Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-12-19/In the news

In the news

Nature review

Prestigious scientific journal Nature published "Internet encyclopaedias go head to head" on December 14 (see related story), with accompanying podcast (December 15), editorial ("Wiki's wild world", which encourages scientists to contribute to Wikipedia), and Nascent blog entry ("Comparing Wikipedia and Britannica").

Scientific American reported the study in its own blog article ("Wiki This") on December 15, also inviting scientists to improve Wikipedia.

A segment of the American National Public Radio show All Things Considered discussed the Nature report in "Assessing Wikipedia's Accuracy" on December 15.

The favorable comparison was widely reported in the media, including BBC News and MSNBC. Many more articles were based on the Associated Press story "Science Journal: Wikipedia Pretty Accurate" by Dan Goodin. AP outlets included Forbes, The Age, CBC, Al Jazeera and more. Many contrasted the good review with the poor reflection of Wikipedia in the Seigenthaler controversy last week (see archived story).

Wikipedia's credibility

BBC technology commentator Bill Thompson provides a balanced perspective in the editorial "What is it with Wikipedia?" on December 16, while Business Week journalist Bill Helms wrote the syndicated article "A Vote of Confidence in Wikipedia" on December 14. Popular group blog Many2Many published danah boyd's analysis "Wikipedia, academia and Seigenthaler" on December 17.

Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Johnson is more critical in "Wikipedia: Raising perhaps more questions than answers", published December 15, and on December 14, former Encyclopedia Britannica editor Robert McHenry wrote another critical piece about Wikipedia at TCS Daily, entitled "The Faith-Based Encyclopedia Blinks". The Guardian ran a column by Charles Arthur, "Log on and join in, but beware the web cults", on December 15 that compared Wikipedia to a cult.

False report of surge in vandalism

British newspaper The Times reported on December 15 that "Wikipedia hit by surge in spoof articles". However, despite increased traffic and an increase in the overall number of edits due to the recent media attention, vandalism patrollers reported no unusual increase in the percentage of malicious edits. According to members at the Village pump, some of the edits pictured in the screenshots used in the Times article were available for only seconds before they were reverted.

Follow-ups on Seigenthaler and Chase

"Wikipedia hoaxer apologises" -- The Guardian
"In search of the Wikipedia prankster" News.com (interview with Daniel Brandt)
"Tracking down the Wikipedia prankster" - ZDNet

Esquire article available

On December 16 SmartMoney published a free copy of the Esquire article edited by Wikipedians (see archived story). Before and after versions of the article, with footnoted commentary, can be seen at "Wikiworld: The Experiment".