On 18 Aug 2009, at 18:34, Carcharoth wrote:
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Michael Peelemail@mikepeel.net wrote:
<snip>
All of them are better reads than the article in the Christian Science {{citation needed}} Monitor.
Really?
The Telegraph one was poor.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/6042931/Wikipedia- reaches-three-million-articles.html
I agree with the first comment:
"This piece contains 12 sentences, of which at least 5 are false or misleading [...] Wikipedia was launched by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger, not by Ward Cunningham and Richard Stallman."
And so on.
hmm; let's see:
* According to its edit history, the Eriksen article was posted at 0533 GMT, not "4:04 am"
Not true; the oldest edit in the history is at 04:04, 17 August 2009.
* Wikipedia was launched by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger, not by Ward Cunningham and Richard Stallman.
True, but this is Wikipedia's fault. "The pioneering concept and technology of Wiki comes from Ward Cunningham, the concept of a free online encyclopedia from Richard Stallman. It was formally launched on 15 January 2001." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wikipedia
* The article says that there are Wikipedias in 271 "other" langauges apart from English. In fact there are 271 Wikipedias in total, meaning there can be at most 270 "other" languages. And, unless you consider "simple English" to be different from English, there are at most 269 "other" languages.
This one's mostly my fault - I told them "Wikipedia currently exists in 271 languages". Oops.
* The article implies that Wikipedia has only now surpassed the Yongle Encycloopedia in size. In fact it surpassed it a few years ago.
That depends on how you read the phrase. I don't read it that way.
* The article describes Britannica as "the oldest English language encyclopedia". In fact, it is the oldest continuously published English language encyclopedia.
Interesting. What was the oldest English language encyclopaedia, then?
Mike