GeekWire: Beating Wikipedia by 2 years, Seattle’s HistoryLink remains an innovative online encyclopedia

GeekWire: Beating Wikipedia by 2 years, Seattle’s HistoryLink remains an innovative online encyclopedia. “Wikipedia was a groundbreaking initiative when it went live on Jan. 15, 2001. But a Seattle-based project called HistoryLink actually launched its online encyclopedia — filled with historical facts and stories about Washington state — exactly two years before Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger hit the scene with Wikipedia.”

Peer-reviewed physics for Wikipedia: PLOS ONE Topic Pages (PLOS One Blog)

PLOS One Blog: Peer-reviewed physics for Wikipedia: PLOS ONE Topic Pages. “Despite Wikipedia’s importance as a resource for both practicing physicists and the wider community, it is rare for professional physicists to contribute, in part because there are few, if any, professional incentives to do so. We’re all in agreement that researchers should receive proper attribution for our work (which is why PLOS ONE supports ORCID); and as credit is not given for submitting or editing Wikipedia pages, only a small fraction of the physicists that I asked about this have edited even a single Wikipedia page. With this in mind, we’re excited to introduce PLOS ONE Topic Pages, which are peer-reviewed review articles written with Wikipedia in mind. These provide opportunities for author attribution and will result in both journal articles and Wikipedia pages of high quality and utility.”

Ubergizmo: Wikipedia Integrates Google Translate To Make Editing Easier

Ubergizmo: Wikipedia Integrates Google Translate To Make Editing Easier. “Wikipedia offers up articles in a variety of languages to cater to users around the world who do not necessarily speak English. However that progress has been somewhat slow due to the translation tool that the website uses, but that could change soon because Wikipedia has announced that they will be integrating Google Translate into their translation tool.”

Columbia Journalism Review: Wikipedia’s co-founder wanted to let readers edit the news. What went wrong?

Columbia Journalism Review: Wikipedia’s co-founder wanted to let readers edit the news. What went wrong?. “IT’S BEEN ALMOST A YEAR since the launch of WikiTribune, the crowdsourced news site created by Jimmy Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia. If you haven’t heard of WikiTribune, you’re not alone—it hasn’t made a big splash outside hardcore digital-media circles. But it’s an ambitious project, one that was designed to democratize the news as a Wikipedia-style portal where anyone could contribute to and edit news stories.”

Haartez: Israeli Archivists Fume Over Wikimedia Israel’s Reposting of Historical Photos Trove

Haartez: Israeli Archivists Fume Over Wikimedia Israel’s Reposting of Historical Photos Trove. “The Association of Israeli Archivists has roundly condemned Wikimedia Israel, the local affiliate of the U.S. foundation that runs Wikipedia, for copying into its photo archive 28,000 photographs taken in pre-state Israel. In a statement Tuesday, the archivists accused Wikimedia Israel of being ‘thieves in the night’ and said the move may violate intellectual property rights and general ethical norms.”

New York Times: From Encyclopedic Collector to ‘Wikipedian-at-Large’

New York Times: From Encyclopedic Collector to ‘Wikipedian-at-Large’. “In the grand library of the Auckland War Memorial Museum on a Saturday morning in August, a small group of new and slightly nervous Wikipedia editors gathered for a day of training that would arm them to tackle New Zealand’s lackluster representation on the crowdsourced online encyclopedia. Leading the so-called Wikiblitz was New Zealand’s official Wikipedian-at-Large, Mike Dickison, 49, who has in some senses been preparing his entire life for this post. “

MIT News: Why some Wikipedia disputes go unresolved

MIT News: Why some Wikipedia disputes go unresolved . “Often, multiple Wikipedia editors will disagree on certain changes to articles or policies. One of the main ways to officially resolve such disputes is the Requests for Comment (RfC) process. Quarreling editors will publicize their deliberation on a forum, where other Wikipedia editors will chime in and a neutral editor will make a final decision. Ideally, this should solve all issues. But a novel study by MIT researchers finds debilitating factors — such as excessive bickering and poorly worded arguments — have led to about one-third of RfCs going unresolved.”