Rick wrote:
An interview with Jimmy Wales and info about Wikipedia: http://news.independent.co.uk/digital/features/story.jsp?story=504287
Page 11 of the review section, for those taking notes. Accompanying pictures: a pile of dusty-looking books, and a photo of some kids gathered round a computer monitor, apparently in thrall of the knowledge presented before their eyeballs.
Ec wrote:
Too bad they don't realize that it's wikipedia.org rather than wikipedia.com.
They also say "Any self-styled expert in a subject can write or edit an article about anything to join the 200,000 others in the Wikipedia, *as long as they give the intellectual property to the project*" (my asterisks) which is a bit wide of the mark.
I also wonder if the article talks up Jimbo's role in the whole thing a bit - I mean, he's our spiritual leader, benevolent dictator and sugar daddy, I know, but things like "To manage the editing process, Wales uses the Wiki..." make him sound a bit like editor-in-cheif as well.
I'm sort of picking fault, really. It's not a bad article on the whole.
Fred wrote:
Remember we are talking about a multi-volume work, or are we?
As I understand it, that's not what is being talked about at the moment (though it's something many would aspire to for the future). The talk has been of a single-volume concise work, along the lines of the Columbia or Britannica Concise encyclopedias. Comparisons with the full EB made in the article are somewhat premature, methinks.
I refer you to Jimbo's original post on the subject: http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/011045.html
---
I'm interested in how these things get in papers by the way. Most previous coverage, I think, has come from press releases, but this article is mainly about a paper version, about which there have been no offical pronouncements that I'm aware of. So what happened here - did somebody go to the paper about this, or did the paper go to Jimbo out of the blue? Just curious. If it's the latter, it's surely a sign that we're being taken really quite seriously (something which probably shouldn't surprise me, but which nontheless regularly does).
Lee (Camembert)
Lee Pilich wrote:
I'm interested in how these things get in papers by the way. Most previous coverage, I think, has come from press releases, but this article is mainly about a paper version, about which there have been no offical pronouncements that I'm aware of. So what happened here - did somebody go to the paper about this, or did the paper go to Jimbo out of the blue? Just curious. If it's the latter, it's surely a sign that we're being taken really quite seriously (something which probably shouldn't surprise me, but which nontheless regularly does).
The author of the article, Danny Bradbury, is a fairly well-known IT journalist working primarily as a freelancer: http://www.itjournalist.com/
He contacted me for an interview, but I don't remember what exactly he said prompted him to be interested. If I remember correctly (and I may not), he's been following the project for awhile.
As to my role in the project, that's something that I try to downplay a lot in interviews, for two reasons. First, when I tell reporters that I'm astounded by the quality of the people involved and that mostly my job is just to listen to what really smart people tell me, it's *true*. But second, I think it's good media schtick for me as well, if you see what I mean.
A Dutch Magazine _Ode_ published an article last month about Wikipedia... I just got a copy in the mail the other day. And the title of the article is "Jimmy Wales' encyclopedia". That's pretty silly, although my mom will surely like it.
--Jimbo
Lee Pilich wrote:
Rick wrote:
An interview with Jimmy Wales and info about Wikipedia: http://news.independent.co.uk/digital/features/story.jsp?story=504287
Page 11 of the review section, for those taking notes. Accompanying pictures: a pile of dusty-looking books, and a photo of some kids gathered round a computer monitor, apparently in thrall of the knowledge presented before their eyeballs.
Ec wrote:
Too bad they don't realize that it's wikipedia.org rather than wikipedia.com.
They also say "Any self-styled expert in a subject can write or edit an article about anything to join the 200,000 others in the Wikipedia, *as long as they give the intellectual property to the project*" (my asterisks) which is a bit wide of the mark.
I also wonder if the article talks up Jimbo's role in the whole thing a bit - I mean, he's our spiritual leader, benevolent dictator and sugar daddy, I know, but things like "To manage the editing process, Wales uses the Wiki..." make him sound a bit like editor-in-cheif as well.
I'm sort of picking fault, really. It's not a bad article on the whole.
Fred wrote:
Remember we are talking about a multi-volume work, or are we?
As I understand it, that's not what is being talked about at the moment (though it's something many would aspire to for the future). The talk has been of a single-volume concise work, along the lines of the Columbia or Britannica Concise encyclopedias. Comparisons with the full EB made in the article are somewhat premature, methinks.
I refer you to Jimbo's original post on the subject: http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/011045.html
I'm interested in how these things get in papers by the way. Most previous coverage, I think, has come from press releases, but this article is mainly about a paper version, about which there have been no offical pronouncements that I'm aware of. So what happened here - did somebody go to the paper about this, or did the paper go to Jimbo out of the blue? Just curious. If it's the latter, it's surely a sign that we're being taken really quite seriously (something which probably shouldn't surprise me, but which nontheless regularly does).
Lee (Camembert)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I sent the press release to the independent some time ago. I also did the BBC - maybe it paid off?
Caroline
Caroline Ford wrote:
I sent the press release to the independent some time ago. I also did the BBC - maybe it paid off?
That seems very very likely, yes!
Probably your press release sent them shopping for an article, or hit them just at the time or just before Danny Bradbury tried to sell them his article.
We may never know, but it seems likely, yes!
--Jimbo