Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:03, 14 May 2007

• ]

Welcome to The Misplaced Pages Signpost's Tip Line. There are two ways to leave tips:

1. Add a tip on this page
2. Anonymously e-mail us at WikipediaSignpost@Gmail.com (for convenience, you may use this link)

Not every mention of Misplaced Pages in the media will make it into Signpost. Consider editing Misplaced Pages:Press coverage or Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages as a press source so we have a comprehensive record. Template:SignpostNavigation

Linguist List fundraise to improve English Misplaced Pages linguistics articles

See here. 128.250.80.15 06:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages discussion at Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) conference

Librarians' views of Misplaced Pages were once again aired and debated, this time at an ACRL conference session: "Misplaced Pages may be an anonymously-created online encyclopedia vulnerable to criticism...but a not inconsiderable number of librarians are willing to take it seriously—and so are their constituents." --ElKevbo 21:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Huge Factual Mistake By Newsday in article criticizing Misplaced Pages

You can't make this up. Newsday in an article by a reporter and six contributors criticizes Misplaced Pages coverage of Long Island. But the very first item cited by Newsday (the Montauk Point Lighthouse has a huge factual error. The April 17, 2007 article is headlined "Consider the source As a matter of fact, Misplaced Pages isn't always right on LI" You can read it here

The article's first criticism is about the lighthouse which reads:

The landmark Montauk Point Lighthouse is mentioned in Misplaced Pages as having been completed in 1792, which Newsday stories show was finished in 1796.

You can see that blurb with photo here.

The Misplaced Pages article on the Montauk Point Lighthouse in the third paragraph states:

Construction on the lighthouse was authorized by the Second United States Congress, under President George Washington in 1792. Construction began on June 7, 1796, and was completed on November 5, 1796.

If you look at the history, the information has been in there virtually from the start with virtually no vandalism.

If this mistake had been made in Misplaced Pages it could have been corrected instantly. On Newsday the mistake is forever.

I can't imagine an opportunity for a better argument on the merits of Misplaced Pages!!! I'm not quite sure how to spread the word on such a huge gaff (that should have been easily checked by Newsday). Americasroof 14:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Note too that Newsday is among the top 20 United States newspapers in terms of total distribution and readership. (top 200 list - ranks 17th, the study they used specifically for Newsday is here). JoeSmack 15:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so one of the "errors" they found really wasn't an error? We say "A", they say "B", but it is indeed "A"? -- Zanimum 14:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

From what I can make out, we said A (completed 1796), they said A (completed 1796), but the reporter for that article wrongly said we said B (completed 1792), when we said C (construction authorised in 1792). So not really a story here, but inaccurate reporting. Carcharoth 01:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Version 0.5 makes BBC, plus some assessment milestones

The Version 0.5 release led to this report on the BBC website. It made me sound a lot grander than I am, but otherwise it's pretty good, and it mentions last year's SOS CD and the upcoming Polish DVD release too.

Also, on the English Misplaced Pages we have now passed the 500,000 mark for articles assessed. This represents the work by over 500 WikiProjects and subprojects. When you remember that these assessments are all done by thousands of people working together, it represents a great achievement IMHO. Also, the French Misplaced Pages has started a similar scheme, and recently passed the "50 projects" mark, and they also have over 16,000 articles now assessed. Walkerma 15:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: The story about the Version 0.5 release was also picked up by the Associated Press and others. This led to the CD release being covered by USA Today, Washington Post, New York Times, Boston Globe, San Francisco Chronicle, Sydney Morning Herald, Taipei Times, and many other papers. It also made the websites of Fox, MSNBC, Yahoo, as well as technical sites such as Slashdot, tech.co.uk, silicon.com & CNet. See the 1.0 talk page for links to the stories. Walkerma 02:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

New Larry Sanger essay on Misplaced Pages

See: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/sanger07/sanger07_index.html Samw 00:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow thats long. Has anyone started a project to copy data from http://www.citizendium.org to wikipedia yet? -Ravedave 04:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know where to post this, but I just wanted to comment that I find it deliciously ironic that I found a non-trivial error in the first sentence of one of Citizendium's 12 approved articles: http://en.citizendium.org/Tux says: Tux the penguin is the official logo and cartoon mascot for the Linux computer operating system. . However, our article on the subject notes that: Tux was designed for a Linux logo contest. Confusingly, there were actually three separate contests and Tux didn't win any of them. This is why Tux is formally known as the Linux mascot and not the logo. - http://en.wikipedia.org/Tux Raul654 05:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

TL;DR. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 05:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I have noteded that our fact/trivia on tux is not currently sourced, and a source does not seem to be anywhere to be found. —— Eagle101 05:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about Eagle??!?! Misplaced Pages says TUX is not the logo. Why should we bother with trivial details like the fact that the linux kernel ships with several copies of TUX (and only TUX) at different resolutions in drivers/video/logo/? Why should we bother reading or citing the extensive write ups around on the net which discuss the complex history, after all our experts already know better.

Hm, In any case.. I wonder if CZ also follows our practice of calling the GNU userspace "Linux" too? --Gmaxwell 05:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is a possible source, it does state that the pangun is not the logo but rather the mascot. (source see section called "When Democracy Fails..."). —— Eagle101 05:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

What Larry appears to be forgetting is that we have the external checkers to prove our reliability to people external to the wiki. It's a lot easier to simply show an "expert" a study by Nature than to get into a long discussion about our methods of verification and use of footnotes. Larry's condemnation of the Nature study merely shows even experts twist the truth where they find it inconvenient. The criticisms produced by Britannica were effectively rebutted by Nature within a week. You can also listen to a speech by the journalist who organised the study at the Wikimania 2006 website about how Britannica took three months to come up with the trivial points they did.

The fact is, whatever Larry says to the press, and whatever bullshit he sends to the Times (I almost ripped up my newspaper when I read that drivel), people use Misplaced Pages, and edit it, and will continue to do so even if Jimbo turns out to be a fifteen year old girl from New Mexico who can't type. Alexa rankings prove it all - Misplaced Pages 11: Citizendium: 32,366. And what happened to Digital Universe? And Encyclopedia of Earth? When will Larry realise that going on and on about Misplaced Pages being unreliable doesn't translate in less traffic for us and more for any of his pet projects? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation news

Does the Signpost cover Wikimedia Foundation news? I think it covers the big WMF stories, but I'm not sure about the other stuff. The reason I was wondering was that a recent thread (possibly newsworthy in itself) showed confusion over Gregory Maxwell's role, and I raised this here, and after ferretting around the WMF wiki pages (not that well organised, but then they have more important things to do), wondered if the changes in staff and volunteers at WMF is covered by the Signpost? I've failed to find comprehensive coverage of staff/volunteer changes in the Signpost. Maybe someone could monitor the WMF WMF resolutions page and other appropriate pages, and there could be a regular entry on WMF news in the Signpost? If these sort of things are covered more widely, there might be less confusion in future. Carcharoth 13:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe many though not all of the staff changes have been covered, but I don't remember whether Chief Research Officer (now Coordinator) was, and it's a volunteer and not staff position at any rate. We did report the resignation a couple years ago of the first person to have that role, Erik Möller. But at the volunteer level, such as a lot of the chapter activity, it's beyond our capability to "comprehensively" cover all the comings and goings. And even in terms of paid staff, some things are newsworthy and some are more behind-the-scenes, and the dynamic will probably continue to change as the Foundation adds staff. Resolutions get mentioned periodically, although sometimes the resolutions themselves are pretty bare-bones and hard to make a story out of. --Michael Snow 18:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. The CRO/CRC resolution is 11th February on that list, if that helps track down whether it was mentioned. Carcharoth 09:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

CBC News

CBC.ca has an in-depth article/feature on Misplaced Pages at http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/tech/wikipedia.html It has been up since April 19. --maclean 04:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo has a run in with The Chaser

http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/save-wales-from-chasers-spruiker/2007/04/26/1177459849504.html -- enochlau (talk) 12:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

giving up

Web encyclopedia won't include 'giving up', a generic article about Citizendium, but I couldn't resist testing the headline with Misplaced Pages: giving up.--ragesoss 21:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I just checked out their "approved articles", apparently their equivalent to FAs. Their article on Dog begins "Domesticated from selected wolves thousands of years ago, the dog is often called "man's best friend". Throughout the world today, dogs are found associated with humans, although certainly not always as a part of the household!" ...I didn't bother to read more. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I just read it myself... I thought they were trying to improve Misplaced Pages articles, not have approved articles filled with original research, point of view, childish language and fewer references than the Misplaced Pages original. Amazing. Grandmasterka 08:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

WP in the news as the authority on Kryptonite

Kryptonite Discovered; Adamantium Remains Elusive ... yes, seriously. Tompw (talk) (review) 21:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I had noticed that too. The only other google result was an Amazon customer review.--Pharos 22:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Ouch! Talking about a misunderstanding. The BBC didn't say Kryptonite is white. They said that unlike kryptonite in the film, jadarite (the real stuff) is white. It's naming has nothing to do with color either. It just can't be called kryptonite because it has nothing to do with the gas krypton. - Mgm| 12:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Sanger essay, Nicholas Carr blog post

Stabbing Polonius, a blog post by Nicholas Carr, brings up some interesting issues regarding Misplaced Pages (along the lines of what the ways he has criticized Web 2.0 in the past), after you get past his vicious response to Larry Sanger's recent Edge essay

P2P

Not sure if this is verifiable enough yet for the Signpost's strict quality criteria, but there appears to be something funny going on in P2P file sharing world: WP:AN#File sharers. Apparently, some file sharing "protection" company is using Misplaced Pages admin usernames when spreading bogus files. No big details yet though, so we don't know much for sure; this could be a sinister ploy by RIAA or (while I find it highly unlikely) a shocking exposé on Jimbo's music tastes. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Weekly in the Signpost??

Over at Misplaced Pages Weekly we've been toying with the idea of writing a more prose-like version of our show notes for integration into the Signpost - perhaps at the end of the "News and Notes" section. Would this be something that would interest you/your readers? We don't want to "invade your turf" so it would be up to you if you thought it would be a good idea.

We regularly use the signpost as a source, and say as much, in our podcast. Maybe (I don't know) you use us as a source too. Either way, I think it could be a good way to deepen the internal media coverage of WP. In a way this would of course be a promotion for the podcast, but also it exposes your audience to some news and features that aren't discussed in the Signpost - therefore also broadening your own coverage.

I hope this proposal is well received, Witty Lama 15:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

No concern about turf battles here. I don't think I've personally used the podcast much as a source, but certainly anybody who does ought to give credit where credit is due. And a brief summary of Misplaced Pages Weekly material that isn't covered elsewhere in the Signpost could fit in pretty well as part of News and Notes like you suggest. --Michael Snow 15:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. — Zaui (talk) 19:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Why not integrate the two projects? It seems like they have a common goal and common reader/listnership. Plus a unified release data would mean that they could be spammed to userpages together. -Ravedave 20:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I think given the different production methods this would be impractical. We could certaily work together (special events, share ideas etc), but to merge the projects would be counter productive IMO. Also, Misplaced Pages Weekly is a more editorialised product - a lot of it is our opinions and debate thereon. whereas Signpost is more about unbiased news. Witty Lama 23:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Witty Lama's analysis, full integration is unlikely at this point, but stronger connections are likely to be mutually beneficial. --Michael Snow 23:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

No complaints here. Ral315 » 18:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so, after we record our next episode I'll write up a paragraph about the content and you can decide whether it would fit into the following edition of the signpost. If we did this regularly this would give us a greater incentive to publish at a more regular timetable too! Witty Lama 23:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

This sounds great to me. :) --Daveydweeb (/_review!) 00:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Here it is: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/Signpost

Witty Lama 22:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

BRION entries

We haven't had a BRION column the last two weeks; according to the last one, it was up to r21091. Here are some further entries, for when someone with more time/energy wants to firm them up into a column.

New Special Pages

• Special:Fewestrevisions is a new Special page that lists the pages that have been modified the least. (r21100)

• Someone with an account should look into r21104, as it adds a pref.

Reviewed up to r21139. 75.215.181.130 04:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC) (really User:JesseW/not logged in)

No nofollows for wikia

It probably isn't anything, but might be worth checking out -Ravedave 21:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like FUD; all interwikis (most of which aren't Wikia) are treated as such. Might be worth covering nonetheless, though. Ral315 » 02:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

4 out of 5 professors...

Grading Misplaced Pages, by Michael Booth of the Denver Post, reports on the results of five experts asked to evaluate Misplaced Pages entries on Islam, Bill Clinton, global warming, China and evolution. The "China" article was the only negative review; "evolution" was described as stylistically flawed but rated as a generally accurate source that pointed readers in the right directions, while "Islam", "Bill Clinton", and "global warming" received fairly strong endorsements.--ragesoss 20:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Media mention

"By the end of the week, not only had Mr. Kulongoski’s relatively spare entry on Misplaced Pages been updated to reflect the developments, there was also a sense that the 5-foot-9, 155-pound governor had set a high standard for other elected leaders who profess to care about the needy." from here -Ravedave 22:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

3 academic articles on Misplaced Pages

I'm not sure if this has been noted already, but there are three Misplaced Pages articles the April volume of the journal First Monday:

• Assessing the value of cooperation in Misplaced Pages
• Visualizing the Overlap between the 100 Most Visited Pages on Misplaced Pages for September 2006 to January 2007
• What is Popular on Misplaced Pages and Why?

--ragesoss 19:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It's upsetting that so many of top-viewed articles are sex related, as if people come to Misplaced Pages looking for pornography. --Phoenix (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't find it particularly upsetting; there are a lot of adolescents on computers out there, and they are going to being talking about and looking for information about sex no matter what. I like to think that what they find on Misplaced Pages will actually help them to develop a healthy and mature perspective on these things; better that Misplaced Pages is the first website a young child searching for "sex" lands on, than most of the search results. Even with porn star bios, at least people are trying to understand their favorite porn stars as real people in addition to sex objects.--ragesoss 20:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

American Historical Association article

Perspectives, the meta journal of the AHA, has an article by Christopher Miller, Strange Facts in the History Classroom: Or How I learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Wiki(pedia).--ragesoss 20:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting: "Each week, as students made presentations about their assigned Misplaced Pages articles, we heard that the Wiki-articles were longer, more informative, more detailed, and, interestingly, better illustrated." and "They found, just as Rosenzweig had, that Misplaced Pages accuracy was more or less the same as regular encyclopedias. " -Ravedave 04:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

ICD-11

"WHO adopts Misplaced Pages approach for key update" -- referring to ICD, link here (relating more to the wiki process than Misplaced Pages itself, but still interesting) --Arcadian 01:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

More Misplaced Pages apologetics from the Ivory Tower

If I were "You": How Academics Can Stop Worrying and Learn to Love "the Encyclopedia that Anyone Can Edit", by Daniel Paul O'Donnell (c, in The Heroic Age, Issue 10 (May 2007) --ragesoss 00:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's very awkward that they call this site "The Misplaced Pages." It's like calling it "The World Book" or "The Encarta."

Something you guys might be interested in, related to backlogs

See Misplaced Pages:Admin backlog contest, a proposal for an informal contest that originated in my userspace about a week ago. There's plenty of material to write about, from Misplaced Pages talk:Admin backlog contest and its MfD. You wrote about backlogs last week... This proposal, and a proposal for a similar thing for non-admins made on the talk page, should be worth covering I think. Grandmasterka 07:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'll try tomorrow depending on publication time, but probably won't be able to get it done. Unless someone else covers it, I'd be glad to do an article 5/14's issue. --Phoenix (talk) 04:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Mentioned in news and notes. --Phoenix 05:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)