The Next Web: Wikipedia co-founder wants to put the world’s knowledge on the blockchain. “Everipedia today announced Wikipedia co-founder Dr. Larry Sanger would be joining the company as it prepares to bring its online encyclopedia to the blockchain. Blockchain is best known as the technology that Bitcoin, Ethereum, and other cryptocurrencies run on, but its applications go far beyond simply making the Winklevoss twins rich. ”
Digital Trends: Wikipedia can now be found on the dark web. “Wikipedia, for all the issues it has, is still an invaluable resource for many people. While it’s true that you should be careful about citing it in a research paper, the site remains a great resource to get a general overview of a topic and find more in-depth resources. In the United States and nations with similar freedoms, we often take Wikipedia for granted, but there are many parts of the world where accessing the site can be very difficult and illegal. In order to help at-risk users access the site, cyber security expert Alex Muffett has created a version of the website for the dark web accessible by the Tor browser.” Is this ringing a bell for you? Possibly because Wikipedia folks have been asking that this be done.
Times of Higher Education: Elsevier launches free science definitions service. “…Elsevier is hoping to keep researchers on its platform with the launch of a free layer of content called ScienceDirect Topics, offering an initial 80,000 pages of material relating to the life sciences, biomedical sciences and neuroscience. Each offers a quick definition of a key term or topic, details of related terms and relevant excerpts from Elsevier books. Significantly, this content is not written to order but is extracted from Elsevier’s books, in a process that Sumita Singh, managing director of Elsevier Reference Solutions, described as ‘completely automated, algorithmically generated and machine-learning based’.”
Nature: Wikipedia shapes language in science papers. “Wikipedia is one of the world’s most popular websites, but scientists rarely cite it in their papers. Despite this, the online encyclopedia seems to be shaping the language that researchers use in papers, according to an experiment showing that words and phrases in recently published Wikipedia articles subsequently appeared more frequently in scientific papers.”
Quartz: With a series of Wikipedia Edit-a-Thons, Indian women are finally getting their due online. “You only have to look at the Wikipedia page of the early 20th century Indian painter Amrita Sher-Gil to know that she’s a household name: It’s detailed, well-sourced, and full of pictures of her works, some of which have been sold for millions of dollars. But there’s a whole world of contemporary woman artists that hasn’t been half as lucky when it comes to Wikipedia, lacking even a page on the go-to online encyclopedia, let alone a comprehensive one. And it’s this glaring discrepancy that a small group of students and young professionals came together to fix on Sept. 16, as part of a Wikipedia Edit-a-Thon dedicated to Indian women in contemporary art.”
The Next Web: Forget what your school says, MIT research proves Wikipedia is a source for science. “It turns out Wikipedia is a pretty good source for scientists, even if your biology professor won’t accept it for your term papers. Researchers at MIT and the University of Pittsburgh today released a paper that shows a direct correlation between information made available on Wikipedia and how likely that work is to be referenced in future scientific literature.”
The Verge: Why are some weird Wikipedia pages yanked into oblivion?. “Wikipedia is the web’s most expansive encyclopedia, but the nature of its crowdsourced information makes it prone to vandalism, misinformation, and a deeper question of what truly deserves its own page. Twitter accounts like @DeletedWiki memorialize these dead pages by tweeting out titles hourly, and it’s easy to understand why they’ve been sent off to the big information dump in the sky.”