now can move home and business address markers if signed in to a Google account, the company said in a written statement. Google also plans to allow them to add new points of interest and change business information at a later date.
Read the full article here
Share This
Linda O’Connor regards Wikipedia the same way former first lady Nancy Reagan campaigned against drugs. She urges people to “just say no.” The Great Meadows (N.J.) Middle School librarian hasn’t been a fan of the online encyclopedia for years. This fall, she decided it was time to make others at her school aware of the website’s pitfalls. She put up a sign saying “Just Say No to Wikipedia” over the computers in the school library….
Read the full article here
Share This
Professional librarians and researchers will tell you that the Web has many unexplored opportunities for finding more information on business topics. Pursue these six techniques to improve your research results:
1. Use Search Engines and Wikipedia to Find Quality Research Sources - Search engines are a good place to begin. It makes sense to start at search sites like Google, Yahoo and Ask.com, and to see if there’s an article on Wikipedia. But use them to carry you to better places.
Read full article here
Share This
