Wikipedia Is Emerging as Trusted Internet Source for Information on Ebola Noam Cohen October 26, 2014 The New York Times
Neat! (And a bit terrifying.)
MZMcBride
MZMcBride wrote:
Wikipedia Is Emerging as Trusted Internet Source for Information on Ebola Noam Cohen October 26, 2014 The New York Times
Neat! (And a bit terrifying.)
MZMcBride
Should be fun to remember -- in addition to the poorly honored WP:NOTNEWS -- other language sisters, and do some proper statistics, as EN.WP ≠ WP...
svetlana
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 2:07 AM, svetlana svetlana@fastmail.com.au wrote:
MZMcBride wrote:
Wikipedia Is Emerging as Trusted Internet Source for Information on Ebola Noam Cohen October 26, 2014 The New York Times
Neat! (And a bit terrifying.)
MZMcBride
Should be fun to remember -- in addition to the poorly honored WP:NOTNEWS -- other language sisters, and do some proper statistics, as EN.WP ≠ WP...
I get your point, Svetlana, but WP:NOTNEWS is honored in the article:
" Others wonder why it includes so little discussion about the current outbreak. It is covered in a separate article. "
The Times piece highlights the article about the disease itself.
As for EN.WP ≠ WP , the article is aimed at English-language audience, so it's natural that it's just "Wikipedia." I rarely see a press headline that denotes the language edition of Wikipedia if the article deals with the Wikipedia in the language of the piece.
All-in-all, good work by [English Wikipedia] Wikiproject Medicine as usual :)
The same article was just forwarded to me by a US-based academic who's been very sceptical of Wikipedia. Felt a tinge of pride.
Sent her back the Open Medicine peer-reviewed Wikipedia article on dengue fever, posted to this list earlier.
Congratulations, Bishakha
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Keegan Peterzell keegan.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 2:07 AM, svetlana svetlana@fastmail.com.au wrote:
MZMcBride wrote:
Wikipedia Is Emerging as Trusted Internet Source for Information on
Ebola
Noam Cohen October 26, 2014 The New York Times
Neat! (And a bit terrifying.)
MZMcBride
Should be fun to remember -- in addition to the poorly honored WP:NOTNEWS -- other language sisters, and do some proper statistics, as EN.WP ≠
WP...
I get your point, Svetlana, but WP:NOTNEWS is honored in the article:
" Others wonder why it includes so little discussion about the current outbreak. It is covered in a separate article. "
The Times piece highlights the article about the disease itself.
As for EN.WP ≠ WP , the article is aimed at English-language audience, so it's natural that it's just "Wikipedia." I rarely see a press headline that denotes the language edition of Wikipedia if the article deals with the Wikipedia in the language of the piece.
All-in-all, good work by [English Wikipedia] Wikiproject Medicine as usual :) -- ~Keegan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email address is in a personal capacity. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org