Comments for The Wikipedian

Comment on Google’s Gift to Wikipedia Probably Not Evil by Gregory Kohs

Gregory Kohs — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 17:02:06 +0000

Before anyone sends any more money to the bloated Wikimedia Foundation, they should read this:

http://www.tinyurl.com/WMF-myths

Comment on Who’s The Idiot? by WWB

WWB — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 00:40:51 +0000

Very true. Haven’t checked in on that recently, nor have heard anything about a timeline for implementation.

Comment on Who’s The Idiot? by Gabriel

Gabriel — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:53:02 +0000

Now if only flagged revisions were enabled on BLPs, this bad press never would’ve happened…

Comment on Examples of Bias in Conservapedia’s Examples of Bias in Wikipedia by David Gerard

David Gerard — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 21:48:06 +0000

Conservapedia is why I discovered Rationalwiki.

Comment on The CIA Director’s “Occasional” Wikipedia Habit by WWB

WWB — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 14:48:25 +0000

Thanks, Graham87! Just fixed both.

Comment on The CIA Director’s “Occasional” Wikipedia Habit by Graham87

Graham87 — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 14:38:29 +0000

You’ll want to add an “h” to the URL of the YouTube video to get it to work. Also, in the about section of this blog, there’s a doubled word “written” where it says “a blog by William Beutler written written …”,.

Comment on More Ironic than an Alanis Morissette Song by g

Tue, 13 Oct 2009 15:00:28 +0000

At one point ‘Reference’ had a {{references}} tag on it.

Comment on Super Mario Wiki? by » Jimmy Wales Weighs in on Flagged Revisions The Wikipedian

» Jimmy Wales Weighs in on Flagged Revisions The Wikipedian — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 17:14:47 +0000

[...] My post this weekend made a point of separating uninformed Wikipedia criticism from informed Wikipedia criticism. One that I listed as meriting a response was the weirdly-titled article “Where Wikipedia” by Farhad Manjoo in Time. In fact, only a day later Wikipedia co-founder and (these days mostly) spiritual leader Jimmy Wales took on the hype at Huffington Post. Here’s the core of his response: [M]aybe you read this story on Time.com: “They recently instituted a major change, imposing a layer of editorial control on entries about living people. In the past, only articles on high-profile subjects like Barack Obama were protected from anonymous revisions. Under the new plan, people can freely alter Wikipedia articles on, say, their local officials or company head — but those changes will become live only once they’ve been vetted by a Wikipedia administrator.” [...]

Comment on How Did the New York Times Overestimate Wikipedia’s Popularity? [Corrected] by David Gerard

David Gerard — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 19:46:57 +0000

Yeah, US vs global makes sense and I didn’t think of it either, even when reading Stu’s page We went from #4 to #5 globally as Facebook overtook us.

English Wikipedia is about 30% of the pageviews, I think. (Also 30% of the data, and has one of the three Foundation database servers all to itself.) The biggest Wikipedias are really quite a lot, I think. I need to review all the latest statistics for press questions

Comment on How Did the New York Times Overestimate Wikipedia’s Popularity? [Corrected] by WWB

WWB — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 19:12:31 +0000

Aha.. well, this makes more sense now. First of all, I erred in a big way: ComScore and QuantCast are both listing U.S. figures, not global figures. This makes Alexa’s #6 look a bit better, since that one is explicitly a global figure.

I suppose I can’t much fault his shorthand “Wikipedia” for “Wikimedia Foundation Sites” as I presume Wikipedia is by far the most-trafficked.

All the more reason, then, for the NYT to cite sources! So I wouldn’t make mistakes like this.