A positive article 'Wiki's wacky but it works' in today's London Observer, Business section, by John Naughton who typically writes on Internet topics. It takes the line that WP is good at 'self-healing', and is generally better (more comprehensive) than Britannica Online.
Charles
In message 000501c498b8$0e944920$d4000450@Galasien, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews-XZoyATsUNX5Wk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org writes
A positive article 'Wiki's wacky but it works' in today's London Observer, Business section, by John Naughton who typically writes on Internet topics. It takes the line that WP is good at 'self-healing', and is generally better (more comprehensive) than Britannica Online.
Charles
Link at http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,1302435,00.html
The article in question can be found at: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,1302435,00.html
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
Charles Matthews wrote:
A positive article 'Wiki's wacky but it works' in today's London Observer, Business section, by John Naughton who typically writes on Internet topics. It takes the line that WP is good at 'self-healing', and is generally better (more comprehensive) than Britannica Online.
"It's an 'open source' project - all of its content is in the public domain. You can find it at www.wikipedia.org."
Some quality journalism by the guardian.
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 00:06:16 +0800, John Lee johnleemk@yahoo.com wrote:
The article in question can be found at: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,1302435,00.html
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
Charles Matthews wrote:
A positive article 'Wiki's wacky but it works' in today's London Observer, Business section, by John Naughton who typically writes on Internet topics. It takes the line that WP is good at 'self-healing', and is generally better (more comprehensive) than Britannica Online.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
is it wrong?
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 19:02:48 +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason avarab@gmail.com wrote:
"It's an 'open source' project - all of its content is in the public domain. You can find it at www.wikipedia.org."
Some quality journalism by the guardian.
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 00:06:16 +0800, John Lee johnleemk@yahoo.com wrote:
The article in question can be found at: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,1302435,00.html
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
Charles Matthews wrote:
A positive article 'Wiki's wacky but it works' in today's London Observer, Business section, by John Naughton who typically writes on Internet topics. It takes the line that WP is good at 'self-healing', and is generally better (more comprehensive) than Britannica Online.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I contacted him about this misstatement and hopefully he'll correct it.
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 14:38:38 -0400, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Matthew Larsen wrote:
is it wrong?
Yes. The vast majority of our content is not in the public domain; it is licensed under the GFDL.
-Mark
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
and he will probably never write about it again! nice one!
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 20:50:44 +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason avarab@gmail.com wrote:
I contacted him about this misstatement and hopefully he'll correct it.
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 14:38:38 -0400, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Matthew Larsen wrote:
is it wrong?
Yes. The vast majority of our content is not in the public domain; it is licensed under the GFDL.
-Mark
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Why do you think that he will never write about wikipedia again? Because i wrote him and to correct a mistake i made?
I think you overestemate his fragility as a journalist.
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 20:02:12 +0100, Matthew Larsen mat.larsen@gmail.com wrote:
and he will probably never write about it again! nice one!
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 20:50:44 +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
avarab@gmail.com wrote:
I contacted him about this misstatement and hopefully he'll correct it.
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 14:38:38 -0400, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Matthew Larsen wrote:
is it wrong?
Yes. The vast majority of our content is not in the public domain; it is licensed under the GFDL.
-Mark
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Matthew Larsen
mat.larsen@gmail.com 07739 785 249
s/i made/he made/
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 21:07:57 +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason avarab@gmail.com wrote:
Why do you think that he will never write about wikipedia again? Because i wrote him and to correct a mistake i made?
I think you overestemate his fragility as a journalist.
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 20:02:12 +0100, Matthew Larsen mat.larsen@gmail.com wrote:
and he will probably never write about it again! nice one!
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 20:50:44 +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
avarab@gmail.com wrote:
I contacted him about this misstatement and hopefully he'll correct it.
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 14:38:38 -0400, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Matthew Larsen wrote:
is it wrong?
Yes. The vast majority of our content is not in the public domain; it is licensed under the GFDL.
-Mark
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Matthew Larsen
mat.larsen@gmail.com 07739 785 249
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
Why do you think that he will never write about wikipedia again? Because i wrote him and to correct a mistake i made?
I think you overestemate his fragility as a journalist.
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 20:02:12 +0100, Matthew Larsen mat.larsen@gmail.com wrote:
and he will probably never write about it again! nice one!
avarab@gmail.com wrote:
I contacted him about this misstatement and hopefully he'll correct it.
Pointing out his error does not detract from the thrust of his message. Although we are conscious of the important difference between PD and GFDL, it is still secondary to the point that he was trying to make. I would speculate that he will view the pointing out of this error as a natural part of the "self healing" process that he praised.
Ec
Yes
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 19:02:48 +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason avarab@gmail.com wrote:
"It's an 'open source' project - all of its content is in the public domain. You can find it at www.wikipedia.org."
Some quality journalism by the guardian.
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 00:06:16 +0800, John Lee johnleemk@yahoo.com wrote:
The article in question can be found at: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,1302435,00.html
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
Charles Matthews wrote:
A positive article 'Wiki's wacky but it works' in today's London Observer, Business section, by John Naughton who typically writes on Internet topics. It takes the line that WP is good at 'self-healing', and is generally better (more comprehensive) than Britannica Online.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
John Lee wrote:
The article in question can be found at: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,1302435,00.html
Charles Matthews wrote:
A positive article 'Wiki's wacky but it works' in today's London Observer, Business section, by John Naughton who typically writes on Internet topics. It takes the line that WP is good at 'self-healing', and is generally better (more comprehensive) than Britannica Online.
I particularly liked the comments in the closing paragraph. These clearly suggest that this revolution is much bigger than Wikipedia.
We have become so imbued by the conventional wisdom of managerial capitalism that we think the only way to do things is via hierarchical, top-down, tightly controlled organisations that are highly tuned and incredibly fragile. Wikipedia is none of these things, yet it works brilliantly. There's a lesson there for control freaks.
Ec