[[Global Warming]] became a "featured article" on wikipedia about a month ago (long tedious arguments about the stylistic wording, and about the reference format) and today was the "featured article of the day" on the front page. Which has lead, of course, to an enormous edit count for today (many of them vandalism) - check the page history. The actual sum of changes kept on the page is tiny, unsurprisingly, since its been argued over for so long already.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
"Part I" is very presumptuous. I might never write part II. Ah well, I press onwards in hope.
I'm going to take my text from Climategate: the corruption of Wikipedia and see what we can learn about wiki's workings from the way people misunderstand it. I should warn you that blog is mostly recycled…
Via dubious routes I ended up at the bizarre http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/22/william-connolley-and-wikipedia-turborevisionism/. Unfortunately I didn't get to see the original version. In what is presumably deliberate irony, he has coined the term "Turborevisionism" to describe his own…
The Economist has a survey on Open-source business (subs req). The usual suspects - apache, linux - come up, and of course so does wikipedia. And naturally enough (since this is a pile of econ journos who know b*gg*r all about wiki) they make the traditional mistakes...
Saying that the George…
Ethan Zuckerman (who is on the Wikimedia Advisory Board) has a post discussing Wikipedia's recent fundraising drive, with some comparative numbers:
In the past 17 days, the [Wikimedia] Foundation has raised over $478,000 in online gifts. That's a pretty amazing number, on the one hand, and a…
your email box must have runneth over
Forgive me, but for some reason the only part of the article I found interesting today was the solar cycle graph.
.
.
(Of course I've read it several times before :-)