Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-06-05/In the news

Reprint mentioned as new[edit]

Uh, folks? "Wikitruth editor discusses Wikipedia's failures" - that is a straight reprint from the Guardian. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is even referenced in Andrew Orlowski, from the Guardian, April 13, 2006: "A thirst for knowledge" Casey Abell 19:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the article even sources The Guardian- scroll down to the very end, and notice the eeny-weeny "-the Guardian". --maru (talk) contribs 20:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of contact with reality in discussion of Wikipedia[edit]

Articles along the lines of "Collective thinking and Wikipedia" lack a grounding in reality. Only a tiny number of people give a hoot about the alleged motivations behind Wikipedia. Over a hundred million people use Wikipedia each month, and most of them do so just because it is useful, without giving a damn about any of these so-called ideological issues that can be pinned to it. Personally, I couldn't be much further away from being a "maoist" of "collectivist" and it is kind of libellous for people to write out-of-touch-with-reality articles inferring that Wikipedians deserves such tags. Chicheley 14:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Seattle Times article[edit]

Its only error was the notion that "New articles [...] are first posted for preliminary review before publishing in the encyclopedia where anyone can edit them."

Technically Wikipedia:Articles for creation does fill that role, although of course most new articles never go through that channel. --Kwekubo 17:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite possibly the researcher did not create an account, and thought that Wikipedia:Articles for creation was the only way to create a new page? -- Mithent 01:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A first for the Signpost?[edit]

Sanger's article advocates collaboration with "the possibility of a 'lead author'." That sounds like what the Signpost has been doing since January 2005. Articles are signed, but (as far as I can tell) other users are free to make minor changes. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 08:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]