Jump to content

Wikipedia:Wikipedia in blogs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wikipedia in the media
Wikipedia as a topic
Wikipedia as a source

This page is for blogs where Wikipedia is discussed. Merely using Wikipedia as a source is not sufficient. These are not considered reliable sources.

English

[edit]

Continuous

[edit]

2004

[edit]

August

[edit]
  • Joi Ito: Wikipedia attacked by ignorant reporter The fact that anyone can edit the pages appears to be why people like Mr. Fasoldt question its authority, but that is that exact reason that it has authority.
  • And an awful lot more blogs, mainly about the authority issue. Anyway, more blogs than can be listed here carried it

September

[edit]
  • How Authoritative is Wikipedia September 4, 2004. Describes how he deliberately planted misinformation on several Wikipedia articles that he claims went undetected for 1 week. Also reported it on Slashdot [1]
  • editorsweblog.org Wikipedia as a tool for editors and journalists "Interesting site (if you don't already know it): Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia that can help you when you hesitate, for instance, about the use of explosive or fighting words like "terrorists"." Goes on to talk about an article about us in the Washington Post.

October

[edit]

November

[edit]

2005

[edit]

January

[edit]

February

[edit]

March

[edit]
  • Clay (pseudonym). "One World, Two Maps (thoughts on the Wikipedia debate)". March 9, 2005. Many-to-Many. [2]
    "You can see the differences in the two worldviews most clearly when we argue across that gap. I literally cannot understand danah’s complaints; I read “The problem that i’m having with the Wikipedia hype is the assumption that it is the panacea for it too has its problems”, and I wonder who she’s talking about. The radialists praising the Wikipedia are not saying it’s perfect, or even good in any absolute sense — we don’t ever talk about absolute quality.
    "Wikipedia interests us because it’s better, and sustainably better, than what went before — it’s a move from a simple product (“Pay us and we’ll write an encyclopedia”) to a complex system, where a million differing, internal motivations of the users and contributors are causing an encyclopedia to coalesce. How cool is that? (The radialist motto…)
    "But danah and Matt cannot understand our enthusiasm. From the Cartesian point of view, the thing that would excite you would be dramatic change to a new state. Radialists never say things like ‘panacea’ or ‘utopia’, but the Cartesians hear us saying those things, or think they do, because otherwise what would the fuss be about? Mere incrementalism is nothing more than a Panglossian fetishization of reality, and excitement about a technological change that doesn’t create a dramatic new equilibrium is simply hype, from the Cartesian point of view.
    "And so, when they see us high-fiving over Wikipedia, the Cartesians think we’ve taken leave of our senses, and, more to the point, they think we’ve misunderstood what is happening. They then launch a corrective set of arguments, pointing out, for example, that Wikipedia still leaves unanswered questions about social exclusion. But this, from a radialist point of view, is no more meaningful than pointing out that Wikipedia doesn’t cure skin cancer — no one ever said it would. Anything that was bad at Point A and is still bad at Point B gets factored out of the radialist critique. Any change where most of the bad things are still bad but a few of the bad things are somewhat less bad seems like a good thing to us, and if it can happen in a way that requires less energy, or better harnesses individual motivation, that seems like a great thing."
  • German Spiegel Copied Wikipedia. Oops.
  • THIS IS NOT A PAID ENDORSEMENT Wherein I plug Wikipedia on my woefully under-read blog.
  • Million Person Search: Wikipedia is the next Google - A well written treatise on the role of Wikipedia in the internet ecosystem

May

[edit]

June

[edit]

July

[edit]
  • Wikipedia - "How many small pleasures there are even in a crummy day; lately Wikipedia is somewhere near the top of that list."
  • Connecting wikis - "WikiPedia at the top of the knowledge foodchain?"
  • Wikimania 2005 - "how useful the Wikimedia Wikipedia site was to me"
  • Independent Variables and the Fourier Transform - "Wikipedia is my online brain"
  • Wikipedia, as we all know is brilliant
  • ZDNet: Is Wikipedia ripe for PR? - "Companies that want to tell their story (ie, any company that wants to stay in business…) would do well to make sure their voice is heard on Wikipedia entries about their products [...] If the PR folks can leave behind the marketing-speak and contribute just the facts about their company and/or products, it might actually be a benefit to Wikipedia instead of just another form of spam."
  • About London Bombings:
    • Londinist (Did key realtime blogging during the aftermath) "Very useful Wikipedia page"
    • Dan Olsen's Weblog - "We are now just over 24 hours since the devastating bombings in London and there is already an article on Wikipedia about the bombings. It is amazing how the internet has become a real time source of information."
    • Nik Cubrilovic Weblog "7 July 2005 London bombings from Wikipedia is another great source of news and information about the event. It is amazing how quickly a page detailing every aspect of the attack forms together on Wikipedia - they have more information than any of the major news providers."
    • O'Reilly Radar (Marc) "I found much better information about today's terrorist attacks in London by looking at the Wikipedia news page and the Flickr photo group than I did by looking at The New York Times and watching CNN."
    • michael parekh on IT "Within minutes, I learned several things that I did not get after almost an hour of watching the news through the TV news channels, and the web-sites of traditional media outlets."
    • Digg blog - just a link, but interesting exchange in comments section
    • Tasty Popsicle "a true testament of the power of independent yet collective jounalism."
    • Gadgetopia "The Wikipedia article on today’s bombings in London is already huge. The bit at the top with the hotline numbers is just evidence of how much of a fantastic resource Wikipedia has become." -- and from the comments on that page: "Xeni Jardin is on CNN right now talking about this exact page. She says it’s been updated 2,800 times. To CNN’s credit, they have run stories today about how bloggers have covered this event better than mainstream news."
    • Rhodarian - library news blog "The power of Wikipedia for documenting current news event is evident in 2005 London bombings. Resources, information and links to news sources are included. I discovered this link to Wikipedia via the NY Times International News, which to my mind gives some indication of the authority this particular entry carries."
    • SFGate.com Culture Blog "I don't know why, but I find it strange that Wikipedia already has an extensive entry on today's London bombings. Doesn't it take more than a few hours for something like a terrorist attack to become history? Not that the entry is in any way offensive; it's thorough and respectful and still a work-in-progress. It's just the notion of an "encyclopedia" article being written on the same day as the event -- no time for the past."
    • eSchool News: Why Wikipedia...or Not
    • Chicken foot stew "This online collaborative encyclopedia has given me the information I've been trying to understand by watching network and cable news for the last three hours."
    • Minimal "I’m impressed. Though I’ve not used it much in the past, I think I’ll be turning to Wikipedia a lot more in the future."
  • Wikipedia - " As a librarian I am skeptical."
  • The power of Wikipedia - "I must say that I’m impressed."
  • Wikipedia vs. Google - "Wikipedia is an open source attack on Google".
  • The Wikipedia Question - "As a librarian and a faculty member, I would not recommend preventing people from using Wikipedia"
  • Andy Carvin: Turning Wikipedia into an Asset for Schools "the more I think about it, the more I think Wikipedia's flaws actually make it an ideal learning tool for students."
  • Wiki Contributions Breakdown - "about the proportions and distributions of contributions to the WikiPedia"
  • Progressive Bloggers Wikipedia Victory - "Helping build Wikipedia is addictive."
  • Cruising Wikipedia - "a number of approaches to developing trust that will allow for interesting extrusions of the wikipedia."
  • Trusting Wikipedia
  • A Wiki Way To Waste Time - "My only criticism is the search engine; it’s not quite up to Google standard."
  • Pumpkinification - "I love Wikipedia so hard it hurts me sometimes."
  • Wikipedia - "This site probably contains more information than any other site on the web. It's astounding, really. "
  • About Roberts' nomination to Supreme Court:
    • The Observer blog "A good one stop shop for background on John Roberts Jr, nominee for the Supreme Court, is the fast-changing Wikipedia entry under his name. It has all the key data, although there is a delicate liberal tilt in the way some facts are presented in juxtaposition with the man's record on court judgements."
  • Wikipedia, Prices, and Hayek - "Wikipedia does aggregate dispersed information -- amazingly so"
  • Wikipedia improves Britannica - "Encyclopedia Britannica's response to Wikipedia and other online resources. It seems to be primarily a PR effort"
  • Forking Wikipedia - "how forking is going to play out around Wikipedia content "
  • Should You Trust the Wikipedia? - "Many academics dismiss the Wikipedia as a prank perpetuated by amateurs and geeks."
  • wikipedia interlude - "Go ahead, ask it a question. It will answer it in astonishing depth."
  • Encyclopedia Britannica Fights Back? - "The folk putting together Wikipedia don’t sit around making stuff up "
  • Fast Fixes. - " A few minutes later, the page was fixed back again by a random stranger"
  • Wandering Wikipedia - " Wikipedia (which in my opinion is one of the greatest Internet resources out there)"
  • Old vs New - "wikis have the potential to substantially transform the way we produce reference tools"
  • Dangerous waters - "Wikipedia. The word that makes many librarians (and teachers and academics) tremble, or snort, or turn up their noses."

August

[edit]
  • Wikipedia... sucks - "There are far more editors who "excel" at correcting spelling and deleting articles. . . So you have more destroyers than creators. Hence, the problem."

September

[edit]
  • Wiki-whacked - "Wikipedia users make thousands of changes to entries every hour. While most of these are constructive, others (...) are anything but. This requires Wikipedia’s volunteer gatekeepers to constantly seek out and fix violated entries—purging them of bad grammar, unsubstantiated claims, outright bias, and references to gerbils in the bum."
  • Make the Largest Encyclopedia in the World Better. - " It relies partly on the "wisdom of crowds": we all, together, probably know more than even the best individual scholar."
  • Wikipedia...Wikiwhatia? - "Not since the advent of AskJeeves has an Internet reference source been so popular"
  • Wikimedia Foundation Vows to “Slaughter” Textbook Companies - "Finally some fire power in the favor of students in the battle ground of textbooks"
  • Wikipedia - "Most teachers do NOT trust it as a source and I am uncomfortable with it being the ONLY source"
  • The New Cliche: "It's the Wikipedia of..." - "You know something [i.e. Wikipedia] has arrived when it’s used to describe a phenomenon"

October

[edit]

November

[edit]

December

[edit]

2006

[edit]

January

[edit]

February

[edit]

March

[edit]

April

[edit]

May

[edit]
  • Wikipedia grows up - "How can we devote ourselves to making information accessible to all, and then scorn these devoted amateurs who delight in building with the bricks we give them?"
  • [blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=68901344&blogID=119354085 Wikivolution] - "And as a general reference source in practice, Wikipedia is actually substantially superior to any other general reference."

June

[edit]
  • [5] - Warren Kinsella, whose article has been the source of problems in the past (including, apparently, a lawsuit that was settled), is apparently planning a piece on Wikipedia and its shortcomings. He's asked for stories to be e-mailed to him, and in the most recent update says there's a lot more "Wiki-hate" going on than he thought.
  • Fost, Dan (2006-06-22). "Ah - twins!". sfgate.com. San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 2006-06-26. – a blog entry commenting on the edit controversy in the article about the Carlson Twins (and subsequently on Wikipedia talk:Fair Use) where Wikimedia Foundation interim executive director Bradford Patrick interceded to remove an allegedly Fair Use image at the behest of legal representatives of the Carlson twins.

July

[edit]

August

[edit]
The MondoGlobo Network, a podcast, not a blog ; there is no clear catagory for podcasts, yet.
"Our gang of three contemplates Virtual Reality legend Jaron Lanier’s critique of Wikipedia as “Digital Maoism.” "

September

[edit]

October

[edit]

2007

[edit]

January

[edit]

February

[edit]

March

[edit]

May

[edit]
  • Facebookipedia by Nicholas Carr, May 17, 2007. Suggests that Wikipedia may be cloned into the other big sites like Facebook in order to keep traffic on that site.
  • The Tyee by Keith Freeman, May 17, 2007. An introspection on his time at Wikipedia.
  • Clash of the Titans XXIII: Wikipedia at Bweinh.com, May 18, 2007. A brief "Point/Counterpoint"-style debate about Wikipedia.

June

[edit]

August

[edit]

September

[edit]

2008

[edit]

January

[edit]

March

[edit]

April

[edit]
  • Sacha Baron Cohen Wikipedia Entry Creates Circular References Slashdot posting notes: "An anonymous user added information about to Wikipedia's entry on Sacha Baron Cohen three days before the now-referenced external article was written. The Independent wrote the referenced article apparently using Wikipedia as the source establishing his 'Goldman Sachs' career. Now Wikipedia uses as a references the article that came after the initial modification to Wikipedia itself." April 19, 2008.

July

[edit]

2009

[edit]

2010

[edit]

2011

[edit]
  • The blogger Infothought pointed out that Google's new algorithm for its search engine, which intends to reduce search results pointing to content farms, has , as a consequence, increased the rank of Wikipedia. Infothought blog February 28, 2011.

2012

[edit]
  • The New York Times' "Media Decoder" blog states: "After 244 Years, Encyclopaedia Britannica Stops the Presses" declaring that: "Since it was started 11 years ago, Wikipedia has moved a long way toward replacing the authority of experts with the wisdom of the crowds. The site is now written and edited by tens of thousands of contributors around the world, and it has been gradually accepted as a largely accurate and comprehensive source, even by many scholars and academics. Wikipedia also regularly meets the 21st-century mandate of providing instantly updated material. And it has nearly four million articles in English, including some on pop culture topics that would not be considered worthy of a mention in the Encyclopaedia Britannica." March 13, 2012.

2017

[edit]

2019

[edit]
  • Gorski, David (October 14, 2019). "Woo versus Wikipedia". Science-Based Medicine. Retrieved November 7, 2019. However, nearly 20 years later, I am happy to admit that, for the most part, I was (mostly) mistaken in that many of the topics near and dear to my heart, particularly related to science and alternative medicine, have been covered on Wikipedia much more accurately than I had expected.
  • Hopkins, CJ (November 6, 2019). "CJ Hopkins Exposes The Ministry Of Wiki-Truth". Zero Hedge. Retrieved November 7, 2019. Apparently, what happened was, someone (presumably one of my readers) tried to add a reference to one of my essays to Wikipedia's Identity Politics page. The Ministry of Wiki-Truth objected, adamantly.
  • Ben-Sorek, Esor (November 23, 2019). "If Wikipedia Says So– It's True". The Times of Israel The blogs. Retrieved November 24, 2019. Polish readers will be upset with these words. But Wikipedia does not lie. And these very words are still preserved in documents now in Polish possession.
  • Ishai Behan, Dani (December 3, 2019). "Wikipedia Erases Jewish Origins". The Times of Israel The blogs. Retrieved December 6, 2019. Wikipedia has an earnest, almost touching commitment to "the common people". And as we learned the hard way less than a century ago, "the common people" are overwhelmingly unsympathetic to Jews.
  • Osberg, Molly (December 30, 2019). "Well It Sure Was a Big Year for the 'Call-out Culture' Wikipedia Page". Jezebel. Retrieved January 3, 2020. And Wikipedia's assumption—that by reviewing and regurgitating unbiased source material, a swarm of individual editors can approximate something resembling the truth—works just fine for, say, scraping demographic data or summarizing a book. It is less effective when applied to a made-up concept, propelled by a politicized generational divide.


2020

[edit]



2021

[edit]
  • Roston, Tom (January 14, 2021). "An Oral History of Wikipedia, the Web's Encyclopedia". OneZero. Retrieved January 14, 2021. So on the 20th anniversary, OneZero asked the individuals who made Wikipedia what it is today how it all started.
  • Harrouk, Christele (February 25, 2021). "Wiki Women Design: Unlocking the Contributions of Belgian Female Designers on Wikipedia". ArchDaily. Retrieved February 28, 2021. In order to contribute to a more inclusive history, the Flanders Architecture Institute through its Wiki Women Design initiative wants to break this circle, by unlocking the contributions of female designers on Wikipedia.
  • Konieczny, Piotr (March 19, 2021). "If you want impact, why aren't you writing for Wikipedia?". Times Higher Education. Retrieved March 21, 2021. It is high time we moved the relationship between academia and the world's premier reference work to the next level. For that to happen, university administrators need to do their part and actively encourage faculty to contribute to it, via positive promotion reviews and financial bonuses.
  • Cooper-Smith, Declan (2021-05-02). "Wikipedia is Actually More Accurate Than You Think". Fadewblogs. Despite the craziness you might find on there, Wikipedia has a lot of interesting and useful information, but can you really believe what you read on Wikipedia? The main concern is that anyone can edit Wikipedia, thus resulting in vandalism and complete nonsense. However, that's not exactly true.
  • Van der Sar, Ernesto (31 May 2021). "DMCA Notice Targets TorrentFreak, Netflix, and Reddit's Wikipedia Pages". TorrentFreak. Archived from the original on 31 May 2021. Retrieved 31 May 2021. Adult entertainment company The Score Group has asked Google to remove dozens of Wikipedia entries from its search results. Some of these pages document the history of popular pirate sites. However, the DMCA notice also targets Wikipedia's own Wikipedia entry, as well as those of TorrentFreak, Netflix, Reddit, The Gutenberg Project, and many others.
  • Moody, Glyn (20 September 2021). "Hongkongers Battle Supporters Of Beijing For The Soul Of The Chinese-Language Wikipedia". Techdirt. Retrieved 21 September 2021. The choice of information and even how things are phrased often have considerable social, economic or political importance. No surprise, then, that there is a struggle taking place over what Wikipedia should say is happening in the contested space of Hong Kong.
  • McKenna, Brian (23 September 2021). "The Wikipedia Effect on digital transformation: collaboration not dictatorship". Computer Weekly (blog). Retrieved 29 September 2021. Of course, moderators play a critical role in Wikipedia's approach, helping to ensure entries don't fall victim to a 'too many cooks' scenario, or get filled with inaccurate misinformation by rogue contributors. The same principles can be applied to business transformation and process improvement.
  • Muhammad, Zia (29 September 2021). "New Research Reveals Symbiotic Relationship Between Wikipedia and Search Engines". Digitalinformationworld.com. Retrieved 29 September 2021. Search engines need Wikipedia to enrich their results pages, and Wikipedia needs search engines to drive traffic to its pages and to disseminate the information that it has to offer. Both parties help each other out quite a bit.
  • "A trusted source for creating Wikipedia Pages". MENAFN. 11 October 2021. Retrieved 12 October 2021. We provide a wide range of Custom Wikipedia page development services to help you get recognized quickly. We can quickly get you to the top of the charts by creating a well-versed wiki page for you and your platform. We can guarantee the greatest Wikipedia page writing services with the fantastic help of our top Wikipedia Page creators.
  • Börsting, Paul; Heimstädt, Maximilian (22 October 2021). "A step-by-step guide for using Wikipedia for research communication". LSE Impact Blog. Retrieved 24 October 2021. A few days later, one user, who had corrected it quite bluntly and a bit angrily pointed it out as a mistake in the commentary of the page's version history with the comment: "What the heck is that supposed to mean?" The reaction was understandable, but simultaneously, kind of a scary first encounter with the community. Thanks for correcting it though. A bit later, another user wrote a few more elaborate and friendly messages to us on our personal user page, explaining our misdeed while simultaneously pointing out that it was not a big issue.
  • Beschizza, Rob (15 December 2021). "Interview with Boing Boing contributor Annie Rauwerda, of "Depths of Wikipedia" fame". Boing Boing. Retrieved 15 December 2021. Wikimedia's Chris Koerner interviews Annie Rauwerda, whose encyclopedic knowledge of the encyclopedia means she finds (and shares) the most wild, offbeat and fascinating articles.


2022

[edit]
  • Smith, Chris (16 January 2022). "Meet the tech genius taking on corrupt Wikipedia admins". KnowTechie. Retrieved 18 January 2022. Having experienced Wikipedia's corruption live, Mike wants to now stand up for himself and the community to spread awareness and fight for justice. How many other stories have been buried and suppressed by Wikipedia for differences in political views? It's time for answers.
  • Ruane, Kate (9 February 2022). "What You've Heard Is True. The EARN IT Act is catastrophic for free speech and for privacy — and for Wikipedia". Medium. Retrieved 9 February 2022. To understand what that means for Wikipedia and its related projects, it's helpful to briefly explain how content moderation on Wikipedia works. Unlike other platforms with centralized and at least partially automated content moderation practices, the Wikimedia Foundation does not set editorial policy for Wikipedia or any other Wikimedia sites.
  • Buchatskiy, Catarina (20 May 2022). "The War Over Ukraine—On Wikipedia". Lawfare. Retrieved 22 May 2022. Why do these Wikipedia wars matter? For one thing, they matter enough to Russian-sympathetic trolls that they spend time and energy modifying thousands of articles. But they also matter because Wikipedia is one of the leading informational authorities on the internet; millions and millions of users scroll through Wikipedia each day and it's a website that's become incredibly trusted among users. So, the edit wars aren't just minor quibbles but, instead, are a part of a dangerous game. The information seen on Wikipedia shapes people's perceptions of the truth.
  • Calcote King, Michelle (20 May 2022). "How to Edit your Law Firm's Wikipedia Page: 3 Golden Rules". JD Supra. Retrieved 22 May 2022. The first rule of editing a Wikipedia page is NOT to edit a Wikipedia page. But seriously, don't.
  • Moon, Mariella (14 July 2022). "A Chinese Wikipedia editor spent years writing fake Russian medieval history". Engadget. Retrieved 18 July 2022. Chinese Wikipedia had a robust collection of detailed and authoritative articles on medieval Russia, thanks to a user called Zhemao ... until it was revealed that she'd pulled off one of the largest hoaxes ever seen on the platform.
  • Brinkmann, Martin (31 July 2022). "Who Wrote That reveals authorship information on Wikipedia". Ghacks. Retrieved 25 August 2022. Who Wrote That? is powered by WikiWho, a platform that parses texts to reveal " who wrote and/or removed and/or reinserted which exact text at token level at what revision". The extension is compatible with most modern browsers.
  • Cerimi, Kustrim; Nai, Corrado (14 September 2022). "Most Fungi are Invisible – even on Wikipedia". BioMed Central. Retrieved 27 September 2022. Most people are unaware of the crucial role of fungi, of their stunning diversity, and of their incredible range of applications. This seems to be reflected on Wikipedia as well, where Wikipedians in the WikiProject Fungi are working to better organize information in articles related to fungi.
  • Masnick, Mike (23 September 2022). "Did The 5th Circuit Just Make It So That Wikipedia Can No Longer Be Edited In Texas?". Techdirt. Retrieved 27 September 2022. Anyway, it's possible this means that Wikipedia can no longer stop people from adding more and more content (true or not) to Judge Andy Oldham's profile, because having users take it down would potentially violate the law (but don't do that: vandalizing Wikipedia is always bad, even if you're trying to make a point).
  • Helps, Rachel (1 November 2022). "Guest Post – Wikipedia's Citations Are Influencing Scholars and Publishers". The Scholarly Kitchen. Retrieved 20 November 2022. While academic libraries and Wikipedia have many differences, they have a unified purpose: to promote access to information. Many Wikipedia pages summarize, cite, and curate scholarly information in an accessible format. Students, professors, judges, and junior physicians consult Wikipedia frequently. They also consult the footnotes on Wikipedia pages.
  • Felton, James (22 November 2022). "15-Year-Old Uncovers Major Wikipedia Toaster Hoax That Fooled The Media For Years". IFLS. Retrieved 22 November 2022. Incredibly, most of these claims about "MacMasters" (spoiler alert; there was no such scientist) were sourced to publications that Wikipedia deemed acceptable, and not questioned for years by any of Wikipedia's (usually diligent) editors.


2023

[edit]
  • Newton, A.A. (9 January 2023). "How to Start Editing Wikipedia Articles On Your Own". Lifehacker. Retrieved 9 January 2023. By now, it should be clear that anyone can edit Wikipedia; there are so many different kinds of tasks up for grabs that you're basically guaranteed to find something you like and are good at.
  • Weiler, Craig (21 January 2023). "Wikipedia and the Paranormal". Paranormal Daily News. Archived from the original on 21 January 2023. Retrieved 21 January 2023. To understand why Wikipedia is horrifically inaccurate and/or misleading about paranormal topics and holistic medicine, you need to understand the connection between the editors and the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI).
  • Ashwin (25 January 2023). "How to restore Wikipedia's old design". Ghacks. Retrieved 26 January 2023. Wikipedia is suggesting users to use browser extensions to customize their user experience. A few add-ons have popped up which offer an easy way to restore Wikipedia's legacy look. These are of course made by third-parties, indie developers.
  • Barr, Kyle (8 February 2023). "Wikipedia Worries Its Volunteer Editors Could Be Liable to Lawsuits Without Section 230". Gizmodo. Retrieved 9 February 2023. While the foundation is responsible for the site's upkeep, it's also the front bulwark against any legal threat to its volunteers. Roberts said most lawsuits against Wikipedia get squashed soon after they're filed, thanks to 230. Without that protection, costly lawsuits could drag on much longer, which opens up the possibility some neerdowell with an agenda could threaten a lengthy court battle in order to antagonize Wikipedia or an editor into changing or removing content on the site.
  • Dunn, Thom (22 February 2023). "The cryptid complications of Wikipedia's editing policies". Boing Boing. Retrieved 23 February 2023. This is (apparently) a great war simmering between Wikipedia editors and cryptid hunters. Cryptid enthusiasts, such as those who haunt r/Cryptozoology, accuse the open-source information website of being biased against their beloved beasts, dismissing such things as Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster with pejorative descriptors of "pseudoscience" (Or, worse — "folklore").
  • Anwar, Hura (1 March 2023). "This New Research Reveals The Most Commonly Used Word On Wikipedia". digitalinformationworld.com. Retrieved 2 March 2023. Regions like Europe portrayed obsession with the term bureaucracy. For instance, the UK was obsessed with devolving, while the Netherlands was obsessed with insurance. Similarly, Danish users loved tax while Finland likes saunas and Iceland adores eruptions.
  • "Top 10 Wikipedia Page Creation Services to Look for in 2023". StartupGuys.net. 15 March 2023. Retrieved 16 March 2023. Whether you need help researching sources or just want someone to write the content for you, any one of these organizations will be able to assist in getting your page up and running quickly and efficiently. So, if you're looking for an easy way to get on Wikipedia without having to worry about all the details involved in writing a page yourself, look no further than these top-notch Wiki creation agencies!
  • Honoré, Tori (20 April 2023). "This TikToker Found Out That The Canadian Government Cares A Lot About The Grammar Of Wikipedia Articles And It's Honestly Pretty Funny". Boing Boing. Retrieved 21 April 2023. She goes on to show her favourite CA Gov Wikipedia edit to date, which comedically, was some government employee "correcting the French grammar of the season seven of Riverdale Wikipedia article."
  • Moody, Glyn (14 June 2023). "Music Label Demands Google Delist A Wikipedia Page With Info It Doesn't Like". Techdirt. Retrieved 16 June 2023. The takedown request wants a Wikipedia page removed from Google's search results because it talks about YouTube rippers, and offers a detailed comparison of them. Links to the software are incidental, appearing only at the foot of the page as references. The demand that Google should de-list links to the page in its search results is a thinly disguised but dangerous attack on knowledge.
  • Trunk, Penelope (28 June 2023). "LOVE LETTER TO WIKIPEDIA EDITOR AGENT 86". blog.penelopetrunk.com. Retrieved 28 June 2023. The result of women not editing Wikipedia is that women don't get written about, even though women and men use Wikipedia at the same rate. Also, when women do get written about the entries end up looking like mine: The topics the editors left were my miscarriage and my naked picture documenting domestic violence. And now, in the background, men are debating if those leftover topics are significant enough for me to have my own page.
  • Beschizza, Rob (3 July 2023). "Wikipedia updates its Creative Commons license". Boing Boing. Retrieved 4 July 2023. "One global license" and "curable conconformance" might not be the most exciting thing you've ever read about or on Wikipedia/Wikimedia, but this is lovely news for people who have to think about licenses.
  • "Update Wikipedia". enhanced.org. July 2023. Retrieved 8 July 2023. It is up to you, as the backbone of the Enhanced Movement, to ensure that Wikipedia uses enhanced inclusive language when discussing performance therapies, and the use of performance enhancements by professional athletes.
  • McCormick, Scott (10 July 2023). "How to create a Wikipedia page for Musicians". hypebot.com. Retrieved 10 July 2023. Having a Wikipedia page can significantly benefit artists and bands. The website serves as a platform to showcase your talents, provide accurate information to fans, and establish powerful online credibility in the industry.
  • "Add your Trove sources to Wikipedia". Trove. 31 July 2023. Retrieved 3 August 2023. we're calling on the Trove Community to add links to your Trove discoveries to the relevant articles in Wikipedia...Currently there are over 18,200 links to Trove in English Wikipedia – each diligently added by a member of the Trove community to share their research discoveries.
  • Bastian, Hilda (2 August 2023). "Some Things I Like About the Expanding Wikipedia Universe". Absolutely Maybe. Retrieved 8 August 2023. As of writing, there are over 11,100 categories for data – called properties – in Wikidata, and over 105 million entries, for people and many other subjects (called items). And from the little I've seen so far, although there are errors, of course, it's pretty good quality.
  • Purdy, Henry (21 September 2023). "These are the most visited Wikipedia articles in 2022". gearrice.com. Retrieved 21 September 2023. This research is carried out Yasseri in order to understand what topics garnered the most attention collective. Without further ado, below, we present the list of the most viewed articles in Wikipedia in English in 2022.

2024

[edit]
  • Conway, Henry (30 January 2024). "Why isnt wikipedia government funded". The conservative Nut. Retrieved 30 January 2024. Unlike some other top websites, Wikipedia does not rely on government funding. It is run as a non-profit and operates on the philanthropic contributions made by individuals and organizations. This approach allows Wikipedia to maintain its independence and impartiality in the information it provides.
  • Hoffman, Joshua (2 February 2024). "Wikipedia has a Jewish problem". Future of Jewish. Retrieved 16 February 2024. Martin Korner and Tatiana Sennikova, from the University of Koblenz-Landau in Germany, made a tool to compare how Wikipedia pages about the same topic but in a different language might be influenced by different sources.
  • Cole-Hamilton, Alex; Yousaf, Humza (15 February 2024). "MSPS' WIKIPEDIA PAGES EDITED BY SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT COMPUTERS". Guido Fawkes. Retrieved 16 February 2024. The Sun have tracked the IP addresses of Wikipedia edits on prominent MSPs' pages and found them to have come from – you guessed it – Holyrood work computers. Staffers' time is clearly being put to good use…
  • "The sexism of Google, Wikipedia… and IMDB". Actual News Magazine. 15 February 2024. Retrieved 15 February 2024. From a million images from Google and Wikipedia searches, it shows February 13 in Nature that the portrait of 3,500 trades and professions is based on stereotypes.
  • Hunter, Murray (23 April 2024). "Wikipedia: Another Social Media Platform Under Control Of The 'Spooks' – OpEd". Eurasia Review. Retrieved 24 April 2024. Wikipedia has been playing a major role in 'dumbing down' the current and next generation of our youth. Its potentially playing a major role in destroying diversity of opinion. This goes someway to explaining community attitudes on issues like climate change today. The damage is been done now.


See also

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_in_blogs&oldid=1250428115"