Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia as a press source 2004

Note: Do not change the month headings in this article, or you break over hundred template-inputs on talk pages where the sources are cited on. I thought the better of it and changed the last few months just to months without article count if any more articles should be added. Hard coding the number of articles in a heading is not a good idea when so much references to it. I will go through this and change the rest of the headings down to just month at a later date. Inter\^Echo 10:51, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Will Wikipedia ever become an actual media source? I, Sennheiser, will now take the opportunity to reserve one of the press badges Wikipedia might get for the White House or the Pentagon. ;) Sennheiser! 23:19, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"Animal attacks: 25 thoughts..." (OC Weekly, United States, February 13) "Indeed, according to a list of extinct animals on the web encyclopedia Wikipedia, the only North American animals unable to adapt since 1900..."

Interestingly, I think this is an example of the author misusing a Wikipedia list (not necessarily willfully). The author assumes (or claims that) the Wikipedia list is exhaustive, but Wikipedia would never claim that. DanKeshet 00:28, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

For those who don't know the fact that the Daily Telegraph is linking to us on a regular basis is very impressive. It is one of the 4 major UK national weekday newspapers. Secretlondon 21:36, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Reverse Order[edit]

Reverted back to reverse order. I know things on wikipedia happen top down, but in terms of news, there is nothing stupider than having to scroll down pages and pages and pages to see the NEWest item. This way just makes logical sense. jengod 18:21, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

That logical argument applies equally to all other similar pages (vfd, vp, etc..) ... ideally they would all change too but I think the current way is too entrenched. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 20:42, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Here are some non-english news articles which sourced/mention wikipedia that people might want to do something with,

WOAI-TV: "The religion website Wikipedia.org says ..."

Thanks, I needed the laugh. Reminded me of first-time visitors emailing Jimbo to request further information on a topic after reading the wikipedia article on it. Arvindn 18:22, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

April 1 USA Today[edit]

Heh, the link provided in the article munged the capitalization and did not link to the Wiki article. I created a redirect to Isthmus of Corinth. I guess copyediting at the USA Today doesn't include actually testing the links it includes. Bkonrad | Talk 13:21, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hehe, we can't edit the USA Today page, but we can still make them look good. Dori | Talk 15:33, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)

Not quite as press source, as much as a direct link, does this count: http://news.yahoo.com/techtuesday

"Wikipedia: Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) Read a definition of the term, some technical details, and current news."

Dori | Talk 18:53, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

Slashdot[edit]

So what do we think--does Slashdot count as the press? Yes, if it's in the original post, no, if it's in the post-original post discussion? jengod 22:59, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

Not unless it's in the story I'd say. I mean, it could just be a Wikipedian doing the mention. Dori | Talk 02:35, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

Declining stats[edit]

FYI, does anyone care to offer any suggestions as to why the press mentions have gone down here in the last few months? There was also an observation that the Alexa.com ranking has gone down too, even after the servers have been stable for a while. I wonder how much our "mirrors" are getting cited in the press - ie. Nationmaster and others - and how that affects our rankings and mentions here. Fuzheado | Talk 08:57, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Associated Press citation[edit]

I was just reading an Associated Press (AP) article provided through Yahoo! News entitled "Library Clock Has 'IIII' Instead of 'IV'". In it was the first citation of a Wikipedia article that I've seen from a major news agency:

Wikipedia.org, an Internet encyclopedia, says that manuscripts from the 1300s are inconsistent on the use of IV and IIII to denote the number four. It also suggests that a Roman ruler at some point ordered the change to IIII, and it has come down through history as a tradition.

It's nice to see that Wikipedia is being taken seriously as a reference. -- Jeff Q 19:40, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I guess Roman numeral is the article. However clock face gives the alternate explanation of visual symmetry of the numbers.Jay 15:14, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Horological Institute says that it may be that the Romans avoided the common four in favor of IIII because I and V are the first two letters of the Latin spelling of the name for the Roman God Jupiter. Hmm. I wonder whether there was any overlap between the existence of the modern clockface design with twelve equal hours, and any belief in Jupiter. Marnanel 15:53, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Mirror coverage[edit]

I don't think we should be listing the mirror coverage. Sure it might be content from Wikipedia, but technically it's not Wikipedia being used as a press source. Also, it is feasable that some of these cites might have used an article originally from Wikipedia, but then modified it (like Wikinfo). In that way, we'd be taking credit for something that's not entirely Wikipedia's doing (whether for good or for bad). Dori | Talk 23:03, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

Reverted deletion[edit]

I reverted a deletion made by User:Neutrality because they did not indicate why they deleted the entry. { MB | マイカル } 20:14, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

Unsure if this qualifies as a press citation[edit]

Here's a presentation by Jan Pederson (Chief Scientist, Yahoo! Search) done for Search Engine Meeting 2005 (Boston, Massachusetts, April 11-12, 2005). If this qualifies as a press source, can someone add it to the project page and also to Moore's law? -- Sundar (talk · contribs) 10:54, May 2, 2005 (UTC)