2009/8/26 Risker risker.wp@gmail.com:
2009/8/26 Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com
We've had a story in the New York Times. Meanwhile, judging by the way David Gerard and WMUK are dashing around, it's all over the UK media. Is this just observer bias, or is "internal changes to Wikipedia" for some reason a really interesting thing to the British press? I have no idea...
No, I also heard a discussion about it last night on the Toronto CBC Radio program "Here and Now" during their technology report. They segued into the Wikipedia angle from a discussion on the challenges of anonymity online.
Yeah. It's difficult sometimes to get just how very mainstream Wikipedia is. We are the big time. Normal people know what we are, at least sort of.
also pointed out that, in a few short years, Wikipedia has gone from the upstart nobody took seriously to an established reference source that was often the first stop for information. He even called us the "new establishment".
The hard part is that people have no idea how it works. So stories like this are an opportunity to explain ourselves to the world, which is actually important.
- d.