http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_22/b3885044.htm:
WIKIPEDIA IS ONE of the more remarkable projects on the Web. The online encyclopedia (www.wikipedia.com) is the work of 6,000-odd volunteers covering a huge range of subjects, even though it does better on science and technology than on arts and culture. Not surprisingly, the articles are of uneven depth and quality. If you find an error, you are welcome to suggest a correction. And if you find a topic that isn't covered, you are welcome to create a new article. (An editorial group decides which corrections and contributions merit posting.)
Uh, who is this "editorial group"? This wouldn't disturb me so much if I hadn't sent a letter to another columnist recently about almost the same language. I supposed the WikiWay is just too hard for some people to believe, but who is this "editorial group"?
Peter
Wow. Three consecutive lines, 76 chars each. By accident. ::Bow::
-- ---<>--- -- A house without walls cannot fall. Help build the world's largest encyclopedia at Wikipedia.org -- ---<>--- --
It's the Cabal, silly. [/#wikipedia reference] Perhaps they're trying to talk about the sysops, but failing miserably? And I agree; it seems to be hard for people to accept the fact that Wikipedia is completely open. I get the same kind of reaction whenever I tell people about it.
Perhaps a correction letter should be sent to the magazine? We don't want people to get the wrong impression about Wikipedia.
=)
----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Jaros" rjaros@shaysnet.com To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 8:25 PM Subject: [WikiEN-l] Who is this editorial group?
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_22/b3885044.htm:
WIKIPEDIA IS ONE of the more remarkable projects on the Web. The online encyclopedia (www.wikipedia.com) is the work of 6,000-odd volunteers covering a huge range of subjects, even though it does better on science and technology than on arts and culture. Not surprisingly, the articles are of uneven depth and quality. If you find an error, you are welcome to suggest a correction. And if you find a topic that isn't covered, you are welcome to create a new article. (An editorial group decides which corrections and contributions merit posting.)
Uh, who is this "editorial group"? This wouldn't disturb me so much if I hadn't sent a letter to another columnist recently about almost the same language. I supposed the WikiWay is just too hard for some people to believe, but who is this "editorial group"?
Peter
Wow. Three consecutive lines, 76 chars each. By accident. ::Bow::
-- ---<>--- -- A house without walls cannot fall. Help build the world's largest encyclopedia at Wikipedia.org -- ---<>--- --
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Uh, who is this "editorial group"? This wouldn't disturb me so much if I hadn't sent a letter to another columnist recently about almost the same language. I supposed the WikiWay is just too hard for some people to believe, but who is this "editorial group"?
I had a long interview with a different reporter at BusinessWeek last week, and apparently these guys didn't compare notes.
I recommend if people want to write, to do so with an enthusiastic positive spin. We appreciate the favorable attention, and if the details aren't quite right, it's an opportunity to spread our message.
I absolutely think that the WikiWay *is* hard for people to grasp. I personally have a hard time believing it myself, it's ridiculous, isn't it, a website that anyone can edit?
--Jimbo
Peter Jaros wrote:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_22/b3885044.htm:
WIKIPEDIA IS ONE of the more remarkable projects on the Web. The online encyclopedia (www.wikipedia.com) is the work of 6,000-odd
[cut]
Uh, who is this "editorial group"? This wouldn't disturb me so much if I hadn't sent a letter to another columnist recently about almost the same language. I supposed the WikiWay is just too hard for some people to believe, but who is this "editorial group"?
Peter
The also think, like many other journalists, that Wikipedia is a .com
I would be funny if users who go to www.wikipedia.com get a big white page whit the message;
"Wikipedia is a .ORG, not a .COM (and proud of it)"
"You will be redirected in 10 seconds to www.wikipedia.org"