The Economist, April 8, 2006
In "Open, but not as usual" (March 18th), we said non-registered users could not modify most Wikipedia entries; they can, save for some controversial ones. Also, a chart of Wikipedia's articles and contributors incorrectly showed a downturn in December 2005, because we used incomplete data. We apologise.
link?
On 4/9/06, Mathias Schindler mathias.schindler@gmail.com wrote:
The Economist, April 8, 2006
In "Open, but not as usual" (March 18th), we said non-registered users could not modify most Wikipedia entries; they can, save for some controversial ones. Also, a chart of Wikipedia's articles and contributors incorrectly showed a downturn in December 2005, because we used incomplete data. We apologise. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 4/9/06, Carl Fûrstenberg azatoth@gmail.com wrote:
link?
It should be in the dead-tree US edition.
The Graph in the original article seems to be corrected as of today:
http://www.economist.com/images/20060318/CSF428.gif
It still states:
"And after the furore over the biographical entry last year, Wikipedia changed its rules so that only registered users can edit existing entries, and new contributors must wait a few days before they can start new ones."
http://www.economist.com/business/displayStory.cfm?story_id=5624944
On 4/9/06, Mathias Schindler mathias.schindler@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/9/06, Carl Fûrstenberg azatoth@gmail.com wrote:
link?
It should be in the dead-tree US edition.
The Graph in the original article seems to be corrected as of today:
http://www.economist.com/images/20060318/CSF428.gif
It still states:
"And after the furore over the biographical entry last year, Wikipedia changed its rules so that only registered users can edit existing entries, and new contributors must wait a few days before they can start new ones."
http://www.economist.com/business/displayStory.cfm?story_id=5624944
That's not the only problem. They are also using a very misleading article count- we don't have three million. We only have 3M if one counts every last entry and redirect as an article.
~maru