Not a member of the list, so I may miss replies I'm not CCed to, but I didn't see this mentioned in the archives.
CNN.com has an article on Wikipedia:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/08/03/wikipedia/index.html
It was linked from their front page yesterday, but is only in the tech section, now. It's pretty light and fluffy (and calls all the Wikipedians "cult-like" ;), but it's about Wikipedia. There's also a "Video" link, which leads me to believe they may have mentioned this on-air, too, but since I'm not a paying subscriber to CNN, I can't see it.
Brett (The Quark)
Brett A. Thomas wrote:
It was linked from their front page yesterday, but is only in the tech section, now. It's pretty light and fluffy (and calls all the Wikipedians "cult-like" ;), but it's about Wikipedia. There's also a "Video" link, which leads me to believe they may have mentioned this on-air, too, but since I'm not a paying subscriber to CNN, I can't see it.
"Light and fluffy" is just fine when it comes to publicity.
Ec
Try this page for the complete reference to the CNN pieces, including the video.
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Press_coverage#English
-Andrew
Andrew Lih, Assistant Professor Journalism and Media Studies Centre University of Hong Kong Email: alih@hku.hk | Web: http://jmsc.hku.hk/
Andrew Lih wrote:
Try this page for the complete reference to the CNN pieces, including the video.
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Press_coverage#English
-Andrew
Great stuff :) But "just a few edits an hour"?
Got to love video editing... I was talking about Hong Kong entries at the time, but of course it came off like WP was only updated a few times an hour. I cringed too when I saw the way it came off. :)
-Andrew
-----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-admin@wikipedia.org [mailto:wikipedia-l-admin@wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of tarquin Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 5:39 AM To: wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] CNN article on Wikipedia
Brion Vibber wrote:
tarquin wrote:
Great stuff :) But "just a few edits an hour"?
Only off by a factor of sixty... Not bad for CNN. :)
the professor says that himself in the interview in the video -- I thought he was a wikipedia regular.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki%3E pedia-l
Andrew Lih wrote:
Got to love video editing... I was talking about Hong Kong entries at the time, but of course it came off like WP was only updated a few times an hour. I cringed too when I saw the way it came off. :)
Hey, I thought it was all *excellent*.
Let me share a personal angle on this. I'm sorry to say that before I watched the video, I had never heard of you nor had I realized that there was a flurry of Hong Kong entries. I've been busy the past few weeks, and it's all I can do to keep up with mailing list controversies.
Now, despite the general p.r. impression that I'm some kind of Internet baron, I'm actually a regular guy who works from an office at home. I live in an ordinary house with my wife and daughter. I sit and type all day, and then I go to the grocery, visit the park, ordinary stuff like that.
Even though I've been on the Internet for years, it still astounds me when I stop and think about it that I can just toss off a note to a professor in Hong Kong!
So, imagine my shock and pleasure to click on a link and see a video on CNN (CNN!) with a bunch of people I never heard of or even imagined, all talking about Wikipedia. Wow.
And what you said was exactly the way I like to see it expressed, i.e. that Wikipedia is a completely insane way to run a website, absolutely destined to disaster -- except that it works.
This Internet thing is pretty cool. I think it might actually catch on.
--Jimbo
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org