Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia as a press source 2005

Why has the format of the references been changed this year? Most particularly, why are we no longer linking to the articles which refer to Wikipedia?? This was the most useful thing about this article in previous years. -- Arwel 01:03, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The {source} tag says that an article was recommended by "the mainstream press", but it seems like you're willing to add anything that appears on google news (anyone could add his site to google news I think?). For example, chronwatch.com claims "We are but a small group of writers battling the immense resources of a major corporation - a classic "David and Goliath" tale." I don't think they actually print anything on physical paper? I think that a more serious wikipedia policy would be to only to include news sources that are also available on a physical paper. But if not, at least change the {source} tag to something less misleading than "the mainstream press". Sams 10:21, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Where would this fit?

I didn't think that this didn't really fit in any of the various categories, so I' putting the question here. On the American Press Institute website, under "FEATURED SITES", they list Wikispecies as a recommended press source:

"WikiSpecies: From Wikipedia, this site explores the environment." (see [1])

BlankVerse 07:09, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Another "Where would this fit?" item. I was checking out a story on the Taipei Times website, when I noticed a button in the top corner labelled "Wikipedia". Curious, I clicked it -- and was presented with a version of the page I was looking, with key terms linked to Wikipedia articles. Anyone know about this?

Examples:

• "Chess legend headed to Iceland"
  • original
  • Wikified

• "Kyrgyzstan capital paralyzed by protests"
  • original
  • Wikified

• "Bullock shovels bullshit in `Congeniality' sequel"
  • original
  • Wikified

--Calton | Talk 12:29, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wow, Calton, that is pretty cool! It'd be nice if more media follow suit. Although I have no idea where to post this... — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:25, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I just ran into the same thing and came here to see if it had been listed. It's not exactly a use as a press source, but I can't think where else it should go. I'll see if the Signpost has covered it. JamesMLane 14:31, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unsure if this qualifies as a press citation

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)

Does this count?

does this count?: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/downing_street_memo Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 00:49, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)

Sure, add it! — Knowledge Seeker দ 00:28, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This could be both a reference to content as well as to the project itself

I was about to put the following citation on this page, but realized that it seems more appropriate in the Wikipedia:Press coverage page. However, since they link to specific articles, and describe their contents, it seems like they want you to check them out for specific information. The article is about how blogs are showing their force in coverage of the London bombings.Guppy 8 July 2005 12:50 (UTC)

• "Blogs mostram força na cobertura do atentado." O Estado de S. Paulo / estadao.com.br. July 7, 2005. [2]

"A wikipedia, a enciclopédia da internet feita por todos os usuários, já incluiu um extenso verbete sobre os atentados. Inclui a cronologia, as repercussões, e uma cronologia do ataque. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombing.

"O primo da wikipedia, o wikinews, o jornal feito pelos próprios usuários, também criou uma página com fotos, mapas e links para outros serviços de informação. - http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Coordinated_terrorist_attack_in_London"

Anarchist

Anarchist, my foot! I think my feelings are a little hurt. Is there any other way to translate that? jengod 18:37, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Not sure how/if to add this

Should one include a reference to this press release [3] which made use this Wikipedia figure Image:2000 Year Temperature Comparison.png, and if so how should one write it up? Dragons flight 06:32, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Unattributed Wikipedia content in The Guardian obituary

I'm wondering if there's a wikipedia section to discuss newspapers using Wikipedia content without any attribution. I read The Guardian obituary for Paul Pena, and noticed many similarities with the wikipedia Paul Pena article. Entire sentences are virtually identical. There's no wikipedia attribution (or mention) in the online version of the article.

See User:Econrad#The_Guardian_loves_Wikipedia for some examples.

Econrad 17:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Err.. isn't that the point of Wikipedia.. Jimbo Wales' encyclopedia is open to be used without credit - It's just a source of knowledge? --Irishpunktom\^talk 13:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, but based on Wikipedia:Copyrights and the GFDL, I assumed some kind of attribution is required:

If you want to use Wikipedia materials in your own books/articles/web sites or other publications, you can do so, but you have to follow the GFDL.[4]

It was not my understanding that newspaper reporters could cut/paste Wikipedia text with no attribution, and claim the words as their own. Econrad 14:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Do non-English Wikipedias qualify?

In a newspaper from Belarus, there was an article borrowing some material and referencing wikipedia as its source. It's not the English wikipedia, but the Russian one (ru.wikipedia.org). Shall I still mention this publication here? (http://infostore.org/info/162182/bobr.JPG) --Anthony Ivanoff 18:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Formatting

I've added two items to the page, and reformatted the headings for the end of November. I then found that the whole page is formatted in ten day periods. It seems to me that the heading frequency should be flexible to account for the variability of the quantity of material included-a practice followed on the request pages-but have I gone against an established WP policy or was the ten day principle developed on an ad hoc basis? Philip Cross 08:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Should template in Talk:Letter frequencies be removed?

The link in question no longer leads to the correct article, although there is an archived copy of it. And I'm not certain this source meets the criteria required for this sort of mention to begin with. B7T (talk) 20:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)